text:
What's the real difference between a postdoc and a research fellow? (Which one is considered a 'better' experience?'
As the title suggests, it's not clear to me the actual difference between a postdoc and research fellow, especially when looking at the typical academia road. I understand that (maybe?) there is a difference between how the two are funded, but which one that (naturally) shows more qualities that can be appreciated when looking for a job as a lecturer? Qualities like 'Independent researcher that can design and lead high quality research programs'.
Edit:
If it helps, I am talking specifically about the UK system.

There is often no difference, but practices vary.

A research fellow could, in theory, be a permanent position. A post-doc, probably not (hopefully not).

Which country? Nomenclature varies.

Thank you for answers, I am talking about academia in the UK.

My question was closed because it was a "duplicate" of the link mentionned. It does NOT answer my question, it's pretty generic and the answer is basically "it depends", and you can answer 100 questions with "it depends". As much as I appreciate people taking the time to help others, it's frustrating to see other users force what they think I want to know like that and it's always happening.

@U.User "It depends" is the correct answer.

I have edited the question and specified that it's UK related. So, at least, my question is not as generic as the link you've provided. You're free to read the accepted answer and compare it to all the comments/answers in that "duplicate" link.

@AnonymousPhysicist "It depends" is not the correct answer. The term fellow has a specific meaning in the UK system, even if some mis-use it.

@IanSudbery I see that the question has changed.

Wow.. Is it that hard to say sorry? The question was changed before you replied to my previous comment. You said "the question has changed" but you still haven't done anything about it.. At least vote to re-open.

In the UK system, there is a difference between a Postdoctoral research assistant (PDRA) and an independent fellow.
A PDRA is, in general, an employee of their PI. They often work on project designed by the PI, probably funded by a grant the PI obtained. While they are often given a lot of independence, they are, in the final analysis, hired to do a job.
In the case of an Independent Fellowship, such as the MRC's Career Development Fellowship, the BBSRC's David Philips fellowship or the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Dale fellowship, the postdoctoral researcher is the PI. They may work with a mentor or institutional sponsor, but they devise the research program, obtain the funding, hire any staff (although its less usual to have a research team beyond the fellow and maybe a technician), and have signing off rights on purchasing authority. A fellowship is the first step on the faculty ladder, and a much sought after one because a fellow is generally excused from any teaching responsibilities.
In biology, where authorship order matters, a PDRA would be expected to be the first author, a fellow the last or corresponding author on any publications.
Or another way of looking at it - for a PDRA the researcher applies to an advertised job vacancy and competes with others to win the position from the university. In contrast, universities will compete to host a fellow. Many universities will promise a fellow a permanent position after their fellowship ends if they agree to undertake their fellowship at that university (a so-called proleptic appointment).
In UK science at least, career paths look a bit like:
PhD (3-4 years) -> PDRA(2-3x, 2-3 years each) -> R&T Lecturer (5-10ish years) -> Senior Lecturer -> Prof
OR
PhD (3-4 years) -> PDRA(1 or 2x, 2-3 years each) -> Independent Research Fellow (R only, 5 years) -> R&T Lecturer/Senior Lecturer -> Prof.
OR
PhD (3-4 years) -> PDRA (3 years) -> Independent Research Fellowship (R only, 5 years) -> Senior Research Fellowship (R only, 3-5 years each, as long as you keep getting lucky) -> R&T Senior Lecturer/Prof.
You normally apply directly to the funder. You will need to nominate a host when you do, and will need a letter of support from the host institution, so you should approach potential hosts first.
One biological example of a research fellowship is the Sir Henry Dale fellowship:
https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/schemes/sir-henry-dale-fellowships.
Here is what Leeds University (not my uni) has to say about its support for people applying for fellowships: https://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/2000/research_and_innovation/699/fellowships

Thank you Ian for your answer. Apparently, I don't know a lot about careers in academia xD... a permanent research fellow position?? how is it different from the Lecturer -> Professor path? If it's not too much trouble, do you have some resources that I can read to know about this path (like how do you secure one?, how do you progress in your career since it's only a research job (unlike lecturers), advantages, etc?)

An independent fellowship isn't permeant, its time limited - but many universities tell you that you will get a permeant lectureship after you finish your fellowship. Fellowships are highly sought after positions, and most people get a lectureship without first having had a fellowship (I never had a fellowship). I'll add some details to the answer

Thank you very much Ian for your answers!!

@U.User I think this is certainly the correct answer in terms of colloquial usage of the two titles in the UK, though HR-assigned job titles may not always match this. Simplifying further: postdocs are funded on money awarded to someone else, whereas research fellows are funded using money they got for themselves. One does also occasionally see some variant of the 'Research Fellow' title used for academic staff who have a permanent job without any teaching role (though such positions are increasingly rare).

@avid Thank you. I did accept this answer earlier, I don't know what happened. I did get the basic difference between the two, here is what confuses me: I have seen advertised jobs (from universities) that look for "research fellows" with a given salary the same way I saw advertised postdoc jobs with the same salary. So, where does the difference in how funding is secured actually show? When I read these job descriptions, it looks like the difference is a background detail, it's still kind of confusing tbh

I can think of three situations where you might see this: 1) People in the UK, but who perhaps did there own PhDs and Postdocs in other places advertise for a position they call a fellowship, even though its not. 2) Sometimes universities will decide to fund some fellowships themselves (we've done this and called them "vice chancellors fellows"). For me the key difference between a postdoc and a fellow is who comes up with the research program more than who pays - the fellow themselves, or a senor faculty member.

@U.User Other possibilities are: (i) the HR department has decided to call postdocs (or perhaps just postdocs at the higher end of the pay-scale) "research fellows"; (ii) some universities are now posting "job ads" seeking people who wish to apply for external fellowships, i.e. there's no job unless you come with your own grant, and the ad is simply to encourage you to consider their university rather than another. I think Ian's (2) is the most common case, though.

Perhaps it's worth clarifying: things like 'Vice Chancellor's Fellowships' involve a pot of money from the university's central funds, with fellowships awarded to the best proposals with few restrictions on research area (sometimes the broad fields sought are prescribed). They are intended to allow the university to discover future superstars and new directions. This is distinct from a postdoc job in Dept X to work with Prof. Y on topic Z.

Mmm, interesting. When I emailed the professor for more information about a research fellow I saw, he said this ".. The researcher will sit with the project's coordinator.. He will have the chance to collaborate with X and Y from other universities", he also said "the researcher will need first to work on problem Z". So, it look like the university/Department got the funding, they have some sort of a research plan? But also not?. If the definitions vary by University, is it okay to email them directly?

I'm sure it's fine to ask. But ultimately it probably doesn't really matter what they call it: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, me telling you it's a cow doesn't mean much...

Yes I know, even if the answer is a duck, it's still interesting to know about cows..

@avid I did think about suggesting the situation where institutions advertise for fellows, when what they mean is they will support you to apply for a fellowship, but left it out after the OP said "with a given salary the same way I saw advertised postdoc jobs with the same salary". A UKRI funded PDRA would almost certainly be paid less than an independent fellow.

@IanSudbery From the job postings that I've seen, the salary of both positions fall in the range £30,000 p.a. - £40,000 p.a to £45,000 p.a. This means that you can find a PDRA that can make more or the same as an independent fellow (This of course depends on the University, candidate, etc.). What I meant by that sentence is they fall in the same category (salary wise), since some institutions offer a higher range for PDRA positions..

In my field (Life sciences), postdocs are almost exclusively paid between national pay spine point 28 (£31,866) and point 39 (£44,045), while those hired as a PI on their own project would almost always be on spine point 37 (£41,526) to point 47 (£55,750). Be aware that 90% of hiring will take place at the lowest point of the range, unless you can demonstrate you are already earning more.

Interesting.. Can you please look at this link? (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademiaUK/comments/k9pvhd/can_any_explain_whats_a_research_fellow_and/). I've asked around, and found that a research fellow is a researcher hired by a PI who won the fellowship. But someone in there raised a concerning comment, he mentioned that the PI (the owner of the project) can have complete control of the order of authors of a given paper regardless of who did what.

No. A someone hired by a PI who won the fellowship is not a real fellow. Did you look at the lists of fellowships I posted above. You'll see that in all cases the fellow is the PI.  I've never seen a fellowship that is applied for by a senior PI and then given to a junior. Sometimes the PI writes for a junior fellow (see e.g. Marie Curie early career fellowships). Soudns more like a normal postdoc that some has just called a fellowship. However, if you are appointed to a position funded by a PI, then yes, they do have full control over everything.

Yes, I have consulted the links when you posted them, thank you! I was more concerned about the comment that mentions that "the PI controls everything", I didn't know that! Everything is clear now. Thank you @IanSudbery !!

Q: It's not clear to me the actual difference between a postdoc and research fellow, especially when looking at the typical academia road.
Correct. Often times there is not a difference.
Titles are institution specific (e.g., universities, national labs, funding agencies) and often sub-division within institutions (e.g., departments, even specific PIs based upon how they hire people with their institution's hiring mechanism).
Sometimes a title including post-doc or similar title (e.g., post-doctoral fellow) requires the person be within X-years of their terminal degree.
Conversely, as noted by others, research fellows or similar title can be permanent positions, be programs or even titles for experienced scientists, or be visiting programs for distinguished faculty and researchers from other places.
For example The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a Fellowship Program for people (ranging from recent grads to tenured faculty) to gain experience applying science to policy.
You ask about demonstrating Qualities like 'Independent researcher that can design and lead high quality research programs'.
Rather than looking at title, demonstrate these qualities through outcomes.
For example, your CV might include (order the text based upon your CV's target such as a research or teaching school):

Position title, Place Name, supervised by Dr. Smith (2019 -2020)
Developed new widgets theory resulting X publications (depending upon your CV format, perhaps cross-ref here, e.g., Jones et al. 2019, Smith et al. 2020). Wrote grants for $XX,000 and managed the widget research project. Mentored Y peons. Presented results at XYZ. Developed and taught new course, Widget-ology. List other relevant outcomes to the position you're applying for.

Of course, list your grants, presentations, and publications in their own, respective sections of your CV.
Depending upon your subfield, the Place Name and the PI you worked under can be given a lot of weight or little weight compared to your outcomes (e.g., pubs, grants, technical skills).
Sometimes Position Title can carry weight, but these are usual for hard to obtain fellowships that are also captured in other parts of your CV (e.g., a US NSF Postdoc Fellowship that you obtains as the PI would also be listed under Grants on your CV).
Compared to a position's nouns (e.g., titles, places, PIs), actions usually carry more weight.
For example, publishing a first authored paper in Science or Nature would outweigh where you had your post-doc fellowship.

Thank you for your answer, it's pretty insightful!


text:
Application form for lecturer position provides a template for an academic resume, should I follow that?
I am trying to apply for a Lecturer job in another country; I noticed that they're asking for an academic resume and they provided a template as well. Here is what they said:

You should provide attachments, including your academic CV and details of research, publications and grants if not already covered (an Academic CV template is available here).

Here is the issue: the template has sections of stuff I didn't do or don't have. Since I completed my PhD in another country, we have different "evaluation metrics". For instance, in my country (3rd world country), it's pretty hard to find funding for your research, and most students do a PhD with no funding (my case). I do however have experience in preparing project proposals to get funding, but I never got funding. So, I don't know what to write in the "Research grants and contracts" section.
So my question is: is it a good idea to use my own template? The template they're providing is pretty detailed and they're asking for specific sections, such as contribution to the department, contribution to the faculty, contribution to the university and to enterprise. A resume is not an official document, meaning that the candidate makes his own resume and not some institution, am I right?
Update:
I want to thank all those who took the time to comment and answer my question.
I emailed the university and they said I can use my own template.
I want to clarify that the resume I have now (and I am using to apply for other opportunities) is not a representation of my lack of interest! I did re-format my resume a lot of times, in fact I used to prepare tailored resumes each time I apply (my field is cyber security and IA, so I did target vacancies that want a profile that unites the two fields, but I also applied for jobs that seeks individual skills). Before I apply, I always ask for external input from a professor in our lab about the resume I used. But I truly believe that it won't change a lot if another candidate has +5 years experience more than me and uses a generic format.
Even my supervisor noticed that and asked me to only use one, because according to her is "what's more important is the content of the resume and not how it looks". So, I prepared one standard resume that took me +3 hours!

I emailed the university and they said I can use my own template. Good, but the template will still indicate the information they want, even if you make yours look prettier.

There is nothing in the statement ``(an Academic CV template is available here)'' indicating this is a required format.  I would assume that most applicants would not use the template.
I suspect the template is there to help applicants.  Does it have a place for hobbies?  If not, probably you want to not list hobbies.  It does have a place for ``contributions to the university'' so be sure it is clear on your CV if you ever sat on a campus-wide committee or some such thing. Different cultures put in different things in a CV, but in this case you have a guide.
The fact that the template has separate sections for different types of service makes me suspect this is a generic format used for scholars at many ranks and many departments. There may be many sections any specific person would have blank.

ThankYou.I do think it's a generic template,it was also posted in 2017 so it was there for sometime.But I am genuinely hesitant about the "contributions to the university" section.My university has a Computer Science department which handles EVERYTHING that falls even remotely to computer science.This makes it harder to have connection between researcher who works on specific field and the administration. Even in the same country,u might find a lot of differences between universities.So, in my opinion if their goal is to provide a generic format, then they should also provide generic sections.

Re-formatting the application pack for each vacancy is a huge waste of time. Some parts of it, such as the cover letter, may need to be adjusted to match the requirements of the vacancy. Other parts, such as CV, Publication List, Research statement, Teaching statement, etc, reflect your current profile. A University which asks these documents to be re-formatted for them is putting a huge additional burden on applicants. This is largely a test in compliance with bureaucratic requirements, than a test of your academic skills and abilities. It's up to you to decide whether the job is worth participating in such a test.
Outside academia, e.g. in IT sector, companies are searching for the candidates based on their online profiles, e.g. LinkedIn. All necessary details are clarified via interviews over the phone, skype/zoom or in person. Companies which expect developers to re-format CVs for them will likely go bust very quickly.

If I had typed my CV on the L.C. Smith typewriter I used as an undergraduate, I certainly wouldn't re-do it.  I could paste the various parts of my own CV into someone's template in ten minutes or so with Word or Libre Office.
The amount of effort one should/must put into applying for a job depends upon how much one wants the job, but also on how much competition there is for that job.  In the United States, and in many or perhaps most disciplines, there's more competition for academic jobs than for IT jobs.

Preparing tailored resumes for each job is not fun when you know you will receive an automated email with no feedback. I've seen positive and negative emails and they're basically the same. What I'm trying to say is if a candidate is expected to put extra-work to prepare a fancy and tailored resume for a company, then the company should put an extra-effort for a personalized response (positive or negative). Right now, HR department will go extra with you if they're only interested regardless of the effort you showed. I'm not saying don't try at all, and that's really flawed in my opinion.

I suspect that most of the applicants will use the template.  I also suspect that the search committee will expect all applicants' CVs to be in the same order.
If it were I, I'd use the template, omit entirely the things that aren't applicable in your case, and very briefly address those in a cover letter.

Thank you for your answer. To be honest, I did start the application process weeks ago and decided to drop it for this reason. I also believe they won't even consider my application since I have a PhD in another country (or continent if you may). I can get the same job with the same role and responsibilities in my country but I believe my application will be systematically dropped for this reason. So, I am still hesitant.

@U.User Your application is much more likely to be "systematically dropped" if you don't follow the process of the institution to which you are applying.  If the job is not worth reformatting your CV, well, you aren't very interested in it, eh?

I am HIGHLY interested. I've completed my PhD in mid-July, and since then I've applied to various research and teaching positions but I was never shortlisted for an interview. I stopped counting the times I've reformatted my resume. I know It's not supposed to be easy, but it's also a bit harder than the usual. Because of these special times, I started forming this idea of "being systematically dropped" or internal candidates are favored. But I do agree with you, I will never know If I don't try.

@BobBrown It is not very nice to assume that a candidate interested in a job should also be prepared to jump through all kind of administrative hoops, such as re-formatting the application pack and filling in forms which most of the selection panel members won't even bother reading. Academia needs great and creative people to do research and education, not office clerks to comply with exorbitant bureaucratic requirements.

@BobBrown I tend to agree with Dmitry to be honest. I think the OP sounds slightly nervous, not disinterested (indeed, see the "I am HIGHLY interested" assertion above). Nervous people tend to need a morale boost more than anything.

@U.User On that note, I think it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of academic life is just about getting better at dealing with repeated rejection (there's a lot of rejection in academia in practice). I think one aspect of that has to be to try to stop second guessing things and focus on the things you have some control over. If you're getting rejected a lot for something, try to find out why, but also try not to speculate on why without evidence - it's a waste of energy and can lead you to give up on things for no reason. Keep trying things, and learn how to react well to rejections.

See also this (if you want to cheer up): https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/30/cv-of-failures-princeton-professor-publishes-resume-of-his-career-lows

@Dmitry On the other hand, if you apply to so many faculty jobs that you can't take an hour to reformat your CV, there's something wrong.

@Stuart haha  "This darn CV of Failures has received way more attention than my entire body of academic work", I remember that I had a reputation of having "high number of paper rejections" in my lab, but I was also the first to defend his thesis from the team that joined the same year and even the team 1-2 years before me. So, I did develop the skill to deal with rejections, but you also know that in academia not all rejections are reasonable.

@DmitrySavostyanov  I did not "assume" that OP wasn't interested.  I remarked, or at least intended to, that OP's interest is reflected in the amount of effort he or she is willing to expend on the application.

@BobBrown Counting interest in "effort" is too simplistic and one-dimensional. For example, asking candidates to carve their application on stone blocks and deliver them in person would require even more effort, but is this an worthwhile effort? I doubt it. Reasonable policies and practices should aim to collect the necessary evidence with minimal costs for candidates and panel members.

@DmitrySavostyanov While in principle we would find some agreement, the ugly truth is that there are sometimes 500 applicants or more for 1 position.  So if the first cut is to weed out those failing some stupid bureaucratic procedure -- it may tend to weed out those who can't follow procedures for handling grants and/or students.  Also, there's this theorem that strongly suggests why committee choice is always such a messy process.

@U.User Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you hadn't developed that skill - was just trying to find something helpful to say. As to unreasonable rejections - I do think that most rejections have at least some nugget of reasonableness buried within them, and it's usually good to try to tease out what that is. For example, it's very hard to give a paper a scathing review without inadvertently leaking information that might help the authors fix it for next time. Which is to say, many rejections that are unreasonable also contain useful information, and extracting that is good.

@StuartGolodetz it was a good idea to ask this question, I've seen a lot of good comments and interesting opinions. I do agree with you, but also having a rejection doesn't necessarily imply that you made a mistake. For instance, I just read in the description of a job posting that if a candidate A from another country was selected for the job but later another candidate B in the same country showed potential, then they will proceed with candidate B instead. This is because the recruiter should justify (through some test) why they didn’t find a candidate that has the skills of candidate A

@U.User Yes, I'd agree that there are certainly situations when you can get rejected for something without really having made a mistake as such. I think my view is just that it's rare that you'll do anything absolutely perfectly, and a rejection is as good a time as any to take a look at what things you've done imperfectly in a particular situation so as to learn from that for the future. It also has the nice side-effect of distracting you from the rejection and making you focus on something potentially useful.

specific sections, such as contribution to the department,
contribution to the faculty, contribution to the university and to
enterprise

They're all standard for academic CVs and if the institution has included them on its  template they reflect the criteria against which your application will be assessed.

The standard is  1) Contact Information 2)Research Objective or Personal Profile
3) Education 4) Professional Appointments 5) Publications 6) Awards and Honors
7) Grants and Fellowships 8) Conferences 9) Teaching Experience 10) Research Experience 11) Additional Activities 12) Languages and Skills 13) References. I agree that since it is mentioned it will be used as a criterion to assess my application. I think it's a good idea to follow the template!

In some countries, academic institutions are not organised exactly in the same way as in the U.S. For example, there may be no faculties or departments. This makes it much harder for applicants from these countries to complete an over-structured template. Effectively this "template" disadvantages applicants from these less represented backgrounds.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I cite a product that cannot be sourced commercially
I used a product in my PhD that is not available to buy. Our lab was given it as a free sample from a company that was considering developing this product. How do I cite it? Thank you

Check with your PI about whether there are restrictions that were put in place with the donation. There may have been a contract limiting disclosure. Some companies might treat this as trade secret information.

Ask that company

In your list of materials, you can just add a parenthetical after identifying the product and the manufacturer.  Something like "(not yet commercially available, but obtained by special arrangement)" should be fine.

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


text:
How to decide if I want to pursue PhD
I have a Master's in Computer Science and I currently work in a manufacturing company. My current role is IT Manufacturing Technical Leader with responsibilities split between technical and business tasks evenly. I've always wanted to move closer to more-technical-less-business tasks.
So my questions are:

Given I want to be more on the technical side, is it wise to pursue a PhD in Computer Science? I am not sure how a PhD will help or affect my future roles (in this company or otherwise).
Another conflict I have is regarding the PhD itself. I am not really sure what I would like to research. Is this something I should know and be ambitious about BEFORE applying to my PhD? My wife is currently in her Master's and she is really passionate about a lot of different topics in her respective field. She intends on pursuing her PhD. Seeing where she stands, it makes me question my desire to get into a PhD program when I have no idea what it is I want to be an expert in or research on. So to repeat my question, should I need to know what I want out of the PhD now or will it come to me while I am in the program?

I have always wanted to get a PhD and I am afraid I shouldn't. I would appreciate some guidance on this.

Think of a PhD as a funded research post. Its primary purpose isn't to get you a job but to give you a space to do academic research (with the minor caveat that I am not a computer scientist, and I understand that there are some job listings which ask for PhD graduates). Your research will be on an extremely narrow question, and these are usually not directed at an industry-relevant task. It is highly unlikely that the research output will make you any better at your job.
If you want to do the research, and there is a topic that motivates you so much that you could work on it exclusively, even if nobody else really cared about it, for many years, then a PhD may be right for you. Many PhD students discover that this isn't really the case for them, however, and you could be at a high risk of this if you begin without a reasonably specific topic in mind. Sometimes people phrase this in some sort of macho framing, as though PhDs are there to show you are tough - while toughness matters, intrisic motivation towards a potentially extremely obscure research topic is an absolute prerequisite. There is no point doing it for title, bragging rights etc.
I would suggest that if you aren't highly motivated by research in and of itself, you would do a lot better not to do a PhD. Nobody will think the less of you for not being Dr. Crazy Cucumber.
Edit: typo

This is very well put. Thank you. I guess a part of me does want the bragging rights more than anything. But there is still a part of me that would like to be an absolute expert at a very specific topic. I am afraid if I actually want a PhD since I don't know what that specific topic is. I've been racking my brain to think of something I am so passionate about that I want a PhD in it. I haven't found it. This is why I am not in the program yet, I didn't think it was wise and the bragging rights  just wasn't worth failing in the most prestigious degree!

@CrazyCucumber thanks for your kind comment. My 2 cents on being an 'absolute expert': it will only feel worth it if you enjoy that topic for what it is. If you work hard a niche in many parts of life you can get the respect given to a very competent/knowledgable person (which is, I suspect, what you want) - that isn't limited to academia. In fact a lot of academics feel a bit put out that the rest of the world isn't that interested in their area of expertise, and so doesn't regard them as highly as they want. The research has to be its own reward for the slog of academia to be worth it.

An important piece of advice missing from other answers: ask PhD students what PhD life is like. Preferably current students but recent graduates will do (first-year students are still in the honeymoon phase, and last-year students will probably decline). If you do not know any, ask a professor to put you in touch (do not ask the professor themselves: survivor bias means they like academia a lot more than is standard, and nostalgia embellished PhD memories after a certain age).
Notice that I do not mean "what is your research topic", but more "what is your every day routine". One hour of time and a couple of beers (or your culture-appropriate or pandemic-times equivalent) will save you hundreds of hours of internet searches.
That advice really applies to other work-life choices, but a PhD is a really special kind of job (more reason to check) and the info is fairly easy to get (unlike typical jobs where employees are harder to invite for a chat and more tight-lipped about the boss).

This is a smart idea. I do have a friend who is in his PhD currently, but when we talk, he just jokes around about how much he hates his life. I've really not had a serious discussion about his day-to-day. I will get in touch with him again and talk a bit! Thank you

A PhD is about research. Not so much about being "on the technical side." So, I'll doubt that a PhD is right for you if those are your only goals. Many of us in mathematics and even in CS got a Phd (mine in math) because we were driven to it. There is a saying: "You don't choose mathematics. Mathematics chooses you."
On the other hand, there are doctorates other than the PhD that are focused on other things. The NSF in the US recognizes research doctorates, but notes that there are others as well.
Wikipedia has a useful list of different kinds of doctorates, and one of these might meet your stated objective better.
Of course you may have other goals, not stated here, that would suggest that a PhD is appropriate. Moving in to the research group at your current (or another employer) might be enough. Certainly in Academia, the PhD is the most recognized terminal degree - with some exceptions, depending on field.

I am looking into the list you linked me to. But thank you for your answer, I have more things to think about now


text:
FAFSA and a recent permanent resident
I came to the US on 4th of August, 2013 from India on F1 visa as a Master's student. I was 1 day shy of being 24 and eligible for a late registration for Selective Service. But I had no idea that was even a thing back then.
Things happened and I was out of status for a while and my education was incomplete. On February 16th, 2017, I got my green card through marriage. I was 27 years and 6 months then, and not eligible for late registration for Selective Service.
Now, I have gotten admitted back to the college I was originally attending and applied for FAFSA. Today, I am 29 years old today and am ineligible for Selective Service.
My situation:

I have been approved for FAFSA by the federal government.
My college has a pending requirement with regards to my FAFSA: Verify Selective Service registration.

My question:
When I originally came to the US, I was eligible (and required, if I were to seek federal financial assistance) to register for Selective Service. I did not. Now my college requires proof that I've registered for selective service. So I tried registering, but the Selective Service registration website does not let me go past the first screen because my age indicates that I am ineligible for Selective Service.

Could I somehow apply for Selective Service?
Could I email my university and explain to them that I did not know of Selective Service to know I would need it in the future?
Should I just give up trying for FAFSA?

Thank you.

For the following, I will assume that you were on a F1 visa from arriving in the US until after your 26th birthday. In that case, you should have been exempt from selective service. If you had any kind of change in immigration status from a non-immigrant visa (such as having the F1 visa expire) during this time, well, that could complicate things and you really should talk to your university about it.
The Selective Service System's page for Men - 26 and older suggests that you can get a status information letter to prove that you're exempt. You could ask your university's financial aid office if it's required in your case or not.
Reading more on the Status Information Letter page, I found the following (which suggests it isn't required):

Financial aid officers:
  If the man falls within one of the following categories, a status information letter from Selective Service is NOT required if he can provide a copy of supporting documentation proving his case to your satisfaction. <...>
Non-U.S. male on a valid non-immigrant visa
For example, if the man entered the United States as an F-1 student visa and remained in that status until his 26th birthday, he would need to provide documentation indicating that he was admitted on an F-1 visa and attended school full-time as required.

Why would I be exempt from Selective Service if I were on F1 visa and younger than 26? It says in the SSS.gov website, it says that "all males between ages 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service System (SSS) within 30 days of arriving in the United States. This includes U.S. born and naturalized citizens, parolees, undocumented immigrants, legal permanent residents, asylum seekers, refugees, and all males with visas of any kind which expired more than 30 days ago."

Wouldn't F1 fall under the "all males with visas of any kind" criteria?

@CrazyCucumber Well, I assume your visa didn't expire during that time frame? Note that the paragraph also continues saying "The few individuals who are exempt from this requirement are those on current non-immigrant visas.", which you would have been during that time frame (ages 18-25).

@Anyon: OP does say that he was "out of status for a while".

@NateEldredge You're correct. Unfortunately it isn't clear if OP was out of status before or after turning 26. I've edited my answer to attempt to address this more directly (than just assuming that it was after).

@Anyon I was on my F1 visa starting August 23rd 2013 all the way till January 12th 2015. I fell out of status when I was 25 years and 5 months old! Thank you for that. I've emailed my financial aid office with that information.

I would start with the University. Likely they have an office of financial aid that knows all of the rules and regulations. They will probably be able to let you know if you still have an obligation to register for Selective Service and how to go about it. They might even be able to intercede on your behalf if needed, but that would probably depend on the size of the university and how many students have similar problems.
Failing that, you could try to deal with Selective Service, but I expect it would be harder to get advice from a large bureaucracy than from the university.

It is a big university with 25-30K students and a lot of international students. They should have answers for me. I will contact them, thank you!

It's a choice between large bureaucracy A and large bureaucracy B. I don't envy the OP.


text:
What should I take in consideration when planning a Design Science Research?
I am planning a proposal for a thesis (on Forecasting Daily Energy Prices), in which I need to select the methodology and define its phases.
As I intend to develop new technologies and/or solve specific problems, I was investigating the most adequate, when I came across the article Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research (read it here).
In that article one can read about investigation process Design Science Research (DSR) and its steps, and it seems appropriate for what I intend to do.
Assuming that DSR will be the methodology for my investigation, what should I take in consideration when creating the plan/defining the phases?

Talk to your advisor to determine if an artefact-oriented approach is the correct approach for your research questions.
Generally, there are three general approaches to research that different research methodologies can fall into: quantitative/scientific, qualitative/descriptive, and artefact-oriented. In the first you’re dealing with numerical data that you can statistically analyse to prove or disprove hypotheses; in the second, you’re dealing with descriptive information that you can classify and analyse with techniques like coding. With artefact-oriented research, you’re designing a system that you then evaluate compared to the state of the art.
One important consideration for artefact-oriented research is that there needs to be a production of new knowledge that is separated from the artefacts you produce; if you take away all of the datasets and computer systems, if there isn’t anything left, you haven’t been doing research, you’ve been doing development.

would you be able to give an example of new knowledge that is separate from the artefacts? Thank you.


text:
What should I write as affiliated institute?
I have been accepted into college but have not yet started. The research I did was done before I was accepted into college. So should I add the college as the affiliated institute or not?

@Coder edit has been made. Thanks for pointing out. I have been accepted but have not yet started.

The answer to your question is "NO".

Your affiliation should be whatever institute you were located at when you did your research. Wherever you are at the time the research is presented is listed as "current affiliation" or "present address."
If you have not started or matriculated at an institution, you should not list it as either an actual affiliation or a present address.

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


text:
How can I ask an unacquainted professor to collaborate with me?
I have read several papers written by the professor and want to ask for him to collaborate with me, that is, to help revise my paper and finally make it publish.
I'm concerning with:
1) is it okay to do this?
2) how to effectively ask for help?
3) is it safe to deliver an unpublished work to others?
If not appropriate, what can I do?
Any suggestions and help will be appreciated. Thanks!

"...to help revise the paper..." which paper? Your paper, presumably. Can you provide more information as to why the professor might want to collaborate with you?

because the papers I read in my field are written by authors in other countries, they may be familiar and citations are to them.

But, it doesn't seem relevant whether the professor is foreign. (Also, you've used "cooperate" instead of "collaborate.") You can edit your question if you like.

@user2768 edited.

Do you have some other academic advisor or are you working entirely on your own?

@BryanKrause entirely on my own.

There is no single answer to such a question as you deal with people. Regarding whether they will collaborate or not, it really depends on the professor, their style, their current available time to get involved in your work.
But it is very unlikely that collaboration can happen without prior introduction in a venue, or through another third party who knows both of you. You can target a venue where they speak there, and approach them and chat with them to get some sense whether they are interested or not. Follow your heart in these matters. If you do not feel comfortable to the person or get a feeling they are not taking you seriously, forget about them and do not waste your time and ideas with them.
From your post, it seems you are almost done with your work and you want someone to revise it. This can be achieved by submitting your paper to a reputable conference, where experts in the fields are reviewers. You can check some venues where this professor you are interested in is reviewing (not guaranteed though, but if they are an active researcher in the field, they can be in the committee of some conferences.
Is it safe to deliver unpublished work to others? Again, depends on the person. It is better to deliver it for official review where there are some rules governing the process and other parties involved.

Yes, it is ok to do this, but you are asking for collaboration, I think. The other person may not have the time or energy for it, of course.
It is safe with almost everyone, but there is a certain amount of poaching of ideas in academia, so be sure the professor has a reputation for ethical practice.
I would send an email stating that you have a draft of a paper that touches on some of the ideas of the professor and ask if he would be willing to collaborate on its completion and publication. Don't send the paper initially, but say something about it. The working title might be enough if it is descriptive, but you might want to include something about the direction of the research.
By the second email, make sure that you have worked out the authorship question if that is important to you.
Note, that by raising the issue you also raise an expectation that you will share your current work. It might be embarrassing to back out, though it might be necessary depending on how the communication goes.


text:
Is this kind of email formal or beneficial to use in a submitted manuscript?
Is this kind of email formal or beneficial or even acceptable to use in a manuscript: yours@xxx.edu? yours@xxx.edu or authorname@xxx.edu? which is better? can it increase the acceptance rate?

What's the difference between yours@xxx.edu and authorname@xxx.edu?  What is "yours" supposed to represent?

I mean, I have two candidate emails, exactly yours@abc.edu and lexintonave@abc.edu. Which is better to use for that  in the manuscript?

The email address you specify has zero bearing on whether or not your paper is accepted. Having an easy-to-remember, stable email address is helpful because it ensures fewer problems when sending mail to you in the future.

I occasionally get emails from students from some quite unprofessional/embarrassing email addresses (e.g. mickeymouse@web.de). Some of these may trigger a spam filter. Other than that it may raise some eyebrows, and you may feel embarrassed after a couple of years when that email address is still linked to your name. But anything reasonably professional should be just fine.

@MaartenBuis Will exact yours@web.de be fine?

It’s a bit precious, but it’s not awful per se.

It is not awful, but I tend to prefer the addresses from your institution.

@MaartenBuis My instituition currently allows for free registration.

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


text:
Listed school on interview but not on application
During application process to a graduate school in the US, I was asked to submit transcripts from all schools I attended. At the time of application, I was recently accepted to another unknown (by many-many orders of magnitude less known than the program I am applying to) PhD program in my home country. I was not given a transcript from this school, because at the time of application I was enrolled for only two months, and was not taking courses, so I did not upload a transcript on their site. I mentioned that I will be working at the school in my SoP, but never underlined in my application that it will be doctoral studies. When I was invited for an interview, I forwarded on my CV where I mentioned that I was a PhD student at the school. Now I've been accepted to the new school. I may be worrying too much, but could there be any problems in the future because I did not upload much info about that school in my online application? What should I do (if anything) in my case?

"I was not given a transcript from this school" is quite beside the point - a transcript is typically something you request, not one hoisted upon you. At least in any application format I am familiar with, your education is listed in places besides transcripts, such as a CV. Intentionally omitting a school from a CV is quite different than neglecting to provide a transcript.

It sounds that you knowingly, and intentionally, deceived the school you were applying to by mentioning that you were working at a university, but leaving out that you were a PhD student in your statement of purpose. The fact that you mentioned that you were currently a PhD student during your interview makes the behavior a little less atrocious. That said, I have never heard of a graduate program punishing a student for omitting information from their statement of purpose.
As far as the transcripts are concerned,

at the time of application I was enrolled for only two months, and was not taking courses, so I did not upload a transcript on their site.

again, you were not fully honest, but it is not obvious to me that all universities can generate a transcript for a student during their first semester when they are not taking any classes.
Again, nothing bad is likely to come of your behavior, that said, in the future, you should just be honest and forth coming about your situation.

Wow, that's harsh. I contacted the admissions anyway; they didn't seem to care.

@Alex Note that the harsh tone here is possibly in large part motivated by a recurring question we get here which is "can I leave off school X from my application to school Y because of reasons Z?" The people asking these questions are often quite off base ethically and could get themselves in a bit of trouble, and people here are quick to inform them of the peril they do not realize they are in. Not submitting a transcript when they are requested versus omitting an institution or disguising your role at that institution are separate issues - your post suggested the latter.

@Alex the way I read your question made me think you were trying to deceive the admissions committee. Based on your comments that you included the info on your CV, albeit later, makes me less sure. I still stand by my summary, nothing is likely to happen, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to deceive people.

Well, this certainly could've been viewed this way; still, I find some of the formulations in graduate school forms vague. E.g., consider a sentence "You are required to submit transcripts from all schools attended". First of all, what if the school does not provide a transcript, like mine? Second, how do you define "attend school"? If a person was physically not attending but enrolled, is it attending? Finally, what if you attend the same school for two degrees? If you interpret it literally, it seems that you could only list one degree, but "everyone knows" you need to include both.

@Alex I think all of those questions are answerable with a little common sense as long as you aren't trying to deceive anyone - the meaning is fairly simple: Don't leave out any schools, don't submit just your most recent transcripts. Of course you should submit transcripts for two degrees from the same school. If, like in your case, it makes no sense to submit transcripts because you haven't actually taken any courses or received any grades, a note indicating that somewhere in your application is most likely sufficient.

Well, let's make a more elaborate example. Suppose person A left the school one day before the start of the first semester, and person B left the same exact school on the first day of the first semester without attending anything. In one definition, the first person did not attend the school while the second did. However, the only difference between them is one single day. The funding was distributed to them in the same manner and etc etc, at least in my country. Do you honestly consider A to be a person who was not attending while B was technically attending? In my opinion, they are the same.

@Alex: "Second, how do you define 'attend school'?" When someone asks a question like this they're using engaging in some serious BS.

@Alex instead of painstakingly trying to identify all the corner conditions, schools hope that their applicants will stick to the spirit of the request. This type of honor system tends to work okay, but in my opinion is increasingly being taken advantage of as students view themselves as customers.

I think that strictly defined rules should work better than "honor" and "spirit", and I am actually surprised that only a handful of universities can give a clear, unambiguous explanation of what they want. And no, this is not an unrealistic corner condition: one of my friends left a school after a week of non-attending due to valid reasons, and I am not sure whether he had an ethical obligation to list that school in subsequent applications or not.


text:
What quantitive metrics would reviewers in order to be presented as candidates for peer review?
I am looking for ideas and suggestions on when someone would have enough experience and expertise to be presented as a potential peer review candidate.
I am specifically looking at using review history data as a source and keywords search to search that source. So a solution could be related to attributing keywords. But don't let that lead you too much, this is just my current thinking.
The configuration of such a process of when does someone becomes worth showing as an expert of candidate is main area I would like suggestions and idea on.

Please edit your post so you ask only one question. You have five different questions which can have independent answers.

Nothing like that is used. Some journals ask the author of the article to name say 5 potential reviewers. The editor may look into his/her own network. The editor may look at the authors of previous work in her/his journal. Usually disciplines are sufficiently small that one just knows who the experts are.

The criterion for being enough of an expert to review a paper is not quantitative; it is simply that the editor values and trusts the prospective reviewer's opinion about the paper. Nevertheless, this criterion might correlate quite well with something quantitative. It would be interesting to know whether anyone has studied such possible correlations.

@AndreasBlass Yes, I understand what you are saying I from what I have heard I agree. The finial decision is qualitative. However how could one reduced the list of potential reviewers on expertise if say the reviewer does not specifically clarify their area. I would like to say more but don't want to bias too much the answers.

If I had to find peer reviewer for a field I have no knowledge of, but a lot of data, I would first come up with a citation graph and look at all papers near to the paper that should be refereed.
If I had a list of reputable journals, I would filter that paper list by this list. The resulting paper list can be scanned for authors. Now you can compare key words of the important papers of the authors to the key words of the paper. This allows you to come up with a list of persons that may be "experts".

If you had to find a peer reviewer for a field you have no knowledge of, then you are the wrong editor.

@MaartenBuis That is certainly true.

Don't worry because I am thinking about presentation of reviewers to editors via a system. So the system does some filtering and presents useful candidates to the editor, for that more qualitative checking. But the relevancy of expertises is important to reduce the chaff.

This might not be a universal answer, but it is a practical answer of how I find peer-reviewers when needed: I go to Google Scholar and search for the topic. I find which authors with Google Scholar profiles match my keyword search based on the article. Then I examine each Google Scholar profile looking at the following things:

Total citation counts (to get an idea of total citation impact of the researcher)
Citations on works whose titles resemble the subject I'm interested in (to get an idea of the researcher's recognized expertise on the specific topic of interest)
How recently the author has published in the area of interest (I would be less likely to invite an expert who obviously no longer publishes in the area)

With these objective measures from Google Scholar, I of course add my subjective knowledge of the area and then prioritize whom to invite one by one. So, to answer you question more directly, I would not try to objectively decide based on a fixed number of articles or a minimum number of citations. The decision of whom to invite depends on whom I find with Google Scholar profiles and how more outstanding they are than others with whom I compare them. The decision must necessarily be subjective, though aided with these objective citation criteria.
Of course, some invited reviewers would decline or not respond, but then I move to the next expert in my priority invitation list until I receive enough positive responses.
Following this methodology, I have been able to recruit highly expert peer-reviewers whom I did not know personnally.


text:
Deferring PhD offer
If I receive a PhD offer, is it typically considered acceptable or possible to defer the start of the PhD by, say, 2 years, for a job and then join the PhD program without having to reapply?

What's your country? In Germany, this would not possible, as most positions come from third party funds that need to be used in a certain timeframe (<= 12 months).

As others have said, this depends on country and discipline, and to some extent on school/department itself. So we can't give you a trustworthy answer.
In places I have known (all North America, various disciplines), it was no problem to defer admission itself for up to one year, none or very few questions asked, in programs where you had a year or two of coursework to do before settling down to 100% research. It was also not a problem to defer cohort-based, non-competitive departmental funding. And instances I knew about, also not a problem for the applicant to negotiate (separately) deferrals of external funding they had obtained.
However, two years would have been a special case, and subject to discussion. Probably approved for a known candidate whose future advisor, or someone else on faculty, is a strong supporter of them; but not automatic for a barely-known person.
On the flip side, admission into the research group of a specific advisor may not be deferrable, except in cases of logistical need (COVID, visas, etc.)  That research group may well be expecting someone to start as of a specific date, and not have the flexibility to take more or less people in that and subsequent years. And competitive internal funding may likewise not be deferrable.

You should approach the professor you are applying to, or at least admissions department in your university with that question. Usually the competition is quite high for PhD programs, so in their place, I would ask you to reapply.
However, PhD program may be quite personalized, and they can indeed allow you to join without reapplication. It could also be the case that you can do both at the same time, especially if your work and prospect thesis are related: there are plenty of examples of people who managed to do that.

It depends on the school. Many (but not all) will let you defer by 1 semester. Some will let you defer by 1 year. More than 1 year would be rare but maybe not absolutely impossible. Just ask the school in question about their policies

Maybe two years if you are viewed as the reincarnation of, say, Richard Feynman.

You may have to reapply as they may give the opportunity to someone else.
Receiving an offer of a place is often a time limited option as they may need the post filled for various reasons that they have.
You need to check with the university that made the offer if they will consider keeping the post open for you.


text:
How to add DOI to the published version of an article in arXiv?
I uploaded an article to arXiv which has been published in The Astrophysical Journal after referee suggested edits and final proof. How do I cross ref the arXiv version with the DOI of the published version? Do I just cross-ref the DOI of published version with the older version in arXiv or do I download the published pdf and upload it with DOI as a new version in arXiv? (I think the latter is not allowed as when I uploaded the published version of another paper as full-text on researchgate, I was told to remove it).

There are two options:

Upload the revised version that you submitted to the journal (i.e. the one which got accepted finally). But, don't upload the post-produced pdf that you got from the publisher (and did not compile yourself from a .tex); this is not allowed by most journals. Further, you might want to look at the journal's statements about arXiv submissions. Some journals clearly mention this on their website. Your new submission to arXiv will be given some new version ID e.g arXiv:xxxx.yyyyy.v2

You can just edit your present arXiv article and edit the DOI field (please see https://arxiv.org/help/jref). Additionally, you can add a comment "For a revised version and its published version refer to the Journal of XYZ, DOI. cd/90111" (This option would not help you much if you want to make your revised version available for public; in case the journal is subscription-based).

I think using the journal template/logo is allowed; what is not allowed is using the post-produced pdf that you got from the publisher (did not compile yourself).

@FedericoPoloni You are right. Few journals mention to not use their logo at least in my field (CS). Please feel free to edit my answer, to make it more correct. Thank you.

The arxiv has a dedicated field for the DOI.  You should add it there, not in a comment.

The arxiv has a dedicated field where you can add the DOI.  (Note that this will not create a new version.)
In addition, most journals will allow you to upload the final accepted version (that is, the version with the corrections you did following the referee comments, but without any copyediting done by the journal), so you can additionally upload that version when you add the DOI (and potentially clarify in the "comments" field that this is the accepted version).

arXiv automatically ingests publication metadata from many journals and some other sources. So the DOI might be automatically updated for you once your article is published. For a major journal like ApJ, I would expect that to be the case.
If that turns out not to happen, then you can update the DOI and journal reference metadata on the version of the paper that you have uploaded. I believe it's generally understood that those metadata items refer to a final published version of the paper, whereas the PDF that can be downloaded from arXiv is a preprint, which will not precisely match the published version. You don't need to upload a new PDF to arXiv, but if there is a more updated version that you're allowed to upload, it's a nice courtesy to other researchers if you do so.

I'm thrilled.  For some reason, I've never seen this happen.


text:
What is considered a good research record for an assistant professor job (tenure-track)?
I'm a tenure-track professor in Brazil (and will receive tenure next year). However, I'm currently applying for some tenure-track jobs in USA.
Currently, I'm developing my statements (research, teaching, etc.) and writing down my CV. However, I don't have experience and don't know many PhD and PostDoc researchers from the USA to compare my research record with theirs.
My question is: what is considered a good research record for the selection committees in the USA? How many papers, number of citations, etc? What do these committees highly value?
I believe that I'm a little anxious regarding the selection process. Thus, I believe that evaluating my own research record with that of others will give me some peace of mind.

P.S.: I want to consider two fields: Computer Science and Industrial Engineering, as I have expertise in both (my lines of research encompasses operations research, machine learning, data science, theoretical computer science, and algorithms).

I'd look at the profiles of people recently hired in your field (basically any assistant professor would do): it's common for their full CVs to be on an academic web page. Every person evaluates differently so no specific record will guarantee or prevent a hire.

There are too many variables to give any valuable answer. An what would you do with an answer in any case? Your record is what it is. Apply to places that ask for things you are qualified for and note that tenure track positions are very hard to get and very competitive.

@BryanKrause I will try this

@Buffy is all about my anxious mind. I want to know my chances (if possible)

Your chances are what they are. Make a good application, get good letters of recommendation if that is required. Match your skills to the job. Good luck.

Institutions vary a lot too. Tier 1 research level is going to be hard to get even with a high quality record. Going down to lower tier institutions increases everyone's chances. Generally, the hiring process is very subjective and random too with so many working parts. Best idea is to cater each application as much as possible. Know your audience.


text:
What makes a research paper low-quality?
As a reviewer, what are some obvious signs to you that a paper is low-quality?

@user37208: fourth thing: readable.

Fifth thing: novel

@Karnivaurus Wouldn't relevance imply novelty?

@emory Well I suppose it depends on exactly what relevance means... To me, it just means that the paper contains work related to the field of the journal / conference, and related to the problem it is trying to address. For example, a paper which repeats some existing work could still be relevant, if the conclusions from that existing work are relevant themselves. Although I actually think that "relevant" is broad a term here -- because you could say that a paper is only relevant if it is correct, only relevant if it is non-trivial, and only relevant if it is readable....

This question seems too broad  based on the comments above. Please define "low-quality" to narrow down the scope of this question. Vote to close as too broad. More than happy to re-open it if question is made more clear. Thanks.

Kind of a broad question, but I'll play along.
It is easier to say what makes a paper high quality: I learn something new and interesting by reading it.  A twinge of jealousy -- as in, "Gosh, I wish I had thought of / done this" -- is a good sign there.  The absence of all this makes the quality of the paper not too high.
There are some papers that don't teach me anything new and interesting that I nevertheless feel are of medium (publishable) quality: sometimes I don't really understand the value of a result but can't claim (or can't justify a claim) that the results will not be of value to someone else or someone in the future.  Sometimes the results are known to me in some form but don't appear in the literature.  Sometimes the results are novel when viewed from the knowledge base and comfort zone of one subfield but less so from another (or perhaps from the vantage point of a true expert -- in a field where true expertise is rare), and these can be worth publishing.
Probably what remains is low quality.  I am inclined to object a bit to the framing of the question in terms of "obvious signs": as a referee, I aspire to read a paper carefully enough to be confident in my evaluation of its quality.  Obvious signs may inform my preliminary impression, but I will read further to confirm.  But here are some things that would make me evaluate a paper as of low quality: as I go down the list, the quality decreases:

The results of the paper already exist in the literature. Usually this means the author was not aware of them.
The results of the paper already exist in the literature, in a better form than in the author's paper.  Thus publishing the paper could actually be a step backwards.
Same as the above, but the current paper omits a key technique or perspective that is part of the contemporary understanding of the topic.  For instance, there are some expository papers, and these do not need to contain new results or even the sharpest possible form of the old results it exposes, but the author needs to have at least the level of mastery of the topics being exposed as an advanced student in the area, or the exposition could have a negative effect.
The results are faulty, either in ways that are not easily corrigible, or are easily corrigible but when corrected yield absolutely nothing new.
The results look fishy, but the exposition is so obscure that it is a chore to tell right from wrong from basically-right-but-highly-garbled from totally absent.
The author cannot or will not make a clear distinction between what is attained in the paper and what is desired to be attained.  For me and many others in my field (mathematics), this is certainly the worst.  I saw an especially good example of this recently: a paper posted this month on the arxiv begins (immediately following an abstract which is at turns obscure and vacuous) by stating "Registration contains colored markers:" A red dot stands for "a fact which is not proven at present or an assumption". A yellow dot stands for "the statement which requires additional attention". A green dot stands for "statement which is proved earlier or clearly
undestandable [sic]".  And then immediately following that, still on page 1, there is a "THEOREM",
which is a statement of the Riemann Hypothesis (for those who don't know, this is arguably the single most important unsolved problem in all of mathematics; inarguably solving it will get you $1 million)...marked with a red dot.  Then we have "PROOF", followed by 28 more pages of colored-dotted mathematics, which I spent a minute flipping through out of sheer morbid curiosity.  But if I were a referee then, rather exceptionally, this first page would have been all the sign I needed to be confident of the low quality of the paper.

+1 for mentioning the recording of folklore (readably and correctly) as publishable work. There is still too much opposition around to this simple idea.

Based on your second paragraph, I have to ask: Do your favorite articles have proofs or methods that seem obvious only after you read them?

There's also the class of low quality papers that are so poorly written that it's hard to assess the other points listed.

I tend to look for three things:

Clarity :  can I easily understand the paper? Are the language / logic / symbols coherent? Complex ideas can be hard to grok, but are worthwhile.
Correctness : are there any mistakes in the presentation, mathematics or assumptions?
Contribution : does this paper present something new?

If any of these three is lacking, then I usually mark the paper down (reject, or accept with major modifications).
Of these, the last (contribution) is the most important.
A low quality paper will miss on two of the three.
If a paper misses on 1 and 2, then I generally can't see whether 3 is true or not.

With regard to 1.: in my field the most important papers rarely pass your first criterion.  Often they turn out to be understandable only after weeks or months of hard work on the part of the referee.  But maybe you are talking about papers that are not as easy to understand as they should be because the exposition is poor?

@PeteL.Clark yes, exposition not meat. Hard to understand because the ideas are complex is ok; hard to understand because the authors can't string two sentences together is not.

Okay, sounds good to me.

Curiously, these are the same three criteria that I was considering for rating articles: http://researchpracticesandtools.blogspot.com/2014/03/rating-scientific-articles-why-and-how.html#more

@SylvainRibault ooooh! I like that. The A, B, C, D non-numeric ratings make much sense. Thanks for the pointer!

Mismatch between advertising and content
The unifying theme with low quality papers is a large difference between what they claim they've achieved and what they show they've achieved. Generally, in such a paper the abstract will look exactly like an abstract of a strong paper, but the advertised promise is not fulfilled by the paper content.
A quick and obvious way to look for that is the following - read the abstract to identify the most significant claims; then read the conclusions to see if the claims are still there (or the vague description in abstract implies something much more valuable than actually concluded), then skim the content chapters to see what evidence they provide that the conclusions are valid to their full extent. Good papers will contain exactly what it says in the description, poor papers will have done something small, but puffed it up to seem valuable.

Is it okay to present more than you advertise? For instance, what if you solve one really sexy open problem, which you advertise in the abstract, and then you use the same methods to solve another lesser problem. The answer seems to obviously be yes, but I worry about losing the reader or giving signs of obfuscation.

I would like to add another aspect, that was not mentioned in the answers by Peter K. and Pete L. Clark.
Reproducability - If the description in the paper is not enough to reproduce the results and there is no supplementary material, then it could be a bad paper. This is especially regarding computer science and the presentation of novel algorithms. If there is not enough information for other research to implement it themselves and there is not reference implementation available, then I would wonder if the results presented are valid. Be aware that the author might only make the implementation available on request.
This might also be applicable to other fields.
If this happens to be the case and some other point from the list is true, I would consider it a bad paper.

In addition to the important things mentione by Peter K. and Pete L. Clark, I would add the question "If you had these results and were not under any obligations to publish, would you invest the work of writing it up?". The answer is yes, if you think that the results are interesting in themselves, or might be useful to someone. The answer is no, if the reason to consider the problem is to write a paper.
The difference between these categories is not too easy to judge. Even if someone answers a question someone else asked, it may be that the question was only asked because asking lots of questions means lots of citations. In practice a slight feeling of disgust is sufficient to reject a paper, unless you are reviewing for a rather obscure journal.

I don't see mention that you can't (imho) have a high quality paper without a well researched citation list to the literature (I suppose there's a possibility that some concept has no relevant previous literature, but I can't think of any example of such a thing). Inadequate citations/references is a red flag. Vagueness, methodological sloppiness or inadequacies, lack of sufficient statistical power, are all also red flags. If the comment made above that some reviewers must spend months (multiple dozens of hours?) in order to review a paper is true, then there seems to me that quality must be discipline dependent. This brings up the question of the division of labor between the reviewers, editors, and readership. Who is responsible for determining "correctness"? In other words, where should "peer review" happen in the "scientific method"?


text:
Differences Between Academic Research Positions in US and Canada?
I am considering the possibility of applying for a faculty or possibly other research positions at a Canadian university. I am curious to know what are the differences in terms of work experience, quality of life, research funding, and so on? I have also heard that government funding structure in Canada is vastly different than the US. Anyone care to share any experiences or first hand knowledge of differences between Canada and the USA for newly PhDs looking for research positions up north?

I'm primarily in the US, but know a tiny bit about Canadian academia, and I did not think it was "vastly different." But curious to hear from people who know more.

I am predominately based in Canada as a post-doc, but do have partnerships with few universities in the US and have gone down there for extended periods of time for research purposes.
I mean, they are not vastly different, but it depends on school and the position itself. Some universities are more prestigious than others- but depends on your field. There are many US scholars here - particularly at universities such as UofT hire heavily from the US. In terms of impact - its so different from university to department, but looking online and checking out Maclean's university rankings could help - but again, so department and field specific - and of course there is some great work happening across both countries.
In terms of funding, again department specific where some are very well funded and others not so much. The major grant competitions are CIHR for any health type related work and SSHRC which are both granted by the federal government across a number of priority areas and disciplines (however, many researchers still rely on large US funding such as NIH). Provinces also have their own grant competitions as well. If you've applied for an NIH, you'll be familiar with the federal grant structure but it is tedious and the platform is archaic. Funding competition is tight, but if can align with their priority calls you could have a good chance, and try to be a Co-Investigator on as many applications as possible. However, at any institution they would be very familiar with this process, and as a post doc or early career researcher there is access to lots of resources such as government run and university run seminars to assist in the application, you'll have an advisor or mentor, and others who can help you navigate the red tape the first time.
In terms of living - Canada is great (again depends where you end up!). Some things to consider is access to free healthcare if you work or study here, which could be a big difference from the US. Rent in major cities is comparable, still expensive, but I gage slightly cheaper (Vancouver or Toronto versus, for example, Santa Monica). The culture is very similar to the US, so I think it would be a very easy transition for a US scholar.


text:
PhD application: Responses from a few professors, but no conversion
I am looking for a PhD in Computer Vision, Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
The core of this question is to understand how do the following factors affect an application:

Acceptable study gap. Do personal reasons for study gap have any credibility?
Percentage that is considered 'excellent'. Does it differ across countries?
Good industry experience but not aligned to the area of interest for research
Old research paper (theses included), say 5 years
No academic reference, but references from highly positioned people in the industry, say a CTO or VP

Though getting replies from professors on personalized emails does not guarantee an admit, what factors must be hindering the acceptance?
Additionally, could Research Assistant position be the right way forward? Or should it be via another masters?
Let know if more information is needed.
Edit:
I am based in India and targeting European universities primarily. Recently started exploring Asian universities as well.

Have you actually made formal applications or just sent emails?

@astronat Emails followed by formal applications.

@yahoo.com Yes, the publication revolves around the same.

@yahoo.com Germany, Switzerland, UK, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Hong Kong (just last Sat.). Got replies from profs at leading universities one each in Germany, UK, and Switzerland. Reading papers from professors in other neighboring countries as well. Do you need access to my paper and thesis as well?

A few are pending. Two in Sweden, HongKong one as well could be termed as pending. Prepping to apply in Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, and Norway. Missed to add Finland to the list of applied ones.

Note that we won't evaluate your application material or credentials, and outside of that it's not clear to me what your question is.

@xLeitix Yes, the first question would be around credentials expectations at leading universities. Beyond that, if profs find my first email credible enough to reply, what all factors might hinder the acceptance of my application? Could it be a missing academic reference, or no association with the field for a good number of years. Credibility of the conference I published at? Or simply my research statement or letter or motivation. Could it be anything more beyond that?

@yahoo.com This is really helpful. Gives the direction to focus my efforts upon. Thanks.

@yahoo.com Another question related to it. Would research assistant be a good option in this case? Do European universities accept applications for such positions from international students?


text:
Should I ask POI for update on PhD application?
I applied to several top social science programs this cycle, interviewed at two (both fly-outs), and have received a decision at School A.
It has been a month now since I interviewed at School B, but I have not heard a peep from them. I recently spoke with a mentor of mine, and he indicated this likely means they've sent an acceptance to someone and are waiting to hear back from that person before finalizing outcomes. This would therefore mean that I'm unofficially on a waitlist. But I feel like the silence could also mean I was likely rejected, but they haven't sent out rejections yet. If I think hard enough, I can buy into any situation, really. Note that it appears two of the other interviewees have not heard back either (thanks, thegradcafe). We were a group of six.
I would like to know what the current status of my application is, so that I may begin planning for the next stages of my life (!!). Is it okay for me to email and ask my POI (or should I contact someone else?), and what sort of phrasing should I use so that I don't seem pushy?
Thanks.

....What's POI?

It's perfectly fine to send such an email; academics are aware that candidates need to know these things.
Send a concise email explaining that you have an offer elsewhere (A) and ask when you will hear from B.

If I think hard enough

I know it's difficult, but try not to second guess the inner workings of admissions committees. It's much less stressful if you email them and ask.


text:
Is wrong salutation by editor in email reply considerable?
I sent a research paper to one of the reputed journals through email to the editor.
I used the salutation Dear editor  and didn't specify anything about my academic position either in email or in my research paper.
In response to my email, the editor replied to me as Dear professor.  I am thinking whether to reply to the email again saying that I am not a professor or not to reply. Is it considerable? Since I am a beginner to this publication stuff, I can't figure out the etiquette of email.

When I was a PhD student, in the beginning I corrected editors "I don't have a Dr.-titel", but after a while I gave up, for it had no effect.

Time for a professional "footer" in your email correspondence? Although there is still a chance that this will be ignored, esp. if you don't mention any titles...

I don't think you need to send a correction immediately. The editor is most used to dealing with professors, it seems. However, in a future correspondence, you can add a note that you are not yet a professor or that you are studying for a degree, or something similar.
It isn't really a big concern, but you can easily make it a bit more explicit in the future.

The editor is playing safe: if you really were a professor, you might be offended if the editor addressed you as a mere Mr. On the same basis I have been addressed as "Your Excellency" when attending governmental conferences in foreign countries.

It's very common for editors and such people to address unknown researchers as "Professor" or "Dr" without checking that they actually hold such a position.
It doesn't mean anything; just ignore it.  There is no point in replying.

The editor has uptitled you to avoid the possibility of offence. There's absolutely no need to reply nor to ever correct the editor, that just causes the editor additional work.
Personally, I would never write Dear editor. I'd look-up the editor's name. If I knew them, then I'd just use their first name, otherwise, I'd look-up their title and use their title and family name.


text:
Usefulness of research paper(s) of another discipline for PhD
Consider the scenario in which a PhD student of the subject X published good research papers on subject Y. X and Y are not related. Will those papers any way useful for getting PhD or any benefits related to PhD?

It is unlikely that any papers in a different field will be used in assessing a PhD. However, as long as the papers are not too time consuming to generate, then the process (doing research, writing it up for publication, responding to reviews) will be useful for doing the work necessary to get your PhD. And more papers will always help in applying for postdocs.
Depending on the subject, a PhD can be more about learning to do research than obtaining subject matter knowledge. If you are in such a discipline, then research practice is useful. But it is counterproductive if doing the extra papers reduces your capacity to do research in your own field (particularly time).

I don't believe there can be a general answer to this other than it depends. Depends on university, on country, on field, etc. Generally, though, I would guess that in most cases the value would be pretty small unless the research methodologies in the two fields are similar.
If you want to pursue a doctorate in Mathematics, anyone considering you will want to know that you have the basis and background for research in mathematics. Having published in Chemistry isn't going to have much value since there is little either in the background or the methodology that will help you in maths. Medicine and Chemistry would be a different story, perhaps.
But if you have the required background in discipline, then such other work could have a small effect as it gives some evidence of deep thinking and hard work.
Such disparate interests can also raise questions about your commitment to the new field, of course. I doubt that would be disqualifying, but you should be prepared to discuss the issue.


text:
Is it good idea to use arXiv for improving my paper?
I have some rejections to my paper due to wrong selection of journals and the small mistakes done by me. The mistakes are so small for me but crucial to paper and can be fixed very quickly (less than a minute) by me. I want to improve paper by myself by taking a long time because no rejection yet happened due to some serious flaw that I cannot manage.
Since I am a beginner, can I use arXiv to improve my paper through feedbacks or by taking time to improve paper instead of sending to journals and getting rejections for small mistakes? Are there any drawbacks to put my paper in arXiv?
Points favor to me :
1) No time limit.
2) Feedbacks and suggestions may come.
3) Fewer chances for rejection if I publish it to a sensible journal after using arXiv.

There is nothing to stop you posting on arXiv, but you should not expect to get feedback when you post an article - you may get some feedback but it is unwise to rely on this. You should probably also bear in mind that an author of a mathematics paper should take responsibility for finding errors

When you say you are a "beginner", do you mean that you are a graduate student? undergraduate? doing maths in your spare time?

@YemonChoi  Doing the math in spare time. I am not getting sufficient time to spend on paper.

@YemonChoi I am a graduate student in CS but have ideas on mathematics.

There is a potential negative: if you put incomplete, poorly written, or incorrect results on the arxiv, those who do look at them could stop taking you seriously, and even stop looking at your work. One has only so much time to scan the literature, and even less to look seriously at something. An author with a history of wasting one's time is an author whose work one usually chooses to ignore.

arXiv is not a good choice for obtaining feedback or informal reviews of papers.
arXiv is typically used for publishing pre-prints. It allows authors to disseminate a paper as well as enabling the paper to be cited in advance of traditional publishing. As such, it also allows authors to establish some claim of precedence on their work. Such papers are often published on arXiv with a note such as "Submitted for publication in < journal >" or "Accepted for publication in < journal >" since the publishing cycle can range from months to years in some fields.
I would venture that most readers will be other people working in the field, to see what work is currently being done. They are likely to have neither the time nor inclination to review and provide feedback on unpublished papers. It may vary depending on the field but I would expect that papers without an accompanying "Submitted ..." or "Accepted ..." note would have fewer reads, let alone feedback or responses.

"Submitted for publication in < journal >" is not a good idea. The paper might get declined, and then everyone (including the referee for the next journal you submit it to) gets to see that it's already been declined :)


text:
How to get started on a PhD?
When visiting my old school to attend the graduation of a friend, I ran into my old tutor. Exchanging stories and ideas, she nearly immediately offered me the option of a PhD position under her.
Now, I have applied for such positions before at other institutions but never got accepted. To do it right this time, I was wondering whether there were any resources available (books, blogs) that cover the early PhD and application process experience so that I may learn from others.
If relevant: I will be pursuing this PhD in the field of modern media, part-time, in the Netherlands.

In your position, I would certainly go to ask some people from your university about it. There is always a PhD association or something like that. Every PhD students are involved in this association, to help or to give tips on different subjects.

Your question is very broad. It may take a book to answer it. Please narrow it down to a more specific question so that we can answer it.

Ask your old tutor and potential advisor: she is in the position of giving you the best advice.

@scaaahu The question is exactly to tell me what books those are. Thank you :)

I started with my PhD two years ago, and I understand what you're asking. There is large number of things you want to consider before enrolling in PhD, I'll try to summarize my experience and some advises.
Bottom line, when applying to PhD you want to make sure that you have these things covered:

Clear understanding of what your future research will be. When you start working on your studies, passing exams (in case you have formal exams as I do) you'll want to link these subjects to your main research as much as possible.
Make sure you found mentor. I guess this will be professor who offer you PhD, but it can vary depending on field of studies.
Check options of scholarship, since PhD studies and research can be quite expensive, depending on your area.

Interesting resources and links related to this subject:

http://www.pgbovine.net/grad-school-app-tips.htm
https://www.academics.com/prepare-for-a-phd
http://www.findaphd.com/advice/finding/phd-interview-questions.aspx <-- check this one
http://postdoc.unl.edu/documents/interview_prep.pdf <-- Nice checklist

Related to funding/scholarships, inside a site findaphd there are 2 sections to be considered:

https://www.findaphd.com/funding/guides/phd-funding-guide.aspx
https://www.findaphd.com/study-abroad/

Now, about more important matter - choosing good PhD subject, mentor and defining a hypothesis. My biggest challenge was finding out what my specific subject will be (and what domain will it be applied to), cause every mentor expect you to have idea what you want to do. If you try to simply "Google it" it won't be of much use.
Few approaches helped me here:

Open account on http://www.academia.edu , publish some of your earlier papers and works. After that connect to a people with a same research interests as yours and read their papers and current issues. You'll be surprised what you'll find after just couple of days.
When you search for books use https://scholar.google.com/ instead of simple Google, you'll find lots of interesting papers on your subject probably.
Try to find "problems", cause your future work MUST provide new benefit, you must solve problem. In order to solve it, you'll first read about current state of that problem.

To summarize it, these are steps you probably want to take:

Define your field of research
Define domain and mentor
Find scholarship module
Open account on Academia.edu and upload your papers
Research Academia.edu and Google Scholar for issues and opportunities
Define hypothesis and general idea for your future PhD
Prepare everything in nice documentation and enroll

All best,

Point 3 is irrelevant to somebody doing a PhD in The Netherlands. PhD "students" are generally (quite well paid) employees of the university. Arranging your own funding is almost unheard of.

@WecarE yup, what TomvanderZanden is saying is correct, I have a friend from The Netherlands and he told me the same thing. When I said 3. Check options for scholarship, I was thinking about this. Examine options on Universities, what do they require and what are pay grades. But even more important than pay grades are fields of study and formed "internal educational groups", for example laboratories that University offers, linked degrees. I will write more about it later, just to find links.. :)

@Technogeek Perhaps worthy of another question, but would it be appropriate or maybe problematic to discuss possible research questions and topics with experts before comitting to a financial relationship with the university?

@WeckarE hmm, I believe that discussing possible research and technology involved must happen before committing to any kind of academical relationship (financial one included). This is the only way to find out if you and your research partner / employee are good match.

In The Netherlands, as a PhD Student (promovendus) you will generally be a salaried employee of the University with a 4 year contract (which may be terminated at the 1.5 year mark if things are looking bleak). On the website of the University Association of The Netherlands you can download the CAO which contains information on the regulations under which you'll be working (articles 2.3, 3.1, 6.8 and E.12 are of particular interest). If you are working part-time then the length of your contract would reflect that (e.g. you'd get an 8 year contract if working 50%).
You can also do a PhD as employee of a company (buitenpromovendus) in which case these regulations would not apply. These generally take far longer (as you are performing regular work for the company, and your work on your PhD is tangential to this).
If your tutor has offered you a position, then the application process could be as simple as saying "yes". There is no formal admission process, though you must have a Master's degree in the relevant field before pursuing a PhD (if this is not the case, then it is still possible but more complicated).
In The Netherlands, applying for a PhD is the same as applying for any other job; if your tutor has offered you a position, then all you need to do is accept. If the offer is not yet formal (or contingent) then a normal application process would consist of submitting your CV and then (hopefully) getting a "job interview".

Tom is right, but I'd like to add one small remark on buitenpromovendi. It is also quite common to have promovendi who work towards their degree in their own time, i.e. they do not get paid by anyone. Facilities and assistance offered to these buitenpromovendi by universities varies but can be quite limited. These positions are generally only for those who really, really want a PhD, but cannot find funding.

@TomvanderZanden I think I am an exception for the Netherlands where I contacted potential supervisors, in Uk and Germany as well. I discussed with them my ideas and research topic. All of them are interested in the supervision but they asked me to provide a research proposal and at least three funding opportunities that I should seek on my own. I am struggling with looking for grants/scholarships which should be suitable for discipline/topic and where eligibility criteria, hosting university, partnerships/consortia are fundamental elements of every funding program.