text:
Master thesis going horribly wrong. What to do?
I am in an unfortunate situation where my master thesis is not going so well. I am doing my masters in chemical engineering and got an internship in a startup. My university supervisor however does not care about my progress and has sent me to this startup without any proper guidelines. The thesis that I am working on is not that related to the things that I have done before and I am scared (pretty sure) it won’t go well. I have tried my best, but I can’t change the thesis now. I am feeling hopeless. Will a bad thesis ruin my opportunity to get a job in the future? I am certain i can’t try in academia.

what do you mean you cannot change now? do you have to wait months? years? do you have any budget constrain?

"has sent me to this startup without any proper guidelines": How far into your thesis work are you? Have you asked for your supervisor's help? If you have specific needs (like regular meetings) or expectations it should be possible for you to ask. At least you should try to find out what the supervisor expects from you, both concerning your interaction with the supervisor as well as the result (your thesis).

It’s a two semester thesis. I am about to reach the end of first semester and I have NO data what so ever. I haven’t even been to ‘lab’ yet.

No one really cares what you did in your master thesis.
Even if you publish something from it, people will be interested in knowing "as a Master student he published something, that sounds promising".
From what you describe, it seems you a wild amount of freedom. Pick a theme relevant to the start-up, do a decent literature study (you mention it is not that related to the things that you have done before ... you are lucky that it is marginally related!) and you may find a way to contribute to either the start-up, your thesis, or both.
I asked you a couple of details, do not fall into the sunken cost fallacy trap.
N.B.: gap periods seen as a bad thing are almost a myth, especially if there is a story to back them up. "I picked the wrong advisor, I learned my lesson (add motives that are behind your failure, no bad-mouthing, please remember you accepted the thesis) and then I had to wait 6 months to start a new thesis with another advisor" is something that will be seen positively by future employers/PIs ...

"No one really cares what you did in your master thesis." That's golden --- I wish I'd known this at my master's.

@schrödingcöder well, the student must still care a lot about thesis! And decent advisors will still worry about the student not doing complete crap, but apart from that ...


text:
A quick process of peer-review?
I submitted my paper to a Taylor Francis Journal on Sept 21. Only recently it appeared out for review on Oct 25 and now shows reviews completed. I suspect that it will come out as a rejection. It seems to me not possible for a paper to be reviewed in ten days around.
Any thoughts?

Just wait till you get the decision. What else can we say?

I’ve had a paper accepted in 10 days… It does happen.

I’ve reviewed papers in four hours. Then when colleagues review mine they take months and months.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do I tell my postdoc host I’m looking for jobs outside academia?
I’m doing a postdoc in a STEM field in central Europe. I’ve been employed for a year, with a bit over a year of funding left on the contract. Over time, I have become less and less interested in continuing in academia, and I have now started looking for industry jobs.
My dilemma is that I don’t know if I should tell my postdoc host about it. We have a rather good relationship I think, but don’t work closely together on a day-to-day basis, and we have not had any proper career-conversations, just me sometime saying I will probably want to continue in academia, which is not true anymore. Best case scenario, I tell them I want to leave academia, they are supportive, and agree to write letters of recommendation and act as a job reference (which would be the main reason to let them know). However, I’m not sure that would be the case, and I genuinely can’t predict how they would react. The main reason I’m unsure is that I have several ongoing research projects, which would likely never be finished if I found a new job and left. No one else in the group does the same type of highly specialized research as I do, so no one would be able to “adopt” the project. Worst case scenario, they would be very disappointed if I tell them I am looking for other jobs, our relationship would go south, and they would not be interested in helping me in my career.
If I left early for another postdoc or an assistant professor, which I think is completely normal during a postdoc, we would be able to continue to collaborate, and I wouldn’t be hesitant to tell them. Same thing if I was close to the end of my contract. But since I want to leave academia, and leave my position early, I don’t know what to do/what is normal in this case. So the question is: do I tell my postdoc host I’m looking for jobs outside academia?

simple answer: no

The job of a postdoc is to get a job. Given the general state of hiring in academia, only supporting you if you apply to academic jobs is short sighted at best. And you have time to pass on your skills to the group (which should have started day one, but…).

My personal advice (as someone who has transitioned from a postdoc to industry) is that you should treat your postdoc like any other job. Generally it's a bad idea to announce you are looking for another job before you have a signed offer in hand, because it puts you in a very weak position. On the one hand, your host may be understanding and support you. On the other hand, they may look for a way to cut you out of the group. Either way, their reaction is not something you can control, and not a risk I would personally want to take.
I would not let the impact your departure will have on the work affect how you approach this situation. Ultimately that is not your responsibility. If the work is truly important to the PI and you are legitimately the only person who can do it, then they should hire you to do that work full time (I realize this isn't common in academia, but that's a flaw of the system you are working in). The fact that they haven't and won't is why you are in your current situation. I think it's more likely that either you are really not as irreplaceable as you think and the PI will find a student to get up to speed on what you've been doing, or it will turn out there is a path for the PI to achieve their main objectives without carrying on the direction you've been pursuing. Either way, the work and the PI will be fine. At the end of the day, there will be likely be some temporary pain associated with your departure, but that is completely normal ("part of the cost of doing business") and not your responsibility.
I think it's a good idea to leave on good terms if you can and try to give notice with some time to help finish off and/or transition work to others. But I don't think you should put yourself at risk to achieve that goal. Therefore, I think you should wait until you accept an offer to talk to your PI.

It is time for you to discuss your renewal contract and perspectives. You are not interested at the moment, but it would be good to discuss with your host now.
You do not have to expose yourself, but you have to know what they think. And they have to remember that you are there on a temporary basis, whatever contribution you can give to the group, can be given for the next 12 months only.
Academia people are rather irrational with respect to job hunting and financial planning. If you tell them you are looking for a job, there is a non-zero chance they will get it as a betrayal of you serving the higher good of progress of the humanity.
However, please remember that plenty of the inspiring manufactures and cultural heritages of the past (for example, the pyramids) are built on hard, unpaid slave work. And the humanity benefitting of unpaid work is incidental.

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


text:
Recommendation letter from a faculty who lost affiliation
I'm currently applying for the Ph.D. programs in the United States. My academic instructor has been notified that he violated some immigration regulations (he is not U.S. resident) and he lost his affiliation. Now he's in transition and applying for his next position.
We had very good collaboration and I know that he will write a strong letter for me. However I'm now a bit concerned that whether his letter will have any negative impact to my application, since faculties from other universities don't know his situation. I got different opinions on this problem and some people suggest me to re-consider whether I can use his letter.
So how will the faculties from other universities treat this case? Personally he told me that he don't think this would be an issue for my application. But I just don't know how others would think about it.
If there are some potential issues, what should I do to decrease the negative impact?

when you mention your references, in the cover letter or in the cv, just write "dr. xy, whatever at dept fff in uni zzz from 1995 to 2022".
If they know dr. xy, they will wonder what xy is doing now, if they do not know dr.xy they will understand the reason of the profile of dr. xy not appearing in the uni zz site.

I routinely write recommendations for students at an institution from which I have now retired.  "Mr. Smith was in my classes at Southern College of Technology from fall, 1997 until spring, 1999..."  SCT doesn't even exist any more, and I retired from its second successor institution.

If the letter writer adds a short note to their letter explaining the lack of affiliation at the moment then it should be fine. They don't need to explain any violations, but just that visa issues required their exit.
It shouldn't be construed as reflecting on you. It is individuals, however, who make their decisions, so it is impossible to give guarantees.
It isn't outside the range of possibility that the institution won't object if they use their former affiliation, provided they were in "good standing" when they left. But they should ask. An appeal on behalf of yourself would probably help. "I'd like to use U of X as affiliation for purposes of writing a letter of recommendation for Y".

To “use U of X as affiliation” is to claim that you are employed at U of X or at least have an official title without salary there. Are you suggesting that the letter writer should ask for such a title?

@DanRomik, something like that, yes. The interaction between the OP and the student occurred when there was an official affiliation. The university has an interest in the future of a student. The letter writer could, of course, make that claim. "I was an instructor/professor/whatever at U of X and ...". I would be improper to claim affiliation without permission, of course.

Right, the interaction occurred when there was an affiliation, so the letter writer can truthfully write “I was a professor at X when I worked with OP”. They cannot truthfully claim (or imply using titles, letterheads etc) an affiliation in the present, nor is this something any institution would ever give permission to do.

A letter from a person who appears to be unemployed (and is technically unemployed) can indeed be less effective than a letter from a person with a stable academic position. Unless the researcher is so well-known that they can count on their reputation preceding them anywhere the letter is sent, the fact that they can sign the letter only with their name and no “Professor” title, and the fact that they cannot use an institutional letterhead, are all things that seem likely to limit the effectiveness of the recommendation, due to either conscious or subconscious bias. By how much exactly, it seems impossible to say.
One way to try to mitigate the harm is for the letter writer to provide a concise and clear explanation of their situation and the reason why they do not hold a position. The explanation has to come from the letter writer, not from you. (They are vouching for you, so it’d be pretty strange if you first of all had to vouch for them in order for their recommendation to appear credible...)
Moreover, the explanation has to be of a fairly innocuous nature if you want this harm-reduction approach to work. For example, the person leaving their job because of health reasons would qualify. “Violated some immigration regulations” could mean all sorts of things, and maybe some of them are innocuous (in which case the explanation should be more specific), but I wouldn’t count on everyone seeing things that way; immigration in the US is a sensitive topic on which people hold diverse views.
Basically, if there is anything about this person’s behavior that led them to lose their job that you think some people might find objectionable, then you are probably better off getting a letter of recommendation from someone else.
Good luck!

Hi, thanks for your kind suggestion! I talked to my letter writer earlier and he said that he will state the employment status in his letter (he was a prof in U of X but has left), but he doesn't think it's necessary to explain the reason in my letter, which he thinks is irrelevant to my research. Should I ask him to provide another short letter as supplementary material to briefly explain that his violation was innocuous?
He think using his previous affiliation in apply portal would not be a big problem, as he was in good standing when he left. I'm not sure.

@CZ.H I’m starting to get a sense of how this person got in immigration trouble. He seems to be lacking in common sense, otherwise he would not be proposing to state an incorrect affiliation in an official document that might have serious consequences for you, and possibly for him as well. Anyway, you have my sympathies for having this unpleasant dilemma, but I can’t say what you should do, sorry.

I think the apply portal is just collecting the information for statistical/ the records. If your profile is deemed interesting, they will read in detail your cover letter and you can put there the last known affiliation of your reference.
Even if the affiliation in the apply portal would bear some importance, evidently your referee is not the bigStar from bigName uni, so it will not help you in any meaningful way. Do not give false informations. Do not give unnnecessary informations. The referee is not anymore affiliated with a institution X, but they were when you worked with them!!

@DanRomik If the organization is a required term, can I just write "U of X (Last known affiliation)"? Would this annotated one be more legitimate? Thanks, it's very important to me as I really have to be cautious with my application....

Sure, it’s because it’s important that I am urging a high level of caution. If you need to fill in his affiliation, then your suggestion with “last known affiliation” makes sense. As @EarlGrey said, give correct information. Good luck!


text:
How different are the industry jobs specific to Ph.D vs jobs where both Ph.D/MS are hired?
(I am not sure if this is an academia question. So feel free to flag/take it down if this is not the right forum to ask)
My question is specific to the context of Computer Science/Computer Engineering in the US. I assume industries hire graduate degree holders for positions where the degree requirement is:

(1) MS or Ph.D, or

(2) only Ph.D

Even with the second category (2) "Only Ph.D" I assume (again) there could be 2 types of jobs :

(2.1) Research based roles

(2.2) Engineering/development role with no research component.

My question is: What makes (2.2) special that it needs a Ph.D and so cannot be done with an MS?
Again, I could be over-simplifying things here and over-assuming (or even plain wrongly assuming), but since I haven't had such industry exposure, I am just very curious to understand how things work in the industry for Ph.D graduates.

Jobs in (2.2) aren't really in our wheelhouse; we are mostly researchers and/or instructors. You might try [workplace.SE], though you should read their rules before posting, you might need to rephrase. But moreover: do you have some examples of actual jobs in category 2.2, or are you just imagining that there might be jobs in this category? I would be surprised to learn that there are many such jobs in reality.

I am probably imagining (2.2), or just rewritten (1) as (2.2) , in which case (2.2) gets invalidated from even being a part of (2). I will post it in "The Workplace" and get back. I never knew a "The Workplace" stack exchange existed. Thanks!

Degree requirements are usually minimums. I hire masters and PhDs (I don’t do medical/bio so I’ve never seen an MD applicant) for R&D jobs from the same posting requirements. Do you meet the posting requirements? Apply, and make sure you highlight how you meet the desired attributes as well.


text:
Was imposter syndrome common in the previous decades among PhD students?
As its quite apparent from many online discussion forums and also in-person conversations, a lot many Ph.D students seem to have impostor syndrome, of course in varying degrees. We hear statements like:

I don't think I am cut out for research, although my advisor thinks I'm quite capable
The paper that I worked on and got published - I don't think it deserves to be published, although my advisor was quite impressed by the work.
If only someone smart had a crack at this problem, they would have figured out a workable solution much faster

and so on.
My theory on this is that, this should be a recent trend largely influenced by sites such as LinkedIn/Google Scholar where academic and research achievements are now publicized and easily accessible, giving room for a lot of unnecessary self-critical evaluations and comparisons. I'm curious to know from senior researches/academics if the imposter syndrome was common among students even, say in the 70's or 80's, or is it just a recent trend.

From WP: The term impostor phenomenon was introduced in an article published in 1978, titled "The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention" by Pauline R. Clance and Suzanne A. Imes. Clance and Imes defined impostor phenomenon as "an internal experience of intellectual phoniness" and initially focused their research on women in higher education and professional industries. A place to start?

It was not uncommon, it just didn’t have a single catchy name.

+1 I think it's a good question to ask. Maybe it could be complemented by considering if imposter syndrome is uniform across countries and disciplines

Not enough for a full answer, but: the number of scientists and people with an advanced degree is skyrocketing, the competition in academia becomes fierce (see e.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800478115 for some details). I find it evident that there is a recent trend indeed, but do not know if there are good estimates of its scale.

Of course. All the more for beginners who'd been over-achievers "at home", and managed to get to elite places... oop, where not only were all the other students amazingly good, but the faculty were from a small subset of those amazingly good people from an earlier generation, who'd had decades of experience. Inspiring, but humbling, to get to such an environment.

@paulgarrett Well said, Paul. This is about how I felt at the IMA ;)

@Clumsycat You have raised a very good point. Not sure about countries, but the distribution over disciplines cannot be uniform. My experience in academia suggests that it is more typical for bona fide disciplines, and is nonexistent (even unknown) in various "critical studies".

Almost 30 years ago, after my defense (or defenCe -- for it was in England), I felt so ashamed of my dummy self and my research that I didn't even celebrate.
My complexes were amplified by the fact that in the country of my origin the standards for PhD dissertations in STEM were, those days, extraordinarily high -- a tradition established by Kolmogorov, Gelfand, Landau & Lifshits. and other titans. This contributed a lot to my misery.
It is only some 5 or 6 years down the road, and after more publishing, that inside my mind I pronounced myself PhD.
Years later, after I found that my PhD research was still being cited, I realised that my inferiority complexes were unfounded. Also, having been on several defense committees in several countries, I eventually came to peace with myself and gave to my thesis a fair grade: not outstanding but passable.
My case was not unusual. I knew a fellow who was so ashamed of this PhD research that he STOLE his thesis from the university library (it was before the digitisation era). He eventually became a well-cited scholar, but his impostor complexes were at that time even stronger than mine.
I conclude the story with Whitney Young's quote which, in my opinion, explains why we should never yield to the impostor syndrome:
“The truth is that there is nothing noble in being superior to somebody else. The only real nobility is in being superior to your former self.”
Keep on with your work. Do not measure yourself against others. Do what you can.

I never thought that the feeling lingers on even after you pass the defense! This is an interesting and useful answer along with some historic perspective.

TL;DR
Imposter syndrome for scientists isn't weird. The pressure upon scientists nowadays have probably led to unprecedented levels of imposter syndrome though.
There have been massive shifts in expectation, including managing science by quantifying output (and putting targets on output numbers). On top of that, the world has become much more competitive - scientific output increases exponentially, as Lodinn pointed out in their comment. That points to a lessened effect in earlier times.
On the other hand, the nature of a scientist is not to be sure, but to question their knowledge continuously. That points to a still-existing effect in earlier times.
Overall, I'm sure imposter syndrome in science has been around ever since it was called science. I would also argue that the changes since the 80s/90s/2000s have led to a much more industrialised and competitive approach to science, in which imposter syndrome would be much more common.

(1) The environment changed
You wonder about how things were in the 70s and 80s. I would argue that that is not a fair comparison, given how the world has changed. The world is massively more connected right now, and there have been foundational shifts in how academia is governed - at least, in some countries, but I wager in most. Case in point: full professors used to be appointed by the Queen in The Netherlands. That made it impossible for their host institution to fire them - you cannot overrule the Queen. So they got rid of that rule, somewhere in the 80s I believe.
More pertinent to your question: there has been an enormous increase on managing quantifiable aspects of research. I am not positive when that started. Likely, it varies from country to country - my guess for Netherlands (where I know the academic system reasonably well) is that this started in the 90s. I know of a full professor sent on early retirement due to lack of publications in mid-90s at least.
Again in The Netherlands, managing academia by quantification received an enormous boost around the end of the 2000s. The Minister of Education reapportioned a large part of science funding from institutional funding to project-based funding.
Before that change, research groups in NL had funding to appoint PhD students and postdocs themselves. Afterwards, they only had funding for permanent staff; money for temporary positions was contingent upon project acquisition. This led to a very competitive environment - not just for grants, but also for staff positions. Universities started setting quota's and expectations on scientific output and (later, after the former was being gamed) on scientific impact.
Such changes lead to increased pressures on PhD students. E.g.: the better the PhD student performs, the better the project turns out, the easier to attract further grants, the more secure your job, the better your chances for promotion, etc.
Now that's all a Dutch perspective; nevertheless I wager that similar processes occurred elsewhere. For example, Peter Higgs (after whom the elementary particle was named that was found by the LHC) said in an interview that he'd probably been fired for lack of output if he hadn't been nominated for a Nobel prize (in the Guardian).
(2) The nature of science is to question knowledge
A second aspect is that the nature of science is to question knowledge. A famous example of not doing this happened in 189 by famous scientist Lord Kelvin, when he said "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." He lived to regret his words with the advent of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...
Side bar aside: scientists are trained to question knowledge - even established knowledge. Basically, the internal monologue "is that truly so? If so: show me the proof!" should be ingrained into a scientist early in their career. It is not at all weird to then apply that to other aspects than merely the research one is performing. That can easily lead to questioning the validity of one's career. The tough part is that while there is likely evidence that someone is a decent scientist, that is not the same as conclusive proof. Add to that the hyper-competitive world we find ourselves in nowadays, both within academia and without, on social media, and it is not weird for anyone's best available evidence against imposter syndrome not to be convincing to a scientist whose basic nature it is to question if the evidence is sufficient.
My conclusions
I cannot give you a complete account of how the academic world functioned in the 70s/80s. However, in the 70s and 80s, far less papers were published. Moreover, universities weren't (at least, not everywhere) run as if only offering a desk for permanent staff to set up their own grant-attracting shop. While it is in the nature of scientists to doubt (and thus: doubt their own value), I do think the societal and managerial changes since the 70s have changed science careers such that they continuously have to validate their own existence nowadays.
In short: Imposter syndrome for scientists isn't weird. The pressure upon scientists nowadays have probably led to unprecedented levels of imposter syndrome though.


text:
What is the difference between a MSc in Mathematics, a MSc in Applied Mathematics, and a MSc in Applied and Computational Mathematics?
I'm interested in how a MSc in Mathematics, MSc in Applied Mathematics, and MSc in Applied and Computational Mathematics compare in terms of content, but also in terms of how they are perceived and the opportunities they create. Can all three make you a qualified candidate to teach math at the community college level? I would like to keep open the possibility of one day getting into a PhD program in mathematics, how would having a MSc in Applied and Computational Mathematics affect one's chances of being accepted as compared to the other MSc programs?

What matters more than the title of the degree is the content. What topics are you interested in studying? For example, when you say you want to have a chance to do a PhD in mathematics, are you considering applied or pure mathematics? Do you know which specific area or areas within those broad categories you are most interested in?

@Andrew I like the core subjects, but I do like the applied stuff a little more. The content in the applied and computational program looks interesting, but I noticed it's often offered by engineering departments, and I'm afraid that if someday I want to teach at a community college they will say that doesn't count as a math degree. I'd also like to keep open the possibility of applying for a PhD program (mathematical physics or differential geometry type stuff). I'm worried that a MSc in Applied and Computational Math isn't respected in the same way as the others?

What country are you intending to study and work in? I can add additional advice with that information.

@Buffy thank you very much for your answer. I tried to upvote it, but it says I need more experience to do that. I'm an experienced high school math teacher in the United States. I have two goals (a) become qualified to teach community college and dual credit courses, and (b) Keep open the possibility of being accepted into a mathematics phd program in the future.

@Buffy (continued from above...) I would mainly be pursuing the PhD for my own satisfaction, probably in an area adjacent to mathematical physics. So I'm looking at two options with the aim of opening the right doors -- I could enroll in a very affordable MSc Pure Math program at a lower ranking regional school, or I could enroll in a much more expensive MSc in Applied and Computational Mathematics program at a higher profile school. I don't mind the extra cost if it better advances the goals. I could also do neither of these and keep looking for something else. What do you think?

In the US, if you want a doctorate, apply for that. There is no need to do a masters first. And a doctorate opens many more doors. See: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368

@Buffy well I think you need to have a record of success and some connections for letters of recommendation if you want a chance to be accepted into a PhD program so that's why I was planning to get a Masters first. Also it's the secondary goal. The first goal is to become qualified to each community college and dual credit classes.

Here is my perspective as someone who was the Graduate Coordinator in my mathematics department (at University of Georgia), hence principally involved in graduate admission.  It is:
I am rather clear on the distinction between mathematics and applied mathematics: the latter is a subset of the former; its complement is "pure mathematics." However one could point to some disputed territories here.  I am less clear on the difference between applied mathematics and "applied and computational mathematics."  In some areas of mathematics, if you put "computational" in front of it, it need not be applied: this tends to be true in more algebraic areas, e.g. computational number theory.  In other areas of mathematics, appending "computational" does seem to make it applied: e.g. computational PDEs is usually considered applied mathematics.  In my opinion, this again serves to illustrate that the pure/applied distinction may not mean as much as we think.
How does a master's degree in one of these three areas look?  I think all three master's degrees look virtually identical, in particular for trying to get a job at a community college but also for every other purpose I can think of.  The distinction between one institution versus another is more important than the name of the degree...and what you actually learned is much more important than both of these.

Mathematics (pure math) implies that the study is to advance mathematics itself. New theories, new areas of study, etc.
Applied mathematics implies that mathematics is being used to solve problems in other domains, business, biology, astronomy, whatever. The list is long and varied. Such study might occasionally lead to advances in math, but that isn't normally the intent.
Computational applied mathematics is like applied math, but uses a fusion of ideas from both math and computing for the solution of problems from, usually, other domains. That might be something like machine learning, for example.
There is a fourth possibility, actually, which is the use of computational techniques to solve problems within math itself. A couple of important theorems were solved at least partially in this way: The Four Color Theorem and work related to Fermat's Last Theorem.
For later doctoral study mathematics itself would probably be best, though there are some departments/universities that have a combined faculty so you can choose. For industry, computational applied math would probably be best since you learn a lot of useful tools for industrial application.
At the community college level any will probably do fine, since the coursework of students in introductory.


text:
I accidently filled out wrong designation for letter of recommendation
In my application form, I filled out the staff's designation as "Associate Professor" but in the recommendation form that my faculty filled out for me, she mentioned her designation as "Professor" which is the correct one.
I am worried whether this would make my recommendation look suspicious and be denied an admission based on this.

This seems like a simple mistake and a minor thing. Update the information if possible, perhaps with a separate communication, but don't worry about it.
You will be accepted or rejected based on much more fundamental and important things.
I'd guess that such things happen often enough when someone is on the verge of promotion in any case. The professor's letter might actually mention their current academic rank, in fact.
Relax.


text:
Mistakes in calculation found after submission of a manuscript
I submitted a paper recently to a journal. In that paper I showed some calculations and compared some experimental results with the calculations. The calculations show good agreement with the experimental results. After submitting the paper I realized that there are some mistakes in the representation of some equations in the calculation but the final result of the calculations is correct because these are some standard calculations which have been done by other authors previously with some variations. Now I don't know what to do ? Will the paper be rejected ?

It might be rejected as any paper might be. Contact the editor, pointing out that there are errors that you don't believe affect the outcome. Ask for advice. You might be able to withdraw the paper and then submit a corrected version, but the editor will have advice.
Another possibility is that reviewers will suggest corrections for a revised version. This isn't the first such incident that the editor has dealt with.
"It ain't over 'til its over" (Famous NY advice from Yogi Berra).


text:
Difference between literature review and introduction part of a research proposal
I have started writing a research proposal on a topic of my interest. I am confused about the difference between the introduction and literature review sections. What I have observed so far by going through some proposals that the introduction part also contains some review of the subject. This means that there is some similarity between the two sections. Then what are the main differences between the two topics ?

If you follow the golden advice that the introduction is the last part of a research article (or thesis, or any writing) to write, then it will make much more sense. Even though the introduction is the first thing that the reader reads, it should be the last thing that the writer writes. I'll explain why shortly.
The purpose of the literature review is to situate your work in the context of other academic research. Its purpose is NOT primarily to summarize all related research (contrary to what some might say); its purpose is to show how your work complements and extends the literature. The literature review section should only summarize work that shows three main things:

What scholars have done so far to resolve the research question that you are treating, or very closely related research questions;
Clearly show that past research has not sufficiently resolved your specific research question.
Frame the specific shortcomings or opportunities in the literature that your work aims to resolve or at least extend.

When I write a background literature review, I try to focus only on these points and leave out anything that does not clearly serve these points. Otherwise, it becomes long and rambling and distracts from the value of the current work, rather than helping it.
With that understood, the purpose of the introduction is to show your reader that your work successfully treats an important problem, thus the full article is worth reading. A general formula that I use for my introductions is something like this:

Show how the topic is important in the practitioner world beyond academia.
Summarize scholars' attempts so far to address the problem. This is essentially a summary of the literature review section (which is why the literature review should be written before the introduction, or else you don't know what to summarize).
Briefly but clearly present my research objective or research question.
Summarize the methodology and procedures that I used to carry out the research objective.
Summarize the major contributions of the study (contributions to scholars and to practice).
Brief outline of the structure of the rest of the article.

I hope it is now clear that an article that follows a similar approach will have a brief summary of the literature review section in the introduction and then an expanded literature review in a subsequent section, often soon after the introduction. Since an introduction is essentially an extended abstract of the entire article, part of it should include a summary of the literature review section.

Very helpful and insightful answer! Thank you!


text:
Can I use abbreviations for some chapters while using the full word for others in a thesis?
I'm writing a thesis now and I would like to know if it is wrong to introduce an abbreviation in the first or second chapter and then in another chapter use the full version. I want to use the full version or else the current chapter I'm writing would be full of abbreviations and it would look bad imo, but there's also a rule for my thesis that I should be coherent with notation along the document.

First, remember that at the heart of good writing is an understanding, and respect for, the capabilities of the reader. The value of rules about writing is that they can help to guide you in the right direction .. but sticking to hard to a so-called rule might well lead you to come unstuck and lose your reader. That's definitely not something you want in a thesis. You want your reader to say at the end, "That was a joy to read, it was so easy to follow."
So, a good rule of thumb for a paper (not a thesis) is that if you only use an abbreviation once or twice, perhaps even three times, in the whole paper and you are not constrained by a word limit, then do not use, or even announce, the abbreviation at all.
However, as you will have experienced yourself, abbreviations can help to make writing seem less turgid by reducing the number of words that a reader has to cross in order to grasp an idea ...  but they only work if the reader has a good idea of what they mean. If an abbreviation is not use frequently, and in a way that reinforces the idea that it abbreviates, then it can be a hindrance rather than a help
Weighing up the issues in the two paragraphs above, I suggest that you treat each chapter of your thesis as if it were a paper on its own. Thus, if the abbreviation would only occur a couple of times in a chapter, then don't use it at all; just write the words out in full. On the other hand, if it would occur many times in a chapter because it is central to the ideas and argument of the chapter, then by all means use the abbreviation but be sure to re-announce the abbreviation the first time you use it in a chapter.
One of the advantages of following this practice is that thesis markers often read theses in pieces (frequently chapters!) rather than at a single sitting. If you follow the suggestion above, then a marker/examiner who reads a chapter one day that has abbreviations in it, reads a chapter without abbreviations the next day, and is then faced with a new chapter with abbreviations, they will have a nice gentle reminder about what the abbreviations mean.
Theses and books, are not the same as journal papers, and there are very good reasons for adapting the style that you might use for a journal to better suit your thesis.

Here is a trick I learned while I was writing my own thesis. Create a bookmark on some light card, perhaps about 4 cm wide and a little shorter than page length. On it, create a table of important abbreviations that you use in the thesis. Laminate the bookmark, and use a narrow ribbon to tie it into the binding or spine at the top of the thesis. It will help the examiner not to lose their place while they read the thesis, and they will have a handy guide if ever they do get confused about an abbreviation. A happy examiner is a good thing.


text:
How does working with other people in math actually look like?
I'm about to finish an undergraduate degree in mathematics, and I want to do research in mathematics, so naturally I'm looking into postgraduate study options. I'm quite stressed about this, and I was thinking about what I want in an institution to continue my studies, and I came to the conclusion that all I want is a sufficient stipend and freedom from major hurdles. The issue is, I look around me and see people having collaborations and talking to each other, and none of that is happening to me. My experience with talking to people about math is full of experiences like:

Professor presents a concept in class. I ask a question about it, and he says he doesn't know and will look it up and tell me. This never happens. I eventually research the topic and manage to figure out on my own, and it's not hard. This one has happened 3 or 4 times.

I'm taking a graduate level class and the evaluation is an open ended assignment, and after completing it the professor tells me mine was the best in class, and tells me she wants to talk to me about it later. This never happens.

I think of an elementary problem, and an idea to solve it. I think the idea looks promising, and mention it to a professor who does research in the area. He tells me it's interesting and encourages me to look into open problems, but doesn't give me any sources to read or mention it ever again.

I have an undergraduate project to study a topic under the supervision of a professor. I'm supposed to present what I've studied to the supervisor once a week, and by the time I've covered the basics and advanced on to things that he doesn't know, the advisor looks clearly disinterested and doesn't notice when I make errors.

I have another project like above with another supervisor. He is more interested than the previous one, but often insults me saying things like "I'm happy you're finally going to learn some mathematics" and telling me his other students are better than me.

A classmate and I decide to study together, usually before a test. We ask each other to solve some exercises we weren't able to do by ourselves, and I'm able to solve some of theirs, but they aren't able to solve any of mine. They aren't ever interested in discussing math in other contexts.

I ask a question in class, usually about the intuition behind a certain object. The professor gives a curt and unhelpful response. I eventually manage to figure it out reading a book or watching a lecture on youtube. I notice that the professor obviously knew how to give a good answer but chose not to for some reason.

I attend a conference in a prestigious university far away with lots of famous mathematicians. I can't understand any of the talks, and while I manage to have good conversations with some of the people there, none of them are actually about math.

To me, mathematics has always been a thing that has happened between me and a book or a computer. I have an article published with a novel proof of a classical result, and when that happened I was incredibly happy, and I want to feel that more times. I really do love math, but to me academia is little more than an someone who is willing to pay me to do research. This makes me concerned. I feel like other people are getting opportunities to collaborate with each other that I'm not getting for some reason that I can't understand. It isn't any of the obvious reasons you might imagine, my grades are "excellent" according to everyone who has opined, I got grants that only a small minority of students get, and my professors and classmates often praise me. Even that professor who said I didn't know any mathematics said in a recommendation letter (which I had to see for bureaucratic reasons) that I was "the best student [he] met in [his] carreer".
The immediate decision I have to take is whether I want to go to the university that will give me a PhD for the least amount of effort, or if I want to take more conventional considerations into account. For example, I'm considering choosing a PhD advisor who I know will be absent all of the time. But deeper than that, I feel like I need to understand what is going wrong, and whether I can (or want to) fix it.

A lot of your examples involve a senior figure saying they are interested in what you are doing but not following up, which I think is an example of you misreading the situation. It's your responsibility to follow up, not theirs! What they are likely saying is "If you demonstrate persistence to continue working on this, then I will make the time to support that effort." If you want to collaborate with others, you have to do the work of managing the relationship as well as the mathematical work.

Is this for US study or elsewhere?

One point: if a more senior person says they'd be happy to work with you, then the style in U.S. seems to be that it's up to you to follow up. You can imagine that senior people meet many good junior people...

First thing to keep in mind is that it is very rare for an undergraduate student to have the inclination and aptitude to engage in mathematical research. As such, it is unsurprising that you were unsuccessful in finding people to talk math research with amongst your peers. This will also colour the expectations of faculty members you are engaging with.
As Zach H already pointed out in the comments, your first three examples should be read as invitations to you to arrange further contact and talk more. Following up is on you. This is particularly true for the second example.
A PhD advisor is committing to much more than an undergraduate project advisor, and typically has much more freedom in this choice. I would expect the typical PhD advisor to be far more interested in their students projects than the typical undergraduate advisor.
In my personal experience, most mathematicians are very kind people. I advise staying away from toxic personalities, better mentors are out there. (Details of "How to find a good mentor/PhD supervisor" are another question that depends on the system and has been asked before).
It takes quite a while to get to the point where you understand conference talks.

It's hard to respond to your experiences point by point without much more information than you can provide, so I will offer an answer in general terms.
You seem to be a good mathematics student, capable of independent work. You should do that work as part of the mathematics community, not with an advisor who will leave you alone, not at an institution where you can get your degree with the least amount of effort.
I would probably recommend that you apply at a good school (look for guidance from professors you know). In your first year or two you will mostly take courses. Pay attention to which professors work in areas that interest you, and talk to more senior graduate students about how they work with their advisors.
PS As for not understanding talks at a conference at a prestigious place - join the club. It's quite common. The talks are often highly technical, designed to communicate with active researchers in the field.

How do I know that a non-absent graduate institution and advisor won't just waste my time like the undergraduate ones?

You don't know anything until you've investigated. But you can talk to a potential advisor's current (maybe past) students to find out what their experience is (was)  like. Your PhD advisor's job is to work with you on your project. That's not regularly part of the job of your undergraduate faculty contacts.


text:
Can I ask a friend who works as a therapist for recommendation letter for grad degree to become a therapist?
I am applying for a Masters in Clinical Mental Health Counseling to become a therapist. I'm looking for a third recommendation for my application, and I have a friend who works as a therapist. We did church service together for 6 months and worked closely with her. I know it's generally not a great idea to ask a friend for a recommendation, but since we've worked together in some capacity and she's working in my chosen field, I wondered if she would be a good recommender. Any advice?

Look at it from the point of view of the recipient of the letter.
(1) What can the letter writer say about your aptitude for the studies and the benefits of giving you this education?
Your friend seems to be OK, but not great on this. You worked in a therapy related situation together.
(2) Is the person trustworthy?
This gives points to educators and employers, who are assumed to be trustworthy, but your friend looses out a bit. Your friend would need to explain the relationship well. Since your friend is a therapist, (s)he is expected to be honest, but assumed to be biased.
If you have already two other letters from more traditional sources, you should be fine. After all, no letter writer can guarantee that you do well in your studies and in your professional work afterwards.


text:
Manuscript rejected after all reviewers indicate it is "good match" to publish in journal. Is this common?
Just got a surprising rejection from an IEEE journal. For the following question in the reviewer form (which is usually the last one to give their overall recommendation I think), all 3 reviewers have responded as:
"How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good match"
One reviewer attached a PDF with their feedback and explicitly proposed that the paper be published in the journal.
Some reviewers have raised usual minor questions/feedback and kindly offered "some relevant" papers to be added to my reference list, the normal stuff that can be addressed in a revision. Nothing major like incorrect methodology, more study/simulations needed, extend it like this, that is wrong, etc. Nothing.
Email from AE: Your paper has merit, but based on reviews is not recommended for publication. Recommend you to improve based on reviewer comments and send elsewhere.
No other reason given. No rebuttal/response, no major revision/minor revision, no reject and resubmit. I know some IEEE journals only do accept/reject, but this is not one of them.
Is it the right IEEE journal to send to? I should think so because the reviewers seem to think so also by saying it is a good match, and because it has published papers in exactly the same field before.

Is this common? Has anyone else had this experience (i.e. reviewers unanimously saying the paper is a good match to publish but still a rejection from AE)?

Is it any use to request clarification/appeal? If so, should I write up a rebuttal for the reviewers feedback as well and attach that, in the hopes that if there WAS anything from the reviews that led to the decision, I would have a response to it? Or is that just a waste of time?

“Good match” means it’s in scope, but doesn’t say whether it is a good or interesting paper. They might have been asked to privately indicate whether to accept or reject the paper and might have recommended rejection due to it simply not being significant or interesting enough.

@Significance, the feedback is as I've mentioned in my question: "How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?: good match" . I don't see the question asking about scope. Would it be appropriate for publication if it wasn't good or interesting? And none of the other feedback really says it isn't.

@Significance, also if we assume somehow that "good match" refers to scope, why is the AE suggesting that I improve the paper and submit it "elsewhere" to a different journal? If the issue was the interestingness or goodness of it by adding more studies, etc, a "reject and resubmit" could've been given, where I am asked to make it more interesting/good and resubmit it.

@CWT It's reasonable to suggest things to improve a paper but the interestingness is a bit more core to the project (plus a heavy influence of external factors). If you could have made the paper more interesting that's absolutely something you should have done before submission.

@BryanKrause, fair enough. Though I am suggesting a new mathematical model in my paper, so exploring additional more interesting applications could have been a feedback maybe to hint at that. However, none of the reviews (which at least are visible to me, unless something was said in private) have said that it is not interesting. And even acknowledging that interestingness cannot be improved, surely the question "How would you rate the appropriateness of this paper for publication in this IEEE Transaction?" would encompass this aspect.

@DanielR.Collins, I have seen that question before posting mine, however I think the context is quite different. The manuscript in that question is related to expanding a conference proceeding paper and submitting it to a journal's special issue. One answer points out that this could have been the cause of the rejection. My manuscript was for a regular paper. I was wondering if anyone in the community has faced this, how common it is and what their experience was (the poster of that question certainly has faced it in regards to an extended conference paper submission to a special issue).

@CWT It's not the reviewers' job to find interesting applications of your model.

@BryanKrause, did you read my comment? I said that if they felt it was not interesting, providing feedback like "author needs to explore more interesting applications of proposed model" could be a hint at the paper not being interesting enough. I did NOT say it is their job to find interesting applications for my model - I am sufficiently aware that it isn't.

@CWT That's still not their job. They're evaluating the paper in front of them. That's a big enough job without proposing ways to make it more interesting or imaging a different paper that could be in front of them but is not.

@CWT It may not be the applications but the model itself that they find not sufficiently interesting. You’ve quoted comments like “slightly novel”, which suggests that is indeed the problem. If the model itself is not more than slightly novel, though there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it, then “reject and encourage submitting to a journal with lower standards for novelty” is the only sensible decision. There’s nothing they can ask you to fix or improve: it’s just not interesting/novel enough.

@BryanKrause, not sure why you are fixated on telling me what their job is while I am trying to understand the feedback they have given. I am saying they have not mentioned the manuscript is interesting either directly or indirectly (by suggesting the author try different applications). You say the latter isn't their job (not that I said it was, I am saying that feedback wasn't provided whether it was their job or not). But great if it isn't. Is the former at least not their job? I.e. to directly say the paper isn't interesting enough to be published? Because that wasn't done either.

Typo in comment: I am saying they have not mentioned the manuscript is *not interesting either directly or indirectly...

@CWT Reviewers are very unlikely to say that a a paper isn’t interesting enough because there isn’t much that authors can do to fix that, so it’s just mean. Rating a paper as only “slightly novel”, though is a fairly direct way of saying the same thing.

@Significance, the reviewer who has said "The paper has new and interesting results and I propose that it be published in this journal, but some concerns to address are..." is one of the reviewers who have said it is "slightly novel", so maybe it is an indirect way of saying uninteresting, maybe it isn't, I don't know. Just a personal opinion: it would be so much more helpful if reviewers were direct, clear, to the point rather than excessively polite. Getting rejected without a clear reason/critique seems meaner and more personal than getting rejected with one.

My guess is that the editor has decided your paper is not as interesting as other submissions and suggests you try a journal with a lower impact.  If you agree, you can send to a lower-impact journal.  If you disagree, you can send to another journal at this level or higher.
If you are not getting rejections some of the time, you are not submitting to high-enough journals.  Rejections are a normal part of academic life.  Be glad that our rage and disappointment is not televised, as in "the agony of defeat" at the Olympics.  Find a void into which to scream.  Learn how long your rage lasts.  Wait it out. Then resubmit elsewhere.
Appeals are generally a waste of time.  They consume months with a low probability of success.  The exception is if the review process was really bad.  Like an experimental paper sent to three theoreticians for review or a reviewer commenting on a version of the manuscript that does not match the submitted version.

Thanks Terry. Appreciate your answer about the likelihood of a successful appeal. It indirectly answers my second question about whether I should reach out to the AE for clarification and whether I should write a rebuttal of whatever feedback the reviewers have given. I suspected it wasn't worth the effort and your answer has helped me decide that.

This is definitely not common. If all the reviewers are positive, odds are your manuscript is accepted as well. But it can happen.
Assuming they're responsive & the reviews are as positive as you think they are (are they actually positive, as opposed to merely not negative?), there's no harm done in asking them if they didn't make a mistake. They could for example have sent the wrong decision or editor comments. If they say no, you can still submit elsewhere.

Thanks for your answer. Regarding novelty, I don't see any major concerns raised: "Sufficiently novel", "Although paper is interesting, some concerns to be addressed are...", "Slightly novel", "New and interesting results, I propose it be published", "Somewhat novel", "Slightly novel". I don't see any reviewer outright saying it is not novel or interesting, two have actually said it IS interesting. The third has called it "a smooth paper" (I'm guessing that's praise?).
Should I write up a response to the reviewer feedback and sending it? Honestly feel disheartened and think it'll be a waste.

I am not sure that all the referees' comments were positive, but you might be right.  I think some of them were damning by faint praise. I think the OP needs to talk to someone in their research area.  The conventions of referee reports vary greatly by area.

Yes, as @TerryLoring comments, a superficially polite way of being negative is to "damn by faint praise"... without being helpful or constructive in any way.

@CWT So you got four reviews? With 2x"Slightly Novel" and 1x"Somewhat novel" it's quite likely that the editor decided not to go forward with your paper because the papers that they end up publishing get better ratings. It may not look like a major concern to you, but if the competition is better, it actually is.

Four reviews isn't common.  It suggests that the editor sent it out to an additional reviewer after getting mixed reviews.

@DCTLib, to clarify, not 4 reviews. I just listed whatever was written with the word "novel", one reviewer has mentioned "somewhat novel" in his written review as well. But I take your point that my manuscript could have lost out to competition. Thanks.


text:
Is it better for a PhD student not to publish than to publish in non-Q1 journals (as I've been advised)?
I've completed 2 years of my PhD and now have a few ideas which I would really like to work on and publish, but though they are novel, their scope is quite limited (i.e. they aren't ground-breaking). I don't feel confident sending them to Q1 journals and it'll likely just be a waste of time. I want to nail down a couple of journal papers quickly because I'm starting to panic over my lack of publications (only one conference paper so far).
I do think they would easily get into Q2 journals and I want to at least publish them there so that they don't get taken and so I can point towards them during my examination in the event that a future submission to a Q1 is still under review by then. However, my advisor essentially prevents me from doing this and wants me to dedicate my time wholly and completely towards work that would contribute towards Q1 publications (which I don't yet even have an idea for!). Given the low acceptance rates, getting a paper into a Q1 journal even with a good idea can sometimes come down to luck because it would be up against other researchers who have worked decades in the field. But his reasoning for this is that that if the research isn't published in a Q1 journal, then it is not PhD worthy research and will actually harm me in my PhD assessment. Is this true? What should I do?

Is your dissertation a collection of published papers (stapled thesis) or a single unified work? I'm assuming your field is math. Yes?

My field is electronics engineering. I do have the option of phd by publication from the university, but I think there needs to be more than a particular number of papers for that (I forget how many). I'm more concerned about, for example, ending up in my examination with one conf paper and one q1 paper still in review (because they can take months) - basically nothing to show.

When I last checked these rankings, in my area (Logic) the best journal was ranked Q2, whereas the Q1-ranked journals were weird no-name ones.

I see downvotes for this question, but no comments about why the question deserves to be downvoted. Why the negative votes?

I'm guessing that the downvoters are expressing the fact (stated in the comments) that the rankings you are referring to don't seem to be meaningul (at least, they don't agree with expert opinion).

@DavidKetcheson, I wish my supervisor was of the same opinion that the rankings aren't very meaningful :-)

First, you need to check the examination criteria of your university.  Do the criteria explicitly say you need to have accepted/published papers in order to graduate?   Second, aiming for Q1 journals is always good.  However, the supervisor plays a critical role here.  Does he/she know how to publish in such journals? if not, your path to Q1 journals will be much harder -- i.e., you will make mistakes that cost you time.

@Prof.SantaClaus, thanks for the reply and perspective. One of the problems is exactly that the examination criteria is quite "fluffy". I've seen candidates scrape through the final presentation with a conference paper only (with only Q1/Q2 journal submission - yes, only Q2), and I've seen candidates being officially handed a research support plan in the final presentation (like a fail) even with Q2 journal publications. I don't think there's any formal criteria from the uni. I've asked the supervisor and he said that with two Q1's it will be easy and I should aim for that.

@CWT The criteria are supposed to be 'fluffy' as they apply to different disciplines.  At the end of the day, the answer to your questions really depend on your supervisor; in terms of passing and getting Q1 journals.  My uni has 'fluffy' criteria as well but I know what the minimum that a student has to achieve in order to pass.

Firstly, you are correct to observe that there is an idea in academia that publishing a paper in a low-impact journal could be worse than not publishing a paper at all.  This idea does not dominate academia, but it is not marginal either --- some academics hold to this idea and it certainly influences the profession in some areas/institutions.  There are some legitimate reasons to focus on publication in high-impact journals and there are also some reasons that stem from perverse ways that academia presently functions --- here are some things to consider:

High-impact is good if you can get it: Most academics agree that you should at least try to target high impact journals as a first preference, with whatever research you are doing.  Ceteris paribus, publishing a paper in a higher-impact journal rather than a lower-impact journal will tend to give it more visibility in the profession and it may lead to more impact for your research.  Sometimes academics submit a paper initially to a high-impact journal (often with a low acceptance rate) and then work their way down.  Not all academics do this, but some do.

Your supervisor probably has a rough idea of what is going to pass: Your PhD dissertation will usually be assessed by referees outside your university, so typically an internal advisor can make an educated guess at what those referees will find to be sufficient for the award, but they don't know for sure.  Your advisor may have enough experience in the field to have a good understanding of typical referee standards, but there is a lot of variation and unpredictability here.  If research is sufficient to be published in a high-impact journal then it is probably of reasonable quality and in an area that is of substantial interest to the profession at that time.  You should be aware that publication in the high-impact journals sometimes depends on pursuing the "hot topic" of the moment, but it can also be correlated with quality.  For matters like this, follow the advice of your advisor, but note that there is a fair bit of unpredictability in how referees will assess a paper/dissertation.

There is an opportunity cost for low-impact research: A reasonable argument against pursuing research projects that will result in papers in low-impact journals is that this has a time-cost and therefore a resulting opportunity cost --- i.e., time used for that research could instead be directed towards pursuing a research project that is likely to result in a paper in a high-impact journal.  This appears to be part of the concern that your supervisor is expressing to you.  While this is a reasonable observation, I would caution against pursuing research projects primarily based on their likely impact (as opposed to interest in the topic).  The physicist Richard Feynman famously did some of his best work when he gave up on trying to write high-impact papers and focused his efforts on pursuing problems that were interesting to him without concern for their impact (though in his case these pet projects turned out to have lots of impact).  Jump through this hoop during your PhD candidature if you need to, but in the long-term you should aim to establish a research field that is of substantial interest to you and let the research product fall where it may.

Certain (irrational) assessment methods in academia militate against low-impact publications: There is still an unfortunate tendency in academia to use certain irrational metrics that punish academics for publishing low impact papers (as compared to publishing nothing).  This occurs whenever universities use metrics that look at average citations per paper, average impact per paper, etc.  These are ridiculous metrics to use and they fail even the most basic rationality desiderata for productivity.  In particular, they treat a low-impact publication as being worse than sitting on your arse producing nothing, which creates serious perverse incentives.  Nevertheless, you will find that some universities still assess applicants and academics using these kinds of ridiculous metrics.  Consequently, the idea that doing nothing is better than publishing a low-impact paper, while seriously perverse, is a professional reality in some areas.  (Hopefully in time the universities will learn not to do this.)

Thanks for writing this up. I definitely encountered this at my PhD granting institution. My supervisor believed this strongly: in the end it hurt me, I think. I did get more interview attention from high-ranking departments which tend to have this mindset, but that was not enough to get hired over people with Q1 pubs.  It hurt me at the next level of universities, which would have been much more likely to hire me seeing a Q2 pub vs no pub.

I have no major objection to a university assessing academic applicants on the basis that a Q1 pub is better than a Q2 pub, etc.  What I object to is when they say that having 1 x Q1 is better than having 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2, because in the latter case your average impact is lower.  That shit is crazy (but unfortunately still common).

@Ben, thanks a lot for the reply. I think I understand better where my advisor's perspective is coming from now - appreciate it!

Sorry, but I don't agree that "more is always better".  There are plenty of examples of people publishing huge numbers of essentially worthless papers (I'm not talking about journals here, but the actual significance of the papers).  For instance, if I manage to get some AI-generated gibberish through peer review (as has been done by some authors), is that better than publishing nothing?
I think there is a reasonable argument that this actually has negative value, as it makes it more diffiicult to find the worthwhile material being published.

I won't claim you're "irrational" just because you don't agree, and you should at least recognize that there are rational arguments on both sides of this question.

My answer is premised on the assumption of a functional peer review system.  If you're going to assume that peer review can't even weed out gibberish then I think the entire idea of attempting to quantify research contributions by metrics is out the window.  Furthermore, even allowing for the possibility you put forward, that would not justify use of irrational metrics that average citations, etc., across papers.

I'm not sure I understand the "examination" that you need to pass, so this is a bit more general advice.
Since your concerns seem to be local ones, getting through the exam and writing an acceptable dissertation, your advisor is probably the best source of information about how to do that efficiently and effectively.
My advice, therefore, is to follow that advice and work toward the main goal. I think the advisor has a duty, however, to prime the pump a bit with ideas that will lead to success.
It is possible that those "ideas" might be more significant than you currently judge. A discussion with your advisor might clarify that or lead to other things that would be better to pursue.
The "ideas" you have don't need to be abandoned, however. Do a minimal write up and file them away. When at some point you have the time, either after finishing the degree or when you are stuck on main-line problems, bring them out for review and possible advancement. Yes, you might get scooped on some of them, but you've already judged them as less significant. But a file drawer of ideas to be explored in future is a good thing to have.
Keep the main goal foremost in mind.

Thanks for the advice. Yes, some of them I am filing away (the less developed ones). As an example (since I'm in the field of engineering), I have extended some existing mathematical models, but they've turned out to not be very useful for analyzing the application I've been looking into. So as theoretical models, they are interesting and maybe applicable for other applications I haven't thought of, but wouldn't easily be published in q1 engineering journals. You're right my supervisor should be helping to mature the ideas, but its not exactly his area of expertise unfortunately (long story!)

In my field, some Q1 journals are very prominent, and some big names are in Q2. I struggle to imagine the scenario where publishing in Q2 would actively harm a PhD assessment, and suspect your supervisor's motives are a little more nefarious than that: their evaluation may be disproportionately skewed towards Q1 publications. I know it is certainly the case here, where a Q1 publication is "worth" basically twice the points, so an incentive to push it a just a little and squeeze a "Q2-worthy" publication into Q1 is significant.
I find this numbers game outright perverse, but alas, it seems to be the norm rather than exception in modern academia. I think in your situation it is perfectly sensible to do as good of a work as you can, possibly send it to high-ranking journals - why not? - and if your supervisor wants a Q1 publication out of it, they should contribute accordingly. You have planned and performed the research, but then an incessant stream of nagging you for improvements starts? Sorry, but this was mismanaged, please contribute earlier. Sure, take in some of the suggestions, the research should be flexible, after all, but planning should still be functional to an extent.

Thanks for your response. I was also absolutely confused how it may "harm" me as my supervisor suggested, and that's why I asked the question. I can't think of how a thesis examiner would look at a Q2 publication and think "no, this is bad work because it didn't get into Q1", and instead see no publications, just some progress/submission towards Q1 (which may or may not be accepted), and think it is better (!!!). It was a totally unexpected response from him and left me speechless, so I thought of asking anyone had such an experience from a thesis reviewer/examiner, or has similar opinion.

Also, to your question about "why not send to Q1?" - I have no objection to do that except that I think the chances are small (they are even for a good paper) and the review time is long. I just wanted something under my belt and I think it will give me some peace of mind+confidence that I have completed some original pieces of research (which are novel and interesting, maybe just not highly applicable). After that, I think I will be able to approach thinking of an idea for Q1 more calmly and confidently.

Journal rankings are not carved in stone. They are a bit self-reinforcing (people read prestigious journals, they get more citations, become ranked comparatively higher and are able to be more selective with submissions...). If anything, submitting to one is a good experience, but, indeed, novelty and implications may be the deciding factor. There is no shame in publishing even in fairly low-ranking journals, especially for students. It makes no sense to actually aim for that: good research should be brought to better venues. "Q1 or bust" is overdoing it a bit though.


text:
How do academics handle a hit to research productivity due to academic mobility?
This year I moved to a new country for a postdoc. Arranging mine and my partner’s life here has been taking so much of my time and mental space that I have been at a really low productivity for months now. Right now, 25% of my postdoc appointment has passed and I’ve only been able to gain a shallow overview of a couple of research areas that I might tackle in the future. I’ve made no concrete progress in anything.
I have very limited time or focus to dive deep into anything and this is due to all the arrangements I need/needed to do in this new country. There’s been many administrative things to do like applying for work permits, finding a new health insurance, opening bank accounts, finding a new health clinic and scheduling my first visits with new doctors to transfer medical data, handling tax from the previous country we’ve lived in, etc, etc... I also needed to support my partner in their job search. In the last four weeks, I’ve spent about 100 hours hunting for an apartment for rent. We've moved to an area that has a completely messed up housing situation. Thankfully, my employer offered me and my partner an apartment for one year. But now that this time is coming to an end, I’m intensely looking for a new place. This requires me having my email open all day to immediately react to alerts about new properties. (If you’re not quick, you won’t make it to the viewing.) That is, even when I’m in the office, I get constantly distracted by alerts. And then I can’t work the required 8 hours a day because I need to go to a nearby town to do apartment viewings. When I come back home, I feel completely drained and all I can do is submit apartment applications and go to sleep. I have been completely unproductive at work in the last month because of this. Whenever I pick up a publication that I would like to understand deeply, my brain is so scattered that I just can’t focus on understanding it. The stress due to life in a new country is another factor that impacts my cognitive ability. Things that I used to be able to understand quickly, like understanding code, now take forever. Sometimes I give up altogether, and move on to doing an easy thing just to do at least something productive. I also needed to start seeing a therapist regularly because of this.
I know that in the ideal case, I would eliminate all distractions and fully focus on my research. I've been able to do that in my PhD. But right now, it feel like I have no choice, those are all things that need doing. My partner is helping me of course, but still my share of the load is big.
I became really worried that I can't focus on my research because I plan to stay in academia and I was hoping to have a few more publications out of my postdoc appointment.
So my questions are: Do all academics suffer a months-long hit to research productivity after academic mobility? More importantly: What strategies do academics implement to mitigate the hit? And: Are institutions generally understanding of this situation such that I won't get fired from my current position? Will I be able to explain my reduced productivity to my next employer? Are faculty search committees generally understanding of this when they see that a candidate has moved countries in the course of their career?

Good that you are seeing a therapist. Unfortunately all of your questions have answers that depend on personal and situational aspects. Everyone is different. Every situation is different. Something that works for others may be counterproductive for you. I suspect people muddle through or fail to do so. Good luck.

Is your partner supporting you by sharing these tasks? Having moved overseas for a postdoc (admittedly without a partner), this stuff was a pain but nowhere near as burdensome as you seem to be experiencing. My guess is it all is a symptom, not a cause. Get mental health help asap.

What country did you move to?

@Jon Custer, yes, my partner is supportive as much as they can. Their work schedule is much less flexible than mine, e.g. cannot leave work in the middle of the day, while I can, so some tasks only I can do. We have no friends or family here who could help us.

@fedja, I prefer not to disclose.

Up to you. If it is the USA, I, probably, could give you some advice on how to handle the everyday issues, but if it is, say, China, I have no idea whatsoever. In general the answer to your main question is that all depends on the particular circumstances and that all you describe is still below what you'll experience in the first year after your first child is born (unless everything goes very smoothly), but yeah, such things can knock you out for a while and there is nothing unusual about that...

@fedja, thanks, it's a Western country. That's reassuring to hear, though I know that one can mention a birth of a child when applying for faculty positions as an item for search committees to take into account when evaluating applicants, sometimes there's an explicit question for that (I've seen this having applied for a few). But do academics also explain their mobility-related hit to productivity?

@user166265 I'll be honest, I wouldn't. Put yourself in a search committee's shoes - if a candidate said that their postdoc was unproductive because they had to move to a different country, would you count this as a plus? It's hard to spin this so that it doesn't sound like a bad excuse.

Your description of the problems you are experiencing with reduced productivity due to geographical relocation sounds much worse than anything I’ve ever experienced myself or heard about from anyone doing a postdoc (including people who move with children, which presents significant additional complications that it sounds like you don’t have to deal with).
Is moving countries a challenge? Certainly it is — mentally, financially, and logistically. But in the academic context of postdocs it’s not really supposed to be this much of a challenge.
To be clear, I don’t mean to negate or invalidate your experience. Everyone’s situation is unique, and it’s possible you really do need to deal with challenges that no one I know has had. But you ask if all academics experience difficulties like the ones you’re experiencing. I would say, no, far from it.
So, as a first step in figuring out how to deal with the situation it may be worth re-evaluating your assessment that it is really the move to a new place that is the underlying cause (or the only cause, or the primary cause) for your low productivity. If you are misdiagnosing the cause it will be much harder to address the problem effectively.
You may also want to reassess whether your productivity is in fact as abnormally low as you perceive it to be. Starting a postdoc normally means delving into some new research areas, which requires a large upfront investment of time. The rewards often come only later (say in the second year of the postdoc), making productivity in the initial investment period appear low or even zero. Again, without knowing the particular details of the situation it’s impossible to say whether you’re really behind, or whether you’re doing just fine or even better than just fine. I’m just suggesting avenues for exploration and some sanity checks you could try to do to see if you are diagnosing the problem correctly. Talking to your postdoc mentor and/or other experienced colleagues who are more familiar with your discipline and its expectations for researchers at your career stage might lead to a more accurate understanding of the issue.
Other than that, to the extent that your difficulties are really related to the geographic move, I can’t think of any specific strategies for dealing with the problem other than just to work out the logistics as fast and expediently as possible. Good luck!

Thank you, this answer is very useful to me, especially your last point. I did change fields during my postdoc and I could be confusing the slower progress due to learning the new field with the impact of all the life arrangements (albeit they will continue to take a lot of my time until I secure an apartment). A mentor of mine once recommended that I aim to have 2 publications/year during my postdoc to be competitive in faculty applications. I now begin to see that there's no chance for a publication in my first year. But from what you say, this could be a normal course of events.

Do all academics suffer a months-long hit to research productivity after academic mobility?

No. It is normal and expected that people need some time after moving to sort out their private affairs. However, this usually entails things like leaving early a few times in the first weeks to look at apartments, spending a morning at the tax or visa office a few times, or being absent for two hours a week due to language courses, not the drastically reduced job performance over multiple months you describe.

Are institutions generally understanding of this situation such that I won't get fired from my current position? Will I be able to explain my reduced productivity to my next employer? Are faculty search committees generally understanding of this when they see that a candidate has moved countries in the course of their career?

I'm not saying you are not doing the best you can, but it's certainly not normal and, realistically, it will be difficult to convince people who were not in your shoes that this was unavoidable. Your current employer may or may not be understanding (since, presumably, they have a more direct account of what you are doing all day, and are in a better position to judge if your delays are indeed not your fault), but future employers and particularly faculty search committees will likely not be. Many people (realistically, almost everybody) move one to n times early in their career, this will not fly as ""extenuating circumstances".
The good news is that, at least in my field, an unproductive postdoc by itself isn't as much of a red flag as you seem to think it is. Moving into a new research group and, oftentimes, field of research often leads to a phase of drastically reduced productivity, independently of any other circumstances. If you had a good PhD even a postdoc that may have been rather underwhelming may still leave you in a decent position. Of course, if your PhD was not great either, a bad postdoc is likely to end your academic career. In this case it may realistically be time to look at other options.

What strategies do academics implement to mitigate the hit?

There isn't really a silver bullet. Realistically, for most people it's a combination of privilege (as usual, having a bit of money makes things less stressful, because you can hire people to do things for you or stay in a long-stay hotel for a while), help (most importantly from their partners), overwork (work in the night and on the weekend after an afternoon of apartment hunting), and good old luck.
Here in Sweden, many international postdocs try to avoid the problem altogether by leaving their partners / families at home until they themselves have settled (oftentimes for months to years).
I understand that this answer is probably not what you are looking for, but you are asking for how other people handle it, and in my experience that's it...

Available research time commonly waxes and wanes based on life events
This is an inherent part of an academic research career that will occur for anyone with any type of life outside of their job.  In your case you are affected by a move to another country (and all the related administration and setup) as well as helping your partner.  For other people, they will be affected by all sorts of other life events: marital breakdowns, children getting sick, caring for elderly parents, institutional moves, etc.  These are the natural ups-and-downs of life and they will always involve an impact to the time you have available for your research.
Since it involves deep thinking, contemplation, and complex thought and analysis, academic research is an activity that generally requires some substantial unbroken blocks of regular time to do effectively.  My advice in your present situation is to put your research aside entirely and focus on powering through other administrative and personal projects to get settled in your new country.  Once you are settled you will then be able to devote yourself to your research in the larger blocks of time that then become available.
In regard to your questions, yes, virtually all academics suffer from months long hits to their research productivity due to life events.  Universities do not care about (or even notice) small periods of unproductive time where research is put on hiatus --- they care about your long-term research track record over years (at least).  It is only when your long-term research productivity is negatively impacted that you will require any explanation either for your present institution or a future employer.

While this is true, I feel it's fair to say that the start of your postdoc is also a rather bad time to have a phase of waning research productivity. The way early-stage academia is set up, there will be no "long-term" if you are unproductive right now.


text:
PhD program and article publication without supervisor name
Can a PhD student publish an article without the name of the supervisor? if even the supervisor agrees with that?

It is likely a duplicate, look at the list of "Related" questions.

Yes, there is no general requirement about supervisors. This assumes, of course, that the work is that of the student alone and the supervisor isn't an author.
The advice of the supervisor is fine, and even their help, but ordinary rules of authorship still apply, though these differ somewhat by field.

Thank you so much for the information.  I have faced a bigger problem than it that I am going to share in another post, and it might be one of the rare cases in academics.


text:
Novice researcher, only publishing solo, bad thing?
I am currently a doctoral student in Algeria, specializing in foreign language teaching. I have noticed that my supervisor mostly publishes book chapter and always alone.
I have currently published 4 articles, in between q2 to q3 journals (we rarely publish in q1 in my country in TEFL).
I always perceived publishing alone as something negative, which indicates this researcher has a lack of social skills, is my reasoning accurate? Should I publish alone, or do I start contributing with others to enrich my CV?

One can equally well say that not publishing solo indicates that the researcher lacks independence. This probably has more to do with what each researcher is self-conscious about than with reality. Researchers who are self-conscious about their social skills will tend to feel that publishing solo reflects badly on them, while researchers who are self-conscious about being dependent on the contributions of others will tend to feel that not publishing solo reflects badly on them. Yes, it's good to collaborate with others -- not primarily for the sake of your CV, but to learn from them.

It isn't bad to publish (and research) alone if you can sustain it, but it is probably worth developing a circle of collaborators, perhaps starting with those known to your advisor.
I would think that if your field is pedagogy then there are a lot of opportunities to work with people, especially internationally, to get ideas from other places and integrate them into a whole.
Think of it as an opportunity, though, and not a necessity. Some people work well alone and can find the ideas worth developing. But with more people involved you will get more exposure for your own ideas and more exposure to those of others that might lead to something.


text:
Importance of papers quality for postdoc positions
I am currently on the edge of defending my viva and receiving a doctorate in foreign language teaching & learning. Teacher-researcher publish usually in Q2-Q3 journals mostly and very occasionally in Q1 journals. What are the chances of me landing a postdoc in a university abroad (out of Algeria) with papers in Q2 journals? It is essential to publish in Q1 journals?

The title of your question asks about paper quality, but the body of your question actually asks about journal rankings. These are two different things. Which of the two do you actually want to ask about?

What are you considering as a Q1,2,3,4 journal? The idea of people in a particular field publishing in a particular quartile "very occasionally" doesn't make sense to me.

@BryanKrause I believe "teacher-researcher" refers to OP's local surroundings: lab or institution. Then it all makes sense, at least as a social phenomenon: there are places - plenty of them! - with entrenched beliefs centered around the journal rankings. Say, "never submit to Q1 because it will be rejected anyway" or "Q2 is where we usually publish".

@Lodinn A teacher-researcher sounds to me like a general description of the kind of people most often doing education research world wide.

I think you are looking at the issue too narrowly. Yes, paper quality is important because you need to impress some PI that it is worth taking you on (and paying you). But your past work is only part of the equation. Someone hard to work with is going to have a difficult time in any postdoc and possibly in obtaining one.
And balancing more vs better papers is an individual decision that a PI will make. Don't overthink it.
How much "work in progress" you can point to is probably a factor. How well you fit into an existing research program matters. What fresh ideas you might have. Lots of things.


text:
What "non-research" items belong on an academic CV (postdoc)?
Context: I'm a final-year PhD student overhauling my CV for academic postdoc and grant applications (in Europe and the US). During my MSc and PhD, I was very active in Outreach, Teaching/TAing, held several student leadership positions, served on a bunch of academic committees, worked part time in grant administration, helped coordinate student conferences and initiated multiple EDI projects.
My question is similar in spirit to Should academic CVs include reviewing, non-academic service, hobbies and languages?, but with a slightly different issue: where's the line between non-academic/academic for the examples I described above?
To me, a lot of these activities have been hobbies (e.g. the student leadership positions, which are argued against here When to remove college leadership positions from CV/resume?), but I've also received conflicting advice that should be included to demonstrate leadership/social ability/community involvement and initiative (similar to the first comment in How to demonstrate leadership quality). Then again, Is listing non-academic interests on academic CVs important? seems to imply that including these activities is only for early stage researchers whose academic work is still lacking.
tl;dr I don't want to come across as a dilettante by overloading my CV with "lower quality" items or implying that I wasted potential research time not researching. I also don't want to remove things that could give me an edge. Advice on where to draw the line would be much appreciated!


text:
How to get funded to attend an international conference?
I am from a developing country and I can not afford plane tickets or hotel accommodation fees all by myself, I am not funded by any organization and I am a fresh grad so not even my university can fund me.. I submitted for international conference and my paper got accepted, is there any way to get funded through any organization or through the conference itself? can I even get a discount? (it's a dental conference)

It depends on the conference, there is no general answer. But generally, there might be a few hundred dollars available, not thousands.

Try crowdfunding websites such as https://www.gofundme.com/

In computer science, some conferences and research organizations offer travel grants. Maybe you could check if there's something similar in your field.

I disagree with the close votes.  Although we can't help the OPs specifically, it is useful information that there exist grants one can apply for.

gofundme.com is apparently available only for some western countries! My country is not even there

You can always try and ask the conference organizers for financial support, but it is not clear of it will work or not. Some organizations will also have travel grants to give out (e.g. this one for biologists), so you might want to search the web for similar organizations in your field.
If you cannot find funding, another way to go is to see if it is possible to present your research without being present at the conference: either as a video presentation (if the conference allows such hybrid models) or as a poster presentation instead. Both options might not be as satisfactory as being there yourself, but at least you will have had the chance to show what you have worked on.

There is a slim chance that the following might be helpful, but just in case it is...
Some large conferences in CS and perhaps other fields have a need for "student volunteers" to help manage the conference as it proceeds. They carry messages, sit at registration desks, or whatever might be needed. Such positions come with free attendance at the conference (in my experience) and might (might) come with some travel stipend.
I'd guess that most such "students" are local, not requiring funding beyond attendance, but you can explore what might be available. And, how strictly they might define "student" is another question, but asking is free.


text:
Is it academic dishonesty and punishable if quizzes are reused in a retaken course (calculus)?
I am currently retaking a calculus course that I failed, and noticed that all the quizzes are exactly the same from when I took it. I do have the solutions to the quizzes, as I have looked over them when I completed them in the past. Does it breach any rules if I study the solutions and get everything right? Am I risking expulsion/punishment?

This is a problem for the professor(s) running the course and not for you. Perhaps they have made a conscious decision to operate in this way. Perhaps they are just lazy. They might have the attitude that if you can do these problems then you know enough to advance.
While regulations about what materials can and can't be used while sitting the exam, I'd object to any regulations that forbid you any materials whatever prior to the start of the exam. If those regulations exist they are honey-traps that shouldn't exist. "Gotcha. I see you read page 45 in the text when I was clear you weren't allowed to go past page 44." Bizarre.
If you are learning the material from your study it is the purpose of the course. It isn't a game to be played with arcade rules, especially Calvinball rules.
But if you think you need more of a challenge in the course, talk to the professor and ask how you can get it.

It would seem that this is clearly on your professor, as students repeating a calculus class is a common situation. However, you would need to read the academic misconduct rules of your university carefully, as these rules can be counter-intuitive.
It might be best sending an email to your professor stating that you took the class before, have the quizzes, and apparently, the quizzes are not new, but that you have of course been reviewing the materials.