text:
Publishing DOIs instead of traditional references?
Today's world is electronic, there is vision of semantic web and yet we still submit references in numerous versions of various journals. In medicine, many journals have special rules about after how many authors you can put et. al. etc etc.
It is tedious to reformat references (even with EndNote or other reference managers) to suit a particular journal.
Are there any pioneer journals or initiatives to simply stop submitting references and just list a DOI instead (if one exist), and to "traditional refences only if DOI does not exist.)
LATER EDIT: In fact, people already try to do the opposite - convert PDF into list of DOIs.  http://labs.crossref.org/pdfextract/
LATER EDIT: The receiving journal, after getting the article, would expand the DOIs into traditional references in the exact format the journals wants the references in the print version. Different journals would expand the DOI as preferred. A service at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery can expand the DOI (e.g., 1136/bmj.d7373 into XML with info such as:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doi_records>
  <doi_record key="key" owner="10.1136" timestamp="2012-01-03 23:32:36">
    <crossref>
      <journal>
        <journal_metadata language="en">
          <full_title>BMJ</full_title>
          <abbrev_title>BMJ</abbrev_title>
          <issn media_type="print">0959-8138</issn>
          <issn media_type="electronic">1468-5833</issn>
        </journal_metadata>
        <journal_issue>
          <publication_date media_type="online">
            <month>01</month>
            <day>03</day>
            <year>2012</year>
          </publication_date>
          <publication_date media_type="print">
            <month>01</month>
            <day>03</day>
            <year>2011</year>
          </publication_date>
          <journal_volume>
            <volume>344</volume>
          </journal_volume>
          <issue>jan03 1</issue>
        </journal_issue>
        <journal_article publication_type="full_text">
          <titles>
            <title>Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study</title>
          </titles>
          <contributors>
            <person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author">
              <given_name>A. P.</given_name>
              <surname>Prayle</surname>
            </person_name>
            <person_name sequence="additional" contributor_role="author">
              <given_name>M. N.</given_name>
              <surname>Hurley</surname>
            </person_name>
            <person_name sequence="additional" contributor_role="author">
              <given_name>A. R.</given_name>
              <surname>Smyth</surname>
            </person_name>
          </contributors>
          <publication_date media_type="online">
            <month>01</month>
            <day>03</day>
            <year>2012</year>
          </publication_date>
          <publication_date media_type="print">
            <month>01</month>
            <day>03</day>
            <year>2012</year>
          </publication_date>
          <pages>
            <first_page>d7373</first_page>
            <last_page>d7373</last_page>
          </pages>
          <publisher_item>
            <item_number item_number_type="sequence-number">bmj.d7373</item_number>
          </publisher_item>
          <doi_data>
            <doi>10.1136/bmj.d7373</doi>
            <timestamp>20120103162404</timestamp>
            <resource>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.d7373</resource>
          </doi_data>
        </journal_article>
      </journal>
    </crossref>
  </doi_record>
</doi_records>

Firstly, you might want to check out a question that I submitted to the forum, for a list of reasons why multiple references are given, i.e. not just DOI but other references in addition to the usual formatting. Secondly, if you find that reformatting lists of references (for different journal requirements) laborious, then I recommend you check out the typesetting suite called LaTeX (widely used in academia), in particular its automated bibliography creator.

I'm a little bit new at this, but... what exactly is a DOI?

@Paul: Digital Object Identifier, a unique ID number associated to each paper that can easily be used to bring up a web page maintained by the publisher.

You'd need more than just the DOI, as you might need some additional constraint (eg, page numbers for books).  Also, you'd have no way to cite items that are still in process or othrwise don't have a DOI.  (many fields allow references to grey literature)

Problem 1: Not all (electronically) published work has a DOI. Problem 2: Are you positive that the DOI service lives longer than the referencing document? Because if not, you are left with lots of dead links that give little to no indication of the work cited.

@user56 Since you have some responses below that seem to answer your question, please consider marking one of them as ‘Accepted’ by clicking on the tickmark below their vote count. This shows which answer helped you most, and it assigns reputation points to the author of the answer (and to you!).

It's not the horrible suggestion that many people seem to think it is -- there have been some complaints about miscounts in citation counts because of improper parsing of references; mostly because of some journals allowing non-standard abbreviations.  (does A&A mean Astronomy and Astrophysics or Arts & Architecture?  Many citation parsers don't use the context and have alternate rules for what journal the citation came from.
This could also bring up some other problems -- if someone's published a pre-print in arXiv ... but the final publication which may be substantially different.  Very few people cite the arXiv paper directly, but it might actually be more appropriate than citing the final published version in some circumstances.  (although, it would also show that perhaps those portions that you're citing didn't stand up under peer-review); you couldn't cite the arXiv via DOI, only via bibcode.
...
Now, in most situations, the reference list for some journals is handled differently from the rest of the paper.  In talking with the editor for Solar Physics, when I talked to him regarding a proposal for data citation, he mentioned that a problem was that giving a second URL to provide specifics would be an issue, and I believe he hinted that it was the publisher and not something locally developed.
Ideally, this whole thing would be integrated into the submission process, and then the reviewers would have the list expanded so that they can do their work.  (and you'd probably want the submitter to verify the expansions) ... but this of course will take time from the publishers, who aren't exactly known to be nimble for the most part.
...
What I'd suggest, so that you can get the benefits that you want, without waiting for the journals to make any changes, is to look into reference manager software, which let you collect your references in a database, with notes, and can then generate a reference list using the appropriate format.  I've heard good things about a number of them (but never had a need for this purpose (the ones I've used were for shared project bibliographies).  I'd look to see which ones can generate whatever citation style is appropriate for the journal(s) you submit to, or ask around to see if any of the people you collaborate might use one (as using the same one could be of benefit when collaborating).

@AnonymousMathematician : oops ... you're right ... I was confusing bibcode & DOI.  Let me go correct my response.

And the issue of pre-prints, and citing the correct version of the paper brings up issues that FRBR, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records is supposed to deal with, but I don't know for sure that people are pointing DOIs at a single consistent FRBR group 1 entity.

Downvoted.  This is an argument for including DOIs in bibliographies, not an argument for excluding everything except DOIs, which is what the OP suggests.  The answer also assumes that papers are only revealed to readers through journal publishers; that's simply not true.

@JeffE : I suggest you re-read the question, as there was an update, as well as reading the last bit of my answer.  Yes, I started by describing the advantages of including DOIs, but I  also suggest an alternative that would give the advantages requested in his update (making it easier on the submitter by not having to deal with the reference list expansion and formatting manually, as they can emit the necessary format that would be appropriate for wherever they're posting/submitting it).

@Joe: I did reread the question; in fact, I commented on the update.  Citations should be complete and human-readable for the entire life cycle of the paper.  In many fields, papers are distributed directly by authors, or on preprint servers, or as technical reports/working papers; there is no "submission process" or "publisher" to expand the magic code.  Yes, reference managers are an excellent idea (BibTeX FTW!), but that's orthogonal to the OP's question about what should appear in the paper itself.  (And even with a reference manager, you still have to enter all the tedious data.)

@JeffE   You don't have to enter all the data. E.g., in Zotero, all you need is to add a PubMed ID (PMID) and web-services do the rest.

@JeffE : when's the last time you used a citation manager?  Most of 'em can retrieve metadata for common identifiers (DOI, PMID, bibcode, ISBN) or import BibTeX, MODS, DC RDF, etc.  BibTeX is good, but there's no support for author identifiers.   Also, as not every journal uses (La)?TeX (eg. the humanities).  And for those, I'd try to find something that supports CSL

@Joe: Um... ten minutes ago?  (BibDesk/Mendeley)  Sadly, at least in the fields that I regularly cite, publisher-provided metadata is full of errors, gaps, and stylistic inconsistencies.  There's just no substitute for entering the data manually.  And there's absolutely no reason that bibtex can't support ORCID; it's just a question of creating the right style file, just as standard bibtex styles have already been modified to support URLs, DOIs, ArXiv IDs and the like.

This is a horrible idea.  DOIs are not meant for human consumption; bibliographies are.
You cannot assume that your readers are always connected to the internet while reading your paper, even if that paper is published only electronically.  They might be reading a paper printout.  They might be reading the paper on an airplane.  They might be describing the results to students in a seminar, or to a colleague over the phone.  The campus network might be down, or overloaded by students google-studying for finals.  Their cellular data carrier might be unreliable.
Even so, the reader might have access to your cited papers by other means,  like (gasp) the actual library.  Or they might be interested in when your references were published, or in which venues, or by whom.  Or they might want to track citations to other papers which are not identified by DOIs elsewhere.  Or they might want the raw bibliographic information for some other reason which you and I can't think of, but which they've learned to expect because every other publication includes it.
tl;dr: Stop whining and just type the stupid page numbers already.

I thoroughly agree.  A DOI is the best way to tell a computer how to locate the published paper, but it is almost useless for a human, and bibliographies ought to be useful for both humans and computers.  If I mention "the Agrawal-Kayal-Saxena paper Primes is in P", then everyone in the field will know exactly what I mean.  If I mention 10.4007/annals.2004.160.781, then hardly anyone will know what I'm talking about (and that's actually a fairly human-readable DOI).

I totally agree with JeffE. Nevertheless, the advantage of DOI should be more common in academia. Bibstyles should defenitly take care of DOIs (ReVTeX4-1 does it nicely, although I hate the fact it hides the title of the citation)

I've always felt, using a fully formatted bibliography entry is another way of thanking and giving credits to the authors in person.

I edited the question to show that traditional reference would be "generated" by the journal (in format as wished)

Still a bad idea.  (What's a "journal"?)

Another reason it's not a great idea is that being the reviewer would really suck, because you'd be given a draft with just DOIs in the reference section, so you'd have to look up every single one to see what it was.

There is something to say for giving, say, LaTeX only a bunch of ISBN, ISSN and DOI identifiers and it taking care of the rest. Unfortunately, there is no standard way to retrieve the information necessary for a proper textual citation, so that won't work. (Although there is a great project right there.)

I agree with JeffE and Users 17670, but there's another fundamental reason why DOIs alone are problematic: they don't have enough redundancy to correct errors.  If you have a typo in your DOI, then it will be very difficult to determine what you meant to refer to.  Of course, most DOIs are copied and pasted, and it's not hard to check that they work by pasting them into http://dx.doi.org, so I'm sure the error rate would be very low.  However, it would not be zero.  (I once found a typo in the DOI listed on a publisher's web page.  I have no idea how it got there, but it did.)

Personally, I try to "sneak in" DOIs into reference lists even if the journal's instructions are for short citation formats. Just as I try to sneak in the title of the paper.

As reader and reviewer, I find it horrible to have no clue at all what the paper by J. Doe et al., Some Jounal, 42, 5678-91 is about. Particularly, when seeking a particular kind of information. That is for the title.
As reader and reviewer, I find it very convenient to just click on the link to get to the paper. So please, do not only spell out the DOI, but use its inherent hyperlinking capability.
My experience is that broken citations are fairly common already with the traditional "Author, journal, volume, pages" format. Usually it is possible to arrive at the paper with some effort. Having the title is then the most useful information to get to the paper. Having only a DOI with typo pretty much prevents any possible correction.
Conclusion: I think both title and DOI are worth the additional ink.
Even if the journal insists on their more compressed format, I'd like to have at least the reviewers the benefit of immediately seeing what papers I refer to.
I've never had a reviewer complaining about this information in the references.
I'm using mostly biblatex, which makes it easy to automatically have both title and the DOI (already properly linked) output together with the rest of the information. No effort at all.
I don't care if you prefer to store your literature database as DOI only, and expand the DOI list when writing the paper. However, personally I perfer to have a searchable base, and more meaningful citation keys (I use mostly AuthorYEAR Bibtex keys, for books the title), so I can remember them more easily when writing.

People already see this as a problem and try to go from PDF to a list of DOIs. See the project here: http://labs.crossref.org/pdfextract


text:
Writing papers in language X and translating to English vs. writing papers in English to begin with?
I'm working with a group in China, and we were discussing the following question, which I would like to ask here too:

Question:  Is it better to write a paper in Chinese, then translate it into English, than to write it in English to begin with?

Of course, this question is not limited to Chinese.
Both myself, and the (Chinese) professors in the group I work with felt rather strongly that writing in English to begin with is better.  However, we didn't manage to articulate any tangible reason as to why we feel this way (mostly just out of intuition).  Hopefully the group here can offer some meaningful insight one way or the other.
Note: I'm sure if I leave out the specific context, I'll receive a comment asking for it.  So, in our case, the context was students writing technical scientific research papers (in computer science).

As a native English speaker working in a country of non-native English speakers, I come from a slightly different perspective than Charles. I've also done some translations of abstracts (from English to French, although arguably this isn't so advisable, since I'm not a native French speaker—but being the only option in the company makes for little choice).
Based on my collective experiences in the last few years, I agree with Charles's main point: if the paper is to be submitted in English, it should be written and commented on exclusively in English. Doing a bilingual job makes for a mess. I recently went through two proposals written "by committee." One was done exclusively in English; the other was a "mixed-language" proposal. The all-English proposal was not only finished faster, but it was easier to work on and understand. I think ultimately it was also a higher-quality proposal.
However, I do want to take exception to a point that Charles made: with respect to undergraduates, I believe that it is more codifying than assisting undergraduates to give them "natively written" materials, when the originals started out in another language. You cannot really do science in academia today without being able to communicate in English; getting experience in doing so—in all of its forms—is an essential part of the training process.

I think with your comment on undergraduates you're universalizing an understanding of college that does not extend to certain places... where a college degree serves a different function.

Who is "Charles"? Could you add a link when referring to users, please, so if they end up changing their user name, the reference is not broken? ;)

As a non-native English speaker myself, based on some experiences I recommend you to first write some drafts in your native language.
Yes, being able to directly think and write in English is a great skill and it is recommended, but if you are not mastered with this skill, it may evade you from writing down your ideas. For a paper, the cohesion of ideas is the first matter and the language is the second.
You don't need to write it completely in your own language, but you can use it to keep focused on your ideas and organize your paper (without being drifted by finding proper words), the flow of information, the reasons, arguments, etc. Then replace these sections with proper (not necessarily translation) paragraphs in English.
And till you don't write down your thoughts you are not sure of what is in your mind.

While I appreciate your contributing another perspective than the answers above, I have trouble understanding which argument lead to this advice. Is it that writing in english first is difficult and can prevent you from producing anything in the first place?

@henning Mainly because papers are about ideas not the language, you should be able to organize your idea first in your mind and on your paper. The language is the second matter. Our brain can express and relate concepts better in the native language and also before you write them down you can't be sure what is the final outcome. At least some drafts in your language is necessary.

And so you will never train and therefore develop the essential skill of directly forming and writing the idea in English. You will have to learn to do that eventually since English is the language of science. The longer you work in any other language the more of your thinking will be tied to this "wrong" language that you won't be able to use to communicate with other scientists. The earlier you learn to make English your first scientific language the better. You're science should also improve as you gain access to a better developed vocabulary to express it in.

With this last I mean that you're local language will never be competitive with the whole scientific community. As a consequence if you work on cutting edge research you will constantly encounter things which are expressible in English but not yet in another language. Having access to a better vocabulary will actually improve your thinking leading to better results. I also find that whenever some institute or community uses a local language a lot they are often far behind and not performing cutting edge science (and so no science at all).

@Kvothe I agree but, I said about forming ideas in your native language. Certainly, one must be familiar with English. My reading and writing has improved much! But it takes time. I got familiar with many technical concepts and words, if I can't find a suitable equal in my langauge, I use the same English word. So, it's not a barrier. The most difficult part for some people is English grammar and making a sentence. You can use English vocabulary in your own language. for some short comments and brain storm you can write write down your ideas with any style or vocabulary you like.

@Kvothe Let's not forget we must preserve our own langauge too. English is not the best for everything. There are many concept and Ideas that I can express in my own language than English. technical words gradually are either replaced or insert to a language.

In addition to existing answers, I would advise you to write in English from the beginning for two reasons:

First, it is less effort. Your primary sources might indeed be mostly written in English. Translating these concepts from English to X, then reasonning about them in your mother tong, and then translating back from X to English is a lot of work. Yet if your brain reasons in English, you avoid two of previous three steps (both translations). And when you're drafting your paper, it is much easier to be able to compare your work with what is written in papers (i.e. English vs. English). Even if you might go more slowly at the beginning, it might still be more efficient.
Moreover some words/concepts or technical terms are not easily translatable. Reasonning in English only would help you keep clear and accurate ideas.
Second, it's a two-in-one. Beeing fluent in English is often a required skill for any job. Using a pure-English workflow will thus also help you improve your English. By directly writing in English, you will also tend to use more idiomatic expression or sentences structures - i.e. write better English. Indeed, writing styles differ quite a lot among languages (e.g. German academic writings make an extensive use of passive voice, when English ones prefer short and simple sentences).

I have a pretty good level of English. However, my Spanish is way richer and I can elaborate ideas and concepts with deeper arguments and a more generous vocabulary.
If I need to prepare a short blog article or a Stack response, I just do it in English. But if I must write a long document, I use to think of it in Spanish to come up with better ideas.
Otherwise, I feel that the result is quite basic from a language point of view.

As a scientist you will need to learn to think directly in English anyway. The longer you postpone this the longer you are walking around with a handicap.

source: Stack Exchange

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/

sort: votes


text:
Two papers from different authors with identical content – which to reference?
I am currently undertaking a project as a part of a grad course I am taking. While making some research on the use of medical parallel manipulators, I found two research papers written by different authors. The majority of the content (visuals, equations etc.) presented are identical.
The paper that was written later has not given any reference to the one written earlier. Is this not considered a commitment of plagiarism?
Which paper shall I reference in my project paper?

At least one of them is a fraud. You cannot know which one(s) so cite both and mention they are identical.

Just to be clear. Are the two papers presented as independent? Or is the first a conference proceeding and the second the 'slightly more polished' journal publication resulting from the first? When you say different authors, are ALL the authors different? Or has the first author been switched for the second or something along those lines? As I understand it, it is not uncommon practice to present a paper at a conference as proof of concept with limited data, and then publish that material again under more rigorous peer review and more convincing data, (where often the conf. paper isn't cited)

Is this not considered a commitment of plagiarism?

If your account is accurate, yes. You should report your finding to both of the involved journals or publishers. Sites like Retraction Watch may also find this interesting, in particular if the journals do not react. (We have a few questions on how to best report plagiarism, e.g., this one.) You may also want to take a brief look at the publication history of the alleged plagiarisers and see whether you can identify similar incidents.

Which paper shall I reference in my project paper?

If you can identify the original with some confidence, cite that. Why should you credit a plagiariser? Note that the original may not necessarily be the one with the earliest publication date (also look at submission dates, published preprints, or similar). If you are unsure, just cite both, and possibly add a remark that you noticed the anomaly and reported it (or similar). Though playing plagiarism detective may be an educative exercise, it is not your duty to do anything beyond reporting something fishy.

Couldn't it also be independent discovery?

@PyRulez : Independent discovery of identical visuals and identical equations?  Time to move my 401(k) to the lottery...

@EricTowers oh missed that part.

@EricTowers Identical equations I could see, in some cases there just aren't that many good ways to say a thing in math, identical visuals seems very fishy though.

You might want to start by checking Retraction Watch to see if one of the paper is already retracted.

@StigHemmer: If the paper is retracted, this should be indicated on the journal’s website.

I think the first thing I would do is talk to the professor about this.

@Kimball Which "the professor"? There were no professors mentioned, do you mean OP's supervisor (assuming they aren't their own supervisor), or are you assuming the respective authors are necessarily professors?

@TobiasKienzler Speaking about grad course I am taking I expect there is a professor involved

@edc65 OK, makes sense. (Though it could be "just" a TA. )

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


text:
How do I handle my teammate who does his task related with project very late just before the deadline?
Scenario
I am in college and in group projects. We have to work together with other team members to architect the design and dividing the tasks. Once the tasks are assigned to each person and when it’s over, we have to combine each other's task into a single system, which might need redoing and correcting some tasks.
Problem
I am the kind of person who wants to finish his task early before the deadline and avoid anxiety at the end. How do I deal with people who do their task just before the day and integrate all tasks just hours before the deadline, thus causing huge work just hours before the deadline? Could someone enlighten me on how to handle this scenario or correct my approach to the problem?

The question might be out of scope, but I will give you my opinion.
You can't control what your teammate does. Working in a group setting, you will different approaches to the work, people who are like your teammate, people like you, people who never show up for example. The goal here is whether or not it will impact the bottom line: making sure that the project is:

Turned in
Of high quality

If you work together in the future, address this issue and schedule team sessions ahead of time and manage your time well. What I did when assigned a group project was to literally schedule all of the meetings for the entire semester (or quarter for you) this way, they don't have an excuse for not showing up and doing the work. Weekly meetings will allow you to check in periodically with your individual contributions and direct how the overall strategy would look like.
If you won't, then it will not affect you. Move on.

I think this is similar to interviewing a potential housemate.  "Do you clean up after yourself in the kitchen?" gives away the answer you'd like to hear, whereas "How often do you think each housemate should wash dishes?" and "How many times per semester do you think the bathtub and shower should be cleaned?" will be more likely to get honest answers.
So, when the groups are forming, ask people open-ended questions about the work rhythm that fits them the best.
Once you've made your best guess as to which classmates you think are the best fit for you, then I think you should give a clear I-message, pretty much the way you did in your question here:

I am the kind of person who suffers horribly with anxiety if an assignment gets finished up in the last few hours before a deadline.  What works best for me is to set milestone deadlines along the way, and to set the final deadline for two days before the official deadline.  This is what gives me the peace of mind I need.  Would you be comfortable working that way?

If you find that the milestone deadlines aren't being met, then I suggest that you either informally get out of the group project, with an alternative individual project; or that you present medical documentation of an anxiety disorder to your university, with the recommendation that you be given individual projects in lieu of group projects.

As you have mentioned, this is a group project. Thus, you cannot expect everyone to meet your own ambitions and standards.

I am the kind of person who wants to finish his task early before the deadline and avoid anxiety at the end.

Then maybe other person is not that kind of person. Maybe your teammate is asking the question

How do I handle my teammate who forces me to finish my task way before the deadline?

in some other website.
Best way is to sit down together and set a plan, and maybe task-related deadlines. Then, you have right to say that he's not behaving according to the plan. Otherwise, handling someone is not a job that you are entitled.

You literally have a genius on your hands, use him for different tasks, tasks which require innovation. Lie him about the deadlines.
He's a gold mine, don't waste him!

If your teammate hands in good work, just leave them be. They have different time management approaches and if it works out in the end, all is good. Trusting your teammate to actually do their work instead of constantly reminding them to finish earlier, is part of learning how to work as a team.
On the other hand, if your teammate hands in work is unfinished/of low quality, you should set fixed merging-deadlines with time to do corrections. Try a reasonable approach first, arguing on based on past events (not enough time for adjustments etc). Not all people are stubborn/lazy.
I would not advise to lie to them though. It's rude and defeat the purpose of good teamwork.

With my Software Engineer's hat on - I haven't worked in academia for decades...
The things you need to pin down early are the interfaces between all the components.  Until you have those, nobody really knows what they are supposed to be developing.  Once the interfaces are properly documented, you can start developing against those as far as you like.  Just watch out for misunderstandings on what the words in the documentation actually mean.
Once you think your bit is done, consider how you can test it without everybody else's stuff around it.
For software, that's test harnesses and mocks.  For electronics, that would be a test box that monitors the outputs from your system and provides reasonable inputs.  For other things, such as business processes, have a ponder on how you can test them yourself.
You don't have to actually implement everybody else's components.  Just make something that looks like their parts, for the purposes of the tests that you designed.
At the end of the process, you should have reasonable confidence that your component works correctly and is ready to be integrated.  You can now de-stress until the final integration period.  And even then, the people who haven't independently tested their parts will be the ones running around trying to fix them at the last moment.


text:
Abstract submission versus full research paper submission
I am searching for good conferences to submit my hard working. Therefore, I found a conference where they ask authors to submit their work as abstract only consisting of limited 1200 words. The abstract should include [Introduction (300 words), Methods (300 words), Results (300 words) and Conclusions with Contributions (300 words)]. At this time, I already have my research work in 8 pages in IEEE format.
The conference is B rank according to ERA2010 requirements. So if I decided to submit my work there and got accepted, will it be less influential than being accepted with IEEE conference that publishes authors work in 8 double column format papers?

Conferences may ask for abstracts before they are held. I would expect them to request a full paper (and maybe also a copy of the presentation, depending on the conference) for inclusion in the proceedings afterwards. At least it would be weird to have conference proceedings consisting only of abstracts...

@DetlevCM Proceedings are massively field dependent. In chemistry (for instance), many conferences don't publish proceedings, or publishing a proceedings paper is optional.

@WanderingChemist: CS/EE is the outlier.

The conference link that you have provided (here) is not ranked in recent CORE-2018 database. So, if it is your hard work, you might want to be extra cautious about going ahead with this conference.
Moreover this conference is too generic. I would advise you to go for a specialized conference in your research area. Conferences are not just for publication, they offer way more than just that. You get chance to meet researchers around the globe. If the conference is specialized, then it would be really helpful to get some real feedback and inputs.
Generic conferences do offer some of the benefits, but are not comparable.
Regarding submission to this conference: You could put up your full paper as a preprint in any server and give a link to this shorter version.

The conference may not be in CORE because it's not a Computer Science conference, but an Engineering conference, focusing on computing methods in Engineering.


text:
Is 600 hours of teaching per year a lot in Germany? What does it look like?
As a professor at a university of applied science in Germany, is 600 hours of teaching considered a lot? What does it look like? The job description says:

Die Arbeitszeit beträgt grundsätzlich 40 Stunden pro Woche. Der Mitarbeiter hält in der Vorlesungszeit Lehrveranstaltungen im Umfang von bis zu 600 Lehrveranstaltungsstunden pro Jahr ab.
Working hours are generally 40 hours per week. During the lecture period, the employee holds courses amounting to up to 600 hours per year.

There are roughly 2000 work hours in a year (40 hours/week, 52 weeks a year, decrease to account for holiday and vacation appropriate to your country). So, roughly 1/3 time directly spent on teaching. Is that lectures only, or lectures plus grading plus advising plus ???

@JonCuster (Lehrveranstaltungen: course hours) maybe lectures as it mentioned in the statement above.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Sometimes instructors are paid based on 'contact hours' which includes lectures, office hours, and grading time. One of our German contributors likely has a better idea on that than I do. Frankly, I'd have a really hard time talking for that many hours in a lecture per day.

How are you counting hours of teaching? There is more time required than that standing in front of a class. If you count only hours actually spent lecturing then it is a lot, otherwise not so much.

@Buffy I think that's OP's question: how do Germans/this particular job description in Germany count time teaching. As Jon points out, if it's according to percentage of a typical work week it's a lot different than if it's some measure of time spent doing a specific activity, like actually standing up and lecturing .

Are you aware of the fact that a professorship at a university of applied science is essentially a teaching job, typically with rather minimal expectations for research output? That's surely relevant context for this question.

40 hours per week, and on top of that 600 hours per year in lectures or facetime. Otherwise over the 250(?) school days a year, that's 2.4 hours a day. So not much, if it's "teaching", as in standing in front of a class talking. 600 hours of extra bs per year? yeah, that's a lot. And that's why I charge by the hour. At least they're up front about it.

@Mazura: 40 hours per week, and on top of that 600 hours per year in lectures or facetime – It’s included, not on top.

Is 600 hours per year of lectures a lot? - 600 hours of teaching per year isn't even part time.

N.B.: "bis zu" = "Up to" means "surely no more, but could be less". Maybe it's only an upper limit (for legal reasons)?

Your question says “university of applied science”, your comment to an answer says “private university”. That’s a relevant difference.

@CarstenS its a private university for applied science.

This is not about being technically correct, it is about getting the most useful answers. Private universities are unusual in Germany, who knows what they do.

Counting German teaching load – Semesterwochenstunden
The typical unit of teaching in Germany is SWS (Semesterwochenstunden – hours per week per semester). One SWS corresponds to 45 minutes (German teaching hour) of lectures or similar over 14 or 15 weeks. Other teaching duties such as supervising theses, excursions, practicals etc. have official conversion rates to SWS. Also, professors can partially reduce their teaching loads by taking on certain teaching-related administrative roles such as being on the examination committee or supervising others who teach. However, preparation times, exam correction, etc. do not count as extra SWS.
A professorship at a university of applied science (Fachhochschulprofessur) is considerably different from a professorship at a “normal” university on account of its teaching focus. The typical teaching load of a professor at a university of applied science is 18 SWS, which corresponds to roughly 540 hours (of 45 minutes) face time per year. Thus, 600 hours seems somewhat high, but not overly high. The only people with such teaching loads have a position called Lehrkraft für besondere Aufgaben (teacher for special tasks), which has a teaching load of up to 24 SWS at universities of applied sciences (depending on the state); these are not professorships.
If you are unsure what a given position entails, I recommend to ask/look for SWS as this is the standard unit. If nothing further is specified, look at the respective state’s laws regarding the specific position. These teaching loads are pretty standardised.
What is it like?
Professors at universities of applied science typically spend their first few years entirely on building up teaching, i.e., creating material, developing routine, etc. This is generally considered a very taxing phase and many work more than 40 hours per week to manage this, often considerably more. However, this depends a lot on the specific position, accommodation by the university, and what material you already have. For example, if you can primarily use existing teaching material and have some repetition in your teaching duties (e.g., doing the same course twice), this can considerably ease the situation. If you are considering taking such a position, I strongly recommend to inquire what kind of support, existing material, etc. you can build upon during the first years.
Once they have done every course once or twice, professors typically can allot some of their time to other projects such as research, industry collaborations, committee work etc. What exactly is possible here depends a lot on the position. Still, teaching remains a primary aspect of such a professorship.
This second half of the answer stems from my own investigation in such positions including long conversations with people who have recently acquired such a position.

Nowadays, research is gettign more and more relevant for fachhochschulen. Hence, they are trying to accomodate new professors with a lot of help (reduced teaching, providing teaching material etc.). This is to prevent them loosing their connection to companies and instead starting with research as soon as possible.

@wrzlprmft many thanks for your input. I will be finishing my Ph.D next month and I will join them directly after the defence. They accepted my application ( after 8 months of evaluation and invited lectures). The promise now (as mentioned in the contract) is to send my documents to the ministry to check if I can get the prof title (if not, i will be as dozent. with the same salary I think?).  The university is an IT private university and they want to establish a new program for bachelor and master in data science.

+1. Most German institutes of higher education work on a model of two semesters per year, but some differ (e.g., AFAIK the Bundeswehr universities run three semesters, and Berufsakademien have students alternate three months of lectures with three months of practical work). This may make Lehrveranstaltungsstunden more relevant than SWS. As always, it's good to understand the details, rather than expect 18 SWS and two semesters per year, only to find out that it's 18 SWS but three semesters.

@Krebto "private university"? Then take all answers here with a grain of salt, as private universities may do some things differently than standard Universitäten and Fachhochschulen. In the context of your question: Especially check whether they use semesters or trimesters and whether your position is "teaching only" or does include time for research. Then you may be able to determine the impact of the hours given in your question.

@Krebto: A thing you need to check (of they'll tell you, but it might be too late), if you are getting the title. This is governed by the local ("Bundesland") jurisdiction, there is a law on university teaching in each of them, with somewhat different, but similar details. One common requirement is 3 years of industry experience, i.e. "outside" of the university. Also, the typical state UAS have 18 SWS workload, while you have more, as was already mentioned.

Here (in German), it says that 15 Lehrveranstaltungsstunden are roughly equivalent to 1 Semsterwochenstunde (SWS) (perhaps are more widely known term). Divide 600 by 15, that makes 40 SWS a year, or 20 per semester.
This table gives the normal amounts of SWS for professors in different federal states in Germany (both for university and university of applied sciences): 8-10 per semester for university professors and 16-18 for those at applied sciences.
So if those hours don't include preaparation (and according to the definition in source 1 they don't), the answer is: Yes, that is a lot of hours.

I agree with your answer but would like to add that 1 Lehrveranstaltungsstunde is usually 45 minutes, not 60 minutes.

This seems to count only the face-time with students in lecture. There is more to teaching than that.

@LuckyPal I know, it even says so in link 1. I don' t know where you think I spoke of 60 min, because I did not.

@Sursula-they- I did not intend to mean that you were speaking of 60 minutes. I just felt it was an important addition to your otherwise perfectly well formulated answer, as in this thread nobody has mentioned yet that a teaching hour in Germany is 45 minutes, which afaik is not a universal concept across the world and typically an hour will be understood as 60 minutes.

@Buffy Certainly correct. When counting teaching hours, preparation, grading, exam preparing, etc. is normally excluded in Germany. The usage of the term "Lehrveranstaltungsstunde" indicates that this is meant here as well, as this roughly translates to "teaching event hours" - the number of hours spent in events.

Also dont forget exam correction and tutorial submissions.

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


text:
Are professors allowed to accuse someone of cheating based on a general increase in test scores?
Let’s say a professor has seen that the average score for the midterm exam was a grade and a half higher than it was in previous years. Because of this he gained a reasonable suspicion of cheating (he has been teaching the course for several years in the same way and this is the first time he has received such high scores). He looked at the score distributions and found it to be bimodal:

He went on to assume that, since this distribution wasn’t like his normal distribution he had received on his test scores in previous years, one third of all his students cheated on the mid-term.

Now here comes the question, is it ethical and reasonable to assume that one third of the people in his class were cheating? Maybe the distributions were different and bimodial because some students studied harder (causing peak at better scores), while others didn’t (peak at lower scores). Are professors allowed to make everyone retake the test because of this data (even the ones who took it honestly). This punishment seems like he is punishing the supposed two thirds of the class that took it honestly.
The professor goes on to claim that those students who had significantly higher scores than in their previous test must have cheated! Are professors allowed to that? What if they got a bad score on the previous test because they didn’t study and they got a good score on the mid-term because they did study? Also what if a student has a good score on the previous test and the mid-term because he cheated on both? Or what if the student was honest and received a good score on both test because he is a hard working student? So my question, Is it normal practice and ethical for professors to accuse someone of cheating just by looking at the student’s test scores?
PS: This didn't happen to me. I just heard about it from a friend.

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

First, as you already noted, the better scores and the bimodal distribution may have other reasons. For example:

One of three TAs for the course did an outstanding job.
The professor reused questions from previous exams (perhaps without noticing) and one third of the students informed themselves about previous tests.

Most importantly, the following thing is odd: It’s highly implausible that the rate of students who decide to cheat on their own increases by that amount from one year to the next. Thus, they would have to decide for cheating together or due to some common motivation. This in turn only makes sense if the cheating is a collaborative endeavour or if somebody is helping the cheaters.
Now, while such scenarios are not unthinkable, they are usually as likely as possible explanations that do not involve cheating (your mileage may vary depending on the circumstances). Moreover, even such a scenario happened, just repeating the exam is unlikely to solve it. Therefore the professor should first find out what actually happened.
So, the statistics may point at something being unusual, but without further investigations you cannot say that it’s cheating. Moreover, even if it is cheating, statistics can only tell you that it happened, put cannot point to any individual involved in it.
To address your individual questions:

Are professors allowed to accuse someone of cheating based on a general increase in test scores?

The professor goes on to claim that those students who had significantly higher scores than in their previous test must have cheated! Are professors allowed to that?

Technically, yes. Almost everybody can accuse everybody else of everything as long as we are not entering the domain of libel laws. Will it be successful or a good idea? Probably not, at least in any reasonable university or jurisdiction. And that’s not even considering that he has not one but many students against him.

is it ethical and reasonable to assume that one third of the people in his class were cheating?

Assuming something cannot be ethical or unethical; acting upon an assumption on the other hand may be, but that depends on the action.

Is it normal practice and ethical for professors to accuse someone of cheating just by looking at the student’s test scores?

Normal practice – I never heard of it. Ethical – certainly not. There are several possible reasons for a good individual test result, e.g., hard work and plain luck. The professor should be aware of this and thus the accusation is unfounded and hence unethical.

The OP aknowledged in the comments that the question was sparked by a specific incident, the Richard Quinn case in UCF 2010.
Viewing the video, Quinn had not just Statistics, but both physical evidence and witnesses: a student had left at his office door a "test bank" answered, and many students communicated that other students were bragging about how they had gotten hold of the test bank and so had all the answers prior to the exam.
Moreover, Quinn didn't just "accuse the class of cheating": he had already negotiated with the school "full immunity" to those that will admit to the deed... At least 200 students admitted the cheating after they were offered the equivalent of full immunity.
I don't know the man and I have nothing to do with Florida, or with the US education system for that matter. But based on the information I found, the Quinn case certainly does not qualify as an example characteristic of the answer asked by the OP.

Warning personal opinion: After rewatching the video, I don't consider it cheating, I consider it studying. I look up practice questions before I take a test all the time to see how well I am prepared for the test, I will take in class. The practice questions I do look up are almost never on the test, but they give me an understanding on what concepts I am strong at and which concepts I need to improve upon.  But you are right, he did give them full immunity. He also mentioned to the students that didn't turn themselves in, they would be turned over to academic affairs and they may be expelled

I think you misunderstood my question, so let me be more clear. Let's say that you one of the students that cheated and didn't confess for whatever reason. Can the university expel you without other evidence just purely on statistics? I get that it is in the students best interest to confess, but if he/she didn't for whatever reason. Could the University really do anything about it? (I did mention the rest of the scenario in my question because then the argument would be if what the students actually did was considered cheating or not). Some believe it wasn't, while others argue it was.

@JamesSmith My answer was about the relevance of the Quinn case to your question. Your question is very general and could be asked, discussed and answered without any specific incident in mind. But since the specific incident was linked to your question, I felt it would contribute to the quality of this thread if I provided more specifics on it.

Ok, that is fair. Point taken

@JamesSmith: Can the university expel you without other evidence just purely on statistics? – Note that in the UCF case there may be further evidence than the pure test score. For example, if only 35 of 50 multiple-choice questions came from the leaked bank, somebody who suceeded at all of those questions and those questions only has cheated beyond reasonable doubt. (That being said, I would not be surprised if they bluffed about having such information and granting immunity and redoing the exam was clever damage control.)

In the UCF case, the professor obtained e-mail chains of involved cheaters and social media posts on people bragging that they cheated.  He has a LOT more to go on than statistics.

In the UCF case, he had a ton of evidence....of good study habits of his students and his own incompetence/laziness at writing tests. Get as many practice questions as you can, and if you can get a copy of every question they've used or a test bank for your textbook, good for you. As a professor, this is why I never use test banks. I post all my past exams for my students to study from. I want them to practice on old exams and I write entirely new ones for each year. I hated the UCF case, because I felt the professor was an example of a terrible teacher taking out his flaws on his students.

A practice question is a practice question. What difference does it make whether it comes from a textbook example, a so-called "test bank" or some other source? If the students think this is cheating, that is bad, but that does not mean that it actually is cheating. If the "test bank" was specifically for this exam, that would be a different matter, but it sounds like that is not what happened here. Here's an article that is still live: https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/professor-gets-200-confessions-to-cheating/

The point of this answer seems to be that the Quinn case is not a good example of the situation described in the question, because the Quinn case had additional evidence besides statistics. But I'm still confused as to what actual evidence there was in that case (see my previous comment).

Statistical tests can indicate that there may be cheating. But, to accuse students, more proof is needed. Perhaps the statistics indicated that there may be a problem and closer investigation showed that someone got access to the exam beforehand (but, for investigation reasons the students were not told)?
In short, per se, statistics is not sufficient to prove anything, but it can direct attention to finding more compelling evidence (which you may not know about at this stage).
That being said, I have seen enough variations of this sort in capability of cohorts that to use just statistics as evidence for cheating is questionable practice.

+1. You say "Statistical tests can indicate that there is cheating.", But do these statistical tests shown indicate cheating? (Honest question, I'm not familiar with the statistics used to find anomalous results).
Seems to me like changing from a bimodal distribution to a single modal distribution would not indicate (/hint at) cheating, but a fundamental change in the cohort. (E.g. the removal of this unit from one major).
Can you tell more about the statistics that indicate cheating?

There are difficult, but popular topics where a bimodal distribution is quite typical. The good students pick them and the really weak ones pick them because they do not realise the difficulty. The middling students will avoid these topics, though, as they are often better than the weak ones to judge their own skills. Thus, the marks signature of a course may well be bimodal. In the R. Quinn case, below, it is the deviation from past distributions that raised the flags. Plus, Quinn claimed to have an informer. For a fun read, see the "cheating" chapter from the book "Freakonomics".

"Statistical tests can indicate that there may be cheating". There, fixed that for you :-)

I've TA'ed plenty of statistics courses. My experience is that the grades are almost always bimodal. I don't think this is because there is almost always cheating, but rather because it is almost always the case that some students study and some do not (especially in intro to stats).

We're talking about how to interpret stats about the course "intro to stats". How ironic. More to the point, this answer does not answer the question: Is it OK to accuse someone of cheating based on test scores? It's a long way (or, at least, it should be) from a mere accusation to expulsion. (Edit: The last sentence sort of answers the question: "... to use just statistics as evidence for cheating is questionable practice." But not clearly.)

@BrianDrake Changed "expel" to "accuse", as per your comment. I picked up "expel" from one of the other discussions, thank you for pointing this out. I think even "just" an accusation needs more evidence.

Punishing students without any concrete proof just because they are good on a test once is neither ethical, nor is it good teaching. Even if these students did cheat, they are shown clearly that it doesn't matter how they get good grades, they will be punished for getting good grades anyway. It will be very hard to find even a single teacher who won't get more evidence than statistics before punishing a student for cheating.
That said, statistics are what cause teachers to start looking for said evidence.

It's not clear what your post adds over existing answers that seem to already address this point - for example, this answer. Can you [edit] your post to clarify what this adds?

@ff524 The linked answer discusses the validity of using statistics as evidence, but dodges answering the actual question "Is it normal practice and ethical for professors to accuse someone of cheating just by looking at the student’s test scores?". This answer differs from the linked answer by specifying that such behavior is not ethical, and expands by explaining why accusing students without proof is bad teaching


text:
Feasibility of obtaining an “individual doctorate” in Germany while working?
I will be working in Munich, Germany for a relatively small engineering company.  I have always wanted to obtain an engineering PhD on a part-time basis.
I have been intrigued by the “individual doctorate” option in Germany, which seems to allow the flexibility to work full-time or part-time and thus continue to move forward in one’s career.
My questions are:

Is this option of an individual doctorate generally available to anyone who can find a professor/supervisor to work with them throughout the research agenda?
If one's current project at their job qualifies as original work and one can find a willing supervisor, can one simply proceed with their work at their current job and simultaneously earn a PhD?
Is it generally feasible to work full-time and obtain a PhD via the “individual doctorate” path?  If so, how common is this?

If you want your company work to count as a PhD, you will also have to convince your employer to allow you to publish the work. That may not be in their interest.

Ad 1. No, you still need to satisfy the formal requirements for submitting a PhD (e.g., a suitable Masters degree, check the regulations). Ad 3. Feasible, but not easy due to the conflicting time demands. Not very common, since for this reason most students prefer to be funded by the university.

@ChristianClason Why not post this as an answer?

@NajibIdrissi It may be possible, but then if you stack up requirements and challenges it will get harder and harder to find a supervisor. If you are student who does not work as part of the profs. research group, presumably wants to work on a somewhat different research project within a company, and does not wish to publish ... why would a professor care to advise you?

@NajibIdrissi At least at my university there is the regulation that the defense has to be public and also that the thesis has to have been public in the library for a minimal amount of time before the doctorate can be awarded. I am not sure if that is university regulation, state law or national law though.

@NajibIdrissi -- keeping a thesis confidential perpetually is against the spirit of research. I believe that in most countries, the only way for that to happen is if your thesis gets classified as a state secret -- for example, if what you describe can be used to build a nuclear bomb. There are ways to keep it closed for a year so that you can file for a patent, for example, but I would expect that you need to carefully explain why you want that exemption, and it will be time limited.

@NajibIdrissi -- no law suit. I was just pointing out why theses may remain non-public and what is generally required for someone to make such a request.

Um, I had to google "Individual Doctorate" since I wasn't sure what the German was supposed to be, but apparently this is just the default way to do a PhD in Germany? In which case:

Yes. When I was a PhD student in Germany, the only documents required by the university administration were the B.Sc. and M.Sc. transcripts/diplomas and a letter from my advisor stating "I am supervising this student". There was no selection, everyone who handed those in was enrolled.
Yes, but only if the company agrees. (As @Wolfgang Bangerth notes, many companies will not allow you to divulge details about the work, as they are basically their trade secrets.) Note that in Germany theses have to be officially published, so the "jury is under NDA" workaround that exists in other countries cannot be used.
It is feasible, but the success rate is much lower than for PhD students. I don't know anyone who worked at a private company, but we had close contact with a Fraunhofer institute group, and even for employees of a research institute who had that option explicitly planned for in their employment contact, many of them gave up along the way. The work required for an actual, useful product is very different from research (e.g. there is nothing novel about making sure I/O works correctly for a wide variety of formats, so you are likely to get scooped by some full-time PhD student who is just duct taping five scripts together and copy-pasted the input data into their source file).

To 2: Also a lot of departments/universities regulate that you have to have a cumulative thesis, which does include having to publish parts of your results in journals or at conferences along the way. So even if your company is okay with you using the finished results in a thesis after they started using those results themselves, they also need to be fine with the publishing or presentation of intermediate results. Which is a problem if there is competition.

@skymningen: While I've seen departments set formal publication requirements (e.g. minimum number of journal articles published before you're allowed to hand in your thesis), I don't think I've ever seen a mandatory cumulative thesis (i.e. you're not allowed to write a new document)! Do you have an example?

I guess I was mistaken with the meaning of cumulative here (or more specifically what is called cumulative in the department is a different thing). There is no official minimal number of papers that I know of (although the unofficial number of two might well be stated somewhere official), but you cannot finish your thesis without any papers and you use those papers as a basis for your thesis. Whatever you would call that, you need to publish before the thesis is published, because the paper should at least be "under review" to be added to the thesis.

Hmm, there is no specific word for it that I know of in English, aside from "publication requirements" (which doesn't say anything about what precisely is required, or if it's a formal or informal requirement, but does imply that some form of prior publication has to happen).

Well, basically what is expected here is that something other than the thesis, meaning publications, is adding up or adding to the thesis ('cumulative'), and you definitely cannot get your Ph.D. just based on a monographic thesis.


text:
Should a PhD student be credited in supervisor’s article that is based on a book chapter by both?
Jane is doing a PhD and is supervised by Professor Mary. Mary asked Jane to put together a review article for a book based on a draft chapter from Jane’s thesis with additional suggestions from Mary. The book article was submitted with the authors listed as Jane and Mary (corresponding author). I am unsure whether this has actually been published, though it was submitted well before the now-published review by Mary.
Sometime later, Mary submitted a broader review article online which used large chunks of text and figures from the book article which were directly written/generated by Jane. Whole paragraphs were copied verbatim from the first article to Mary’s article, and many more paragraphs were slightly rewritten but contained exactly the same references and phrases from the first article. Mary’s paper did not cite the book review. Mary was listed as the sole author. Jane was not informed this review was being written, and was not asked for permission to include her figures or content from the book article, which were originally written by her for her thesis.

Did Jane ‘hand over’ the rights to her written material to Mary by agreeing to submit the book article under both of their names?
Should Mary have credited Jane in the article as a second author because she used exact sentences from the book article which were written by Jane?
Will Jane still be able to use these (her) phrases and figures in her thesis despite not being credited on Mary’s online article?

The first question we have to resolve is whether Mary plagiarized from the earlier joint paper.  (a) Did Mary's paper cite the previous paper by Jane and Mary, and did it make clear that the relevant text and figures were extracted therefrom? (b) Were the text and figures of a sort that the standards of the field would normally expect to be original (i.e. not "boilerplate"?)

A separate question is whether Mary has infringed the copyright of the previous paper.  But I think that's not really on topic here - we can speak knowledgeably about the ethics but less so about the law.  (There is Law.SE for the latter.)

Original poster here - Mary's paper did not cite the book review (co-authored by Mary and Jane - unsure whether this has actually been published yet though it was submitted well before the now-published review by Mary).

Original poster again - I'm not quite sure what you mean by the text being 'standards of the field' but whole paragraphs were copied from the first article to Mary's article (not rewritten at all), and many more paragraphs which were slightly rewritten but contained exactly the same references and phrases from the first article.

unsure whether this has actually been published yet – A search for your article on the Internet should yield this information.

Thanks Wrzlprmft - it doesn't look like the book article has been published online, although I'm not sure if this means it wasn't included in the textbook it was submitted for.

Here are the relevant facts:
Copyright

The copyright of everything you create belongs to you by default (in any reasonable legislation).
In some legislations, your copyright or parts thereof may automatically be transferred to your employer upon creation.
Apart from that, any sort of copyright transfer can usually only happen due to a contract you signed, e.g., with your university, supervisor, or a publisher.
In the latter case, your co-authors (i.e., your supervisor) usually do not gain additional rights.
Publishing content to which you hold the copyright without your permission constitutes a copyright infringement.
The crucial question in case of a lawsuit will likely be what you can prove that you created.

Academic Ethics

If you creatively contributed to an article, which particularly includes conceptualising figures and writing paragraphs for a review articles, you have to be made a co-author according to academic authorship standards.
Even if Mary were the sole author of both articles involved, re-using material in the way you describe may constitute self-plagiarism.
This mostly depends on the publisher’s requirements regarding the absence of prior publication and the status of book articles in your field.
Submitting any content you created for publication without citation or similar considers a breach of academic ethics even if you are listed as an author or do not hold the copyright.

What you should do

Secure all evidence of which content you created.
Check your contracts and what has been published.
Talk to your supervisor.


text:
What levels of graduate schools can various combinations of GPAs and GREs get you into
Assume that the candidate is a graduate of a good state school, e.g. North Carolina or Ohio State. Then I want to explore this candidate's probable viability in getting into "second tier" graduate schools, say 15-30th in a given field using the following academic combinations.
The best combination would be something like a 3.9 GPA and a graduate exam (GRE or LSAT) score of 175 or better (out of 180). Assuming research and activities were competitive (and are held constant between candidates), would these candidates be able to do better than second tier (say top 15)?
A second best combination might be something like a 3.5 GPA and a 175 exam score or a 3.9 GPA and a 165 exam score. How would this candidate "stack up" for a second tier grad school? Are the two sets equivalent or is one combination decidedly more competitive than the other?
Third best would be something like 3.5 GPA and a 165 exam score. Would "second tier" grad school be a reach for such a person?
If you changed "good state school" to "HYPSM" and kept exam scores and GPA constant, would that change matters?
Explanation: Unlike the other question, this one is not about getting students in from the "bottom." This question is about how the TOP three (or so) categories sort themselves out.

It probably depends much much more on the research and activities.

@krizhou: The question asks you to assume that research is 1) "competitive," and 2) "held constant" between the candidates, so that answers can focus on relative exam scores and GPAs.

@astronat: No. See my explanation (new last paragraph).

graduate admissions is done holistically and almost entirely on subjective factors.

This is a very important and common question. Unfortunately, the answer is usually "it depends." Our compromise has been to redirect all the "what does it take to get into school X" questions to the "How does the admissions process work....?" canonical question linked above. I realize this "duplicate" question only partially addresses what you want to know, but since there is no magic formula we can give you, giving helpful answers to questions like this is an ongoing challenge for us; sorry we can't be more helpful

I should add that, generally, "graduate school" tends to refer to PhD programs (or pre-PhD Master's programs).  Business/law/medical school (which all have much higher volume) is a different beast - and, while not technically off-topic, is de facto off-topic here in the sense that I don't think you can get good answers.

I'm presuming that you are referring to PhD admissions in the U.S.?  I should note that GPA and GRE are relatively low on the admissions criteria as far as I am aware.  There are other (more important) factors involved, such as research/teaching experience, statement of purpose, and especially letters of recommendation.
GPA can only help up until a certain point (usually around 3.3-3.7).  Once you are above this threshold, you are better focusing on other aspects of your application.  Especially since PhD programs are all about research and publications, focus on getting as much of that as you can, since this is also how you can get quality letters of recommendation.  I have heard of people with GPA's of 3.1-3.3 getting into top programs (even MIT) because they had research experience or publications.
Also, GRE is one of the least relevant parts of your application (less so than GPA), since it mainly serves as a filter.  Once your score is above a certain threshold, same with GPA, your time is better spent stressing over other parts of the application.  Some schools have stated they do not consider GRE (even before COVID), and because of COVID, while some will still consider GRE, the list of schools that won't require GRE is likely to grow.
HYPSM: your mileage will vary here.  At least in my field (Computer Science), Stanford and MIT are definitely at the top.  However, for Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. mileage may vary more, since there are state school programs like Illinois, GA Tech, that are ranked higher.  So it isn't necessarily the best comparison, to compare programs like "good state schools" between "HYPSM"

@Buffy I mentioned this.   Some schools have stated they do not consider GRE (even before COVID), and because of COVID, while some will still consider GRE, the list of schools that won't require GRE is likely to grow.

"GPA can only help up until a certain point (usually around 3.3-3.7). Once you are above this threshold, you are better focusing on other aspects of your application." That was the kind of answer I was looking for.

Yeah it doesn't help to have a GPA of 4.0 as opposed to a 3.5, 3.6, maybe even 3.3 or 3.4 if your research and everything else is good.


text:
Are there meaningful downsides to a "guaranteed" (graduate) admissions program?
One  school I know of, University of Pittsburgh, has an early admission program to its graduate schools (law, business, medicine, and others) for qualified juniors. That is, students can apply to the program in the second semester of their junior year, and if admitted, can use the first year of the graduate program as their "senior year," in terms of credits needed for their bachelor's degree.
More to the point, this school has "guaranteed" graduate admissions for outstanding high school students, to which one of my smartest high school classmates was admitted. She had outstanding grades (4.0) and board scores (1500), and was "guaranteed" a place in the medical school upon matriculation. The minimum requirement was that she had to take a "general science" major (biology, chemistry, physics), and earn a 3.75 GPA, but given her high school achievements, this was not in doubt. (She now has a thriving practice.)
For someone that knows what they want, are there any meaningful downsides to "enrolling" in a graduate program (medicine, law, business), right out of high school?

This makes no sense. Are you sure you mean graduate admissions for high schoolers? Because I have not seen this. My department (and others at my school) have a fast track that allows undergraduates to take graduate classes as seniors, but not high schoolers.

Say more here. What country is this? Does your first paragraph refer to high school (a US concept) or a Baccalaureate program? If a US high school, does the person immediately start graduate studies or must complete undergraduate first and then is already admitted to the graduate program?

The examples you mention are actually professional programs, not traditional graduate programs. Normally, though, even professional programs require an undergraduate degree.

All I can gather from google is a few situations in which a professional school (say medicine) will give an early decision for later admission to a high school student provided they complete an appropriate undergraduate program. It might be a specially tailored program, actually, with fewer requirements than normal, but I didn't dig that deep.

These kinds of BA/MD programs are fairly common and have existed for a long time (a friend was in one back in the 1980's when I was an undergraduate!)  There is a lot of pressure on students to get good grades in the tough pre-med courses, and some students drop out of the program to complete a conventional bachelor's degree even if they plan to go on to medical school eventually.

There are also five year BS/MS programs in some fields. But they generally include a complete undergrad program with the last two years a combination of undergraduate and more specialized MS studies. But it is possible, if unlikely, to not meet the requirements for even the BS if you drop out after four years.

@Buffy: What happens is that the school wants to "lock in" the best high school applicants, meaning that it will reserve a place for them in e.g. medical school, 3-4 years ahead of time, conditioned, of course, on a satisfactory undergraduate record (3.5 GPA in a qualifying major).

Can you add a country tag? The question doesn't make sense in a UK context, where a medical degree is generally an undergraduate course.

Can you provide a link to the university web page with admission information for any such "guaranteed" program?

@HaseK: Done. Thanks for your suggestion.

If you are sure that you want to be in a particular profession, say law, then these programs can provide a bit of a short cut. However, if you change your mind along the way you may wind up with an "unusable" education as it may be missing critical elements needed elsewhere.
However, if you can change your mind and still have a good path forward, then there should be no real downside. In particular, if the intervening years include a real undergraduate degree in a meaningful field, then there is no reason to actually finish the professional program. There isn't a contract that you have to fulfill.
In some ways this is just a marketing stunt by a school who wants to increase applications of good students. There are no guarantees on either side, I'm sure, as the student has to fulfill the requirements stated to move on to the professional portion, and the student is free to leave at any time that they feel their needs aren't being met.
But a program that is so specialized that you don't get a good general education along the way would, in my view, be a mistake. A mistake for the individual as well as for society. A program that only makes technocrats can turn out people who are actively dangerous as their world view is too narrow.
Moreover, if you want to later extend your education beyond the professional training you get in such a program, you may find that you don't have the needed background. That would depend on the details, of course.
Actually, I also question the wisdom of encouraging people of that age to 'lock in' to a particular profession. A lot of changes happen in the lives of 17-18 years olds. As a parent I would discourage such things in favor of a more general education in which they could put off such decisions until they have more perspective. I recognize that not everyone feels that way, of course. If a kid wants to be a doctor simply because both mom and dad are doctors he/she should really look around first. (I feel the same way about academia as a profession, in fact.)

"But a program that is so specialized that you don't get a good general education along the way would, in my view, be a mistake."  That's not the situation here.  They can do any undergraduate degree.

"I also question the wisdom of encouraging people of that age to 'lock in' to a particular profession."  Also not the situation here.

Essentially, the guaranteed admissions program is an incentive for excellent students to choose to enroll in the university's undergraduate program.  For the average student, admission to a medical school is very valuable.  To an excellent student, admission to any medical school is easy to obtain, and therefore admission to a particular one is not worth much.  In exchange for the incentive, the student gives up the opportunity to enroll in an undergraduate degree elsewhere.  For an average student, that is a small sacrifice.  For an excellent student, who could enroll anywhere for an undergraduate degree, it is a higher cost.
In short, the better the student, the worse the deal they are getting. The university is probably only offering this program to the best students it thinks might accept the offer.

Note that undergraduates in these programs are typically not required to enroll in the graduate program at that institution.  I knew a number of students in my undergrad institutions BS/MD program who got admitted into "better" medical schools and left after the BS degree.

Even though you're not locked in, if you know you have guaranteed admission, you might be tempted to just take it rather than go to all the trouble of applying elsewhere, even if you might have a chance of getting into a "better" school.  So that's a possible downside too.


text:
Are there "restart" mechanisms for candidates seeking a graduate admission with a mediocre undergraduate record?
To take one example, the University of Pittsburgh offers certificate programs equivalent to a minor to non-degree students, and also offers a chance at a "second" bachelor's degree.
Suppose there was an undergraduate in say Mathematics, who got at best mediocre grades, no more than a 3.0 GPA in math, and a 3.0 for the degree. I would imagine that this person would not a be a good graduate school candidate for a program in say, Computer Science.
Suppose some years later, the same person "woke up," enrolled in a certificate program in Computer Science, equivalent to a minor, or better yet, took a whole second degree (equivalent to a major), and got (mostly) A's, say a 3.8 or better GPA. The new program includes As in one or more graduate courses. The person's GRE scores have also climbed, to over 700 in each category. This person then wants to do graduate work in Computer Science.
Would this cause some graduate school programs to take a "fresh look" and him or her graduate student credentials? Perhaps this is most likely to take placein the same school where s/he successfully completed the certificate or second degree program?  That is to say, is the strength in the certificate program or second major program enough to call into question the mediocre undergraduate record? (The person's letters of recommendation would come from professors in the later program.) Put another way, is there a point where a strong enough "post graduate" record will make up for a mediocre undergraduate record?

The answer to this question depends specifically upon you. However, also see this question about admissions

I believe that the question is on topic, because it fits these three criteria laid out in the Help Center 1) Transitioning from undergraduate to graduate researcher 2) Inner workings of research departments 3) Requirements and expectations of academicians. I also clarified the question (last three paragraphs)

@RichardErickson: My question is a lot narrower and more specific than the one you cited. I did, however, use answers from that question to clarify my own question.

I don't think it is possible to give a general answer to this question. There are too many variables. On one hand people do recognize growth in a student and that new work may be more important than old. However, it also depends on what you mean by a "certificate program". There is a lot of variability in that. Some have good reputations, others not. How does a grade in a given certificate program translate to a grade in a university course? How much skill was gained in the course.
Yet another variable is which courses were taken. Is it more or less the equivalent of an undergraduate major, including all of the usual courses.
Given all of these variables, the only answer that is valid will come from a particular institution evaluating the candidates complete record and their statements about themselves and their goals. For some, the answer would be no, for others, possibly yes. The only way to know is to ask and the best way to ask is to actually apply and supply all of the needed information, including reasons why the record is a bit "unusual."

I narrowed down my question as follows: 1) The certificate program is equivalent to a "minor" in the same subject at the school where it was taken. 2) The candidate is (most likely) applying to a graduate program in the same subject in the same school, probably run by his/her certificate professors.

I don't think the answer changes much. A minor in a subject likely isn't enough for grad study, but applying at the same school might be a plus.

I further modified my question. I think I saw you on another site. In any event, I value your long expertise.


text:
Publishing when a co-worker cannot be co-author
I've worked with a student who produced some very valuable results. This would be a great paper to publish. The work was my idea and I provided a lot of guidance to the student. Also, the interpretation of the data is mainly based on my work. The student did a lot of lab and computer work which was key to the success. I'd say this was a very fruitful collaboration.
The student now has moved on to a new job, with excellent opportunities. The new role however prevents the student from having their name on publications of our joint work, because there are legal obligations and restriction in the contract with the new employer.
I am keen to publish at least some key results, but I face the situation of having a co-worker that cannot be a co-author. It looks like I cannot even acknowledge the student's contribution. I am not sure how to handle this situation, which I am deeply unhappy with.
This is a case not commonly discussed and which is probably rather unusual. I am sure some people would just publish the work without mentioning the student, which feels wrong. A solution might be citing the student's dissertation or a conference paper we've published previously; however, someone rightfully might/will raise the question of why the student is not a co-author on the bigger paper.
Not publishing at all does not feel any better. Too much effort has gone into this.

And the work was done at your institution, so their affiliation can rightly be listed there, not their current job.

I'd be surprised if it were legal to forbid publishing of something done prior to employment and completely unrelated to anything they did for the employer. Perhaps they need a talk with HR.

@Buffy Contracts can get weird. A key detail here being the act of publish occurring after the 1st day of employment. It isn't beneficial to the question to challenge the legitimacy of the question. Though, I'd recommend this question is edited to include at least one question.

I have to add that the student seems far less interested in publishing the results than I am.

I have personally faced a variation of this issue (on the student's side).
In my case, some of the research that I had done during my graduate studies has not yet been submitted as publications, while I had already taken a position in the industry. Moreover, my new position in the industry had a high-level overlap with the not-yet-published research. Both were in the area of computational electromagnetics, however, the research itself had nothing concrete to do with my new position.
For me, the course of action that I followed was (IANAL):

Before engaging in any work on this research after starting the work in industry, sign a Memorandum (sometimes called Memorandum of understanding) in which my new industry employer allows me to do particular work.
Possible wording:

Pursuant to your employment agreement, the purpose of this memorandum is to give you written approval to engage in the activity outlined below on your off-duty hours. Your activity will be limited to:

Proof-reading and performing minor editing of manuscript titled <Publication title> for which you are a co-author.

To protect <Industry organization Name> Intellectual Property, it is very important that you do not engage in any activities beyond the scope of the outlined activity.

It would be wise to not perform additional research at this stage, as it usually falls under different categorizations and can be forbidden by the organization/funding authorities' policies.

In addition, sign an explicit engagement agreement with your new industry employer, which ensures that I do not transfer any information to my new employer without TTO (Technology Transfer Office) consent.
Possible wording:

Without first contacting the <University name> Technology Transfer Office¹, <Employee name> shall not transfer to the <Industry organization name>, or otherwise attempt to give the <Industry organization name> an interest in, any intellectual property <Employee name> developed pursuant to their engagement by the <University name>.

Here, the purpose of the first action is to ensure the limited scope of the activity on the publication and ensure the trace that the industry is aware of such a future publication. While the second item ensures that no unlicensed technology travels back to the new organization without legal approval from the University.
This is an involved process, which requires the student and their new employer to participate; however, with some modifications for local legal requirements, it should be possible. It would be also important to look into the dates on the documents: publication submission, employment contract, and memos.

¹Technology Transfer Office is only a possible name of the department responsible for licensing the technology developed at a research institution. Office of Technology Commercialization and other names are used often; thus, one has to ensure correctness for a particular case when preparing the memo.

It is probably also advisable to include a statement about the industry employer not being listed on the publication when drafting that MoU (or vice-versa if they insist on being listed as the affiliation). Doing that will ensure there are no future surprises when the publication is done.


text:
Queen bee syndrome in academia
The queen bee syndrome was first defined by social psychologists in the 70s, describing a behaviour of women in advanced positions in traditionally male-dominated areas that in part means that they treat female subordinates more harshly and critically than men and may even impede the advancement of these female subordinates.
In the context of male dominated areas of academia, how prevalent the "queen bee syndrome" in the relationship between female graduate supervisors and their female graduate students? Does the literature and research in social psychology, management, organisational behaviour and education confirm this phenomenon?

Please [edit] your question to elaborate what kind of an answer you are looking for. For example, this could be an overview of scientific studies (if any exist) or personal experiences. The latter is not a suitable question for this site as it is a survey and answers cannot be evaluated.

The only "answer" I could give here would be frame breaking, so I'll desist. But I don't see how the data could be interpreted. Is a female supervisor who pushes her students especially hard (carrot and stick) because she thinks, possibly correctly, that her female students will be judged by others extremely harshly fit the definition of a Queen Bee? Or is she just a Shepherd watching diligently over her flock?  I think that is a much more likely thing to see than someone whose world view is "none of you will ever be as good as I am and I'll do what I can to ensure that."

I'm talking about the difference between how male and female graduate students are treated and thought of by a female supervisor.

Why do you think there is a difference? Personal experience or something else?

Personal experience and then I found this term which seems to have been studied in a few areas and reflects my situation.

I think a question more specific to your own situation might be more welcome here than one that seeks to apply a possible general idea. Perhaps you just have a bad supervisor and need guidance on that. I suspect that women can be as bad as men as supervisors. A lot of questions here deal with how to deal with poor supervision - even hostile supervisors.

This is actually a term that has been actively researched, so I don't see how it is opinion based- I'm asking for someone's understanding of the literature.

A simple Google Scholar search for "queen bee academia" turned up a number of relevant results, including a recent paper Faniko et al (2020) that seems to address exactly the question you have.

I'm not sure why this has been closed as opinion-based; the question asks for literature and it is easy to give literature that examines the exact question at issue.

@Ben I agree and have voted to reopen. I think this question was closed out of concern answers might state opinions and conjectures (see comments) rather than refer to existing sources.

@henning: Yeah, okay, I've also voted to re-open.  Lit search suggests there are some papers on this, so I'm sure we can give a decent objective answer that is not just opinion.

I think the idea that we should close questions on this site that do not allow objective answers is essentially just Stack Exchange dogma: in reality, what keeps a question open on this site is the need it expresses for one or more academics to weigh in with their professionally relevant opinions and experiences.   This question actually seems harder to answer: indeed the term Queen Bee Syndrome (which does not ring so nicely in my ear, FWIW) exists in the social science literature.  Is the OP asking for a compilation or evaluation of this research?  This site is not really for that...

Since you have not mentioned any recent papers, I'm going to assume that you are stuck finding papers on this topic.  A simple Google Scholar search for "queen bee academia" turns up a number of relevant results, including Ellemers et al (2004) and Faniko et al (2020), which both seem to address the phenomenon of interest to you.  Now, obviously you will need to do a bigger literature review than this, but those two papers should give you a place to get started, and they will lead you to other references.


text:
Responsibility of supervisor to review draft thesis for plagiarism
I submitted my master's thesis draft for my supervisor to review one month before submission.
He told me to revise 2 chapters because I didn't cite/paraphrase the content.
I paraphrased the chapters, sent them back to him for review.
He said they're fine and I continued working on other parts of the thesis.
Finally, I submitted it on the final date.
Between that date and the submission date, we met many times to review the draft but he never mentioned those two chapters again, so I assumed that they're fine.
Then two months after submission, they told me that my paraphrasing was too similar to the original content, and they considered it plagiarism. They then decided I failed the thesis.
I can still do a second attempt, since I am not yet expelled, but I was so disappointed that my supervisor didn't recognize it during the draft review.
If he let me know about this sooner, I could still revise them, so that I don't have to spend another six months on a second attempt.
Is my disappointment justified?

Your supervisor is not a human TurnItIn.  You should know what plagiarism means from the first day at university.  We inform students multiple times, and hence, there is no excuse to not know about it.   Also, you should not paraphrase existing sentences because that becomes an exercise in circumventing TurnItIn or an English exercise.

@Prof.SantaClaus - please put your answer into the answer box.

First and foremost, it's your thesis and it's primary your duty to ensure that it's not plagiarised. To avoid plagiarism, don't paraphrase: write the thesis with your own words.
Then, depending on the university rules, the supervisor might also have the duty to check for plagiarism your thesis (e.g. through a plagiarism checker software), and in that case they could be considered co-responsible, in front of the university, for the plagiarism, but the main responsibility is still yours. You're really the one who knows whether your thesis is plagiarised or not.
So, no, your disappointment is not justified.