text:
How important is an (Honors) undergraduate thesis to graduate school admissions?
I'm an undergraduate Honors student in a STEM major, and in the upcoming years I will have the option to complete an Honors thesis in my field, either as a research/data analysis or a literature review sort of thing. Because of other circumstances I can graduate "with Honors" with or without it, so it would purely be adding to my major, not so much my overall graduation status.
Either way I will have some volunteer experience in labs in my field, and a decent GPA, etc. Would an undergraduate thesis in my field greatly help my graduate program applications? Does it matter if the thesis is based on original research or literature review?

It might also help you to get some scholarships or to get contacts if you work a topic that is priority on your university as you'll most likely have a director on your thesis. It also depends, what kind of graduate program are you thinking to apply on?

Hi Omar, thanks for your comment. To answer your question I'm thinking about applying to Masters (and eventually PhD) Neuroscience programs, preferably in Europe. Does that make a difference?

I think it makes a big difference, specially because there's a lot of weight on research in Europe, specially in that field, this is your chance to shape your career towards it. It will help you to get scholarships, and more benefits, as you'll be able to back up that you're able to work in an independent project of a considerable size.

The part of an undergraduate thesis that helps you with graduate admissions is that it is a form of research experience. It's not so much the finished product, the thesis, but the process of getting there and putting the work in. Even if it isn't complete before your applications are due, just that you are working towards a thesis is useful if it will get you into a lab and learn among other people doing research.
In my personal opinion, a literature review isn't nearly as useful for building the skills that make you a good grad school applicant, it's a lot more like the rest of the (upper-level) coursework you do as an undergraduate.

There are, of course, individual factors that will heavily influence this answer, but in general, as someone who both did this, and now as someone admitting students, I'd say the answer is yes. My thoughts on the subject:

A research thesis would be vastly more useful than a review thesis, as a large bulk of graduate admissions is based on trying to estimate your potential as a researcher.
While you do have some research experience, in my mind one of the nice parts of a thesis is that rather than just volunteering in a lab, you are in some ways taking charge of a coherent project you can talk about as a project.
A thesis lends itself well to papers or presentations, either internally or externally (my undergrad thesis resulted in two papers and two conference presentations) which are extremely helpful.

An honors thesis will probably not make much of a difference for your admissions case unless it is completed in time to show up on your transcript. If you're doing it only in your last semester, then it wouldn't show up if you apply in the fall semester of your senior year.

Hi, thanks for your answer! I will have opportunity to schedule things so that I'd finish my thesis in my penultimate semester if that helps, thank you for pointing that out.

I disagree. A research project should be a key point of your personal statement.

The OP has already stated that she's engaging in research. The question is whether or not registering for an Honors thesis will help.

@aeismail As I note in my answer, "some volunteer experience in labs in my field" and taking control of a distinct segment of a project in thesis form can be very different things.


text:
How should work experience affect decision to get an MLIS (or another similar specialized Master's)?
The Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) degree is widely discussed as a potentially bad investment as a graduate level degree at this time because few programs are funded, it is rather specific, and it is notoriously difficult to actually get a job in the field of librarianship with an MLIS. One of the major reasons I've seen cited for this is the number of graduates versus available positions, and lack of practical work experience among new MLIS graduates.
However, I may have the opportunity to work in a library for over a year during my undergraduate degree. If lack of practical work experience is indeed (?) a major factor in the difficulty of the library job market post-graduation, would an MLIS be a more practical investment for me considering I could gain this experience before beginning the graduate program, thus leaving with both a degree and experience? In general, when deciding whether to apply to or enter an unfunded Master's program in a given field directly out of undergrad, should presence or lack of existing work experience in the field (or a related one) during undergrad be a major consideration?

I am curious to hear others' answers, especially those specifically about library work.
I highly recommend working in a field before spending your time (and money) training for it. I am extremely glad that I worked straight out of college instead of trying to go directly to law school. Working in a law-adjacent area, I realized that I did not want to be a lawyer, but I enjoyed working with colleagues with Ph.D.s and chose a different path.
If you are going to work while studying anyway, working in the library sounds like a great choice for you. If you were not planning on working, I am not sure whether it would be worthwhile to seek out that opportunity. (For U.S. students who are going to work anyway, working on campus through Federal Work Study is associated with a higher GPA versus working otherwise. However, for the students who were not otherwise going to work while studying, on average working is associated with worse academic performance. (Scott-Clayton and Minaya, 2016) (Working while studying seems to be worse academically for full-time students but not part-time students (Darolia, 2014), and the effect of working may depend on what activities the work time is substituting for (Scott-Clayton, 2011).)
(Pedantic note: Scott-Clayton 2011 is a quasi-experimental study based on the variation in the amount of Federal Work Study funding institutions have available, which means I feel free to use the word "effect" in a causal sense. The other two references address causal concerns through modeling endogeneity and matching, which make their analyses useful but not definitive evidence about a cause-and-effect relationship.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Proper etiquette for withdrawing from an undergraduate research lab?
I am currently involved in two very different Biology research labs in two different areas at my university, as an undergraduate volunteer. Lab A has been a long-term commitment of mine, and Lab B is a newer addition to my schedule but also a valuable experience, I think, but I have a choice coming up:
Before I graduate, I must complete one (and only one) senior capstone/thesis/etc lab project, that will almost certainly take up all the time I can dedicate to research outside of my regular coursework. I originally sought out and joined Lab B because it was looking like Lab A would not be able or willing to advise a capstone project, but now that is no longer the case - so I want to complete all my senior work at Lab A.
How do I politely tell Lab B that I do not plan to complete a capstone there after all, and probably won't even remain a volunteer in future semesters? (I don't recieve any payment or grades from them, but I know it does take time and effort to train new lab members so I feel bad about leaving without contributing a paper or presentation or something.)

Just tell them, politely and with appreciation for what they've offered you. Sooner rather than later, so that they can plan for your departure and maybe have you prepare a useful contribution in your remaining time there - wrap up whatever you've been doing, document your work, train another student to continue your project, or whatever else they need.
It is understood that students are balancing a lot of competing interests and opportunities; as long as you handle yourself professionally (give plenty of notice, remain engaged and work hard during your remaining time there even though you know you won't continue, etc.), there is nothing to feel bad about.

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


text:
How to resolve current situation with a lecturer that comes across as overly critical/abrasive?
I am currently in my final year of a Computer Science degree in which there is a database module, and the first large-scale assignment is in progress. The Lecturer that has led most of the classes has come across to me as somewhat abrasive when I communicate with them. To give a rundown of the actions that have happened so far:

The lecturer asked for a diagram to support the design of the database
I sent a design by email before the submission along the lines of:

Dear Lecture A,
This is my first attempt at the diagram for the coursework. Could I get some feedback on what I >have done so I can correct any mistakes?
Regards
Student (Me)

 I received feedback in another email:

Dear student (me),
List of improvements, etc.
You have not modelled the diagram correctly, more is needed.
(Lecturer name)

I was not very pleased with the final line, but I applied the suggested changes to the diagram, changing a significant amount.
I officially submit the second draft to the hand-in point on the University VLE system.
I received feedback today (being given significantly less than expected), in which some of the same corrections were given as when I submitted the first version, even though I have completely changed how it appears on the diagram.

I should make it clear that from the start of this first coursework assignment, a brief was given, specifying what was to be designed and built. What I am not very pleased very annoyed about is that the lecturer has picked out what they deem to not fit the brief, without any positive feedback (which is often the case with other classes and lecturers), and the lecturer has then gone on to say that I should add additional points to my work that were not specified or assumed in the brief.
What would be the best choice of action to be taken with this lecturer?

About the last line of the lecturer's e-mail, why were you not very pleased? Did you add more to the design per their request in the second (final) draft?

@scaaahu Yes as per request (from the lecturer), I added what was said to the second draft

This is a final year in CS, not primary school. You will not get a sticker and a stamp for nice work. But you will learn a lot from the critical feedback. It sounds to me like you are taking the criticism personally, instead as helpful and as a chance to improve. Regardless of whether the lecturer is "nice enough" or not, the best way to deal with this is to see what YOU can do to improve your diagrams and what YOU can do to better deal with negative feedback. Voting to close because a lot depends on details of the personality of you and your lecturer.

@Louic But in this class the lecturer does have to give feedback to every student, and that is routine practice throughout my course.

I see nothing abrasive in the response of the lecturer. It is just straight-to-the-point. It is a choice one makes, which, in my opinion, is a perfectly acceptable one.

Lecturers are not obliged to give individual feedbacks on first attempt of each and every student, let alone positive feedbacks.
As far as I have understood, this particular lecturer has put on extra effort and wrote a list of improvements to help you.
The very purpose of a homework assignment is to measure one's ability to apply the knowledge (supposedly) obtained in the classroom while solving different and more difficult problems. I have never, ever saw a homework which tells the students what to do step-by-step. It is your job to figure out.
Especially in a homework which requires a design for a database, it does not make any sense for the lecturer to give a guideline. Usually, a person who designs a database is given a list of requirements, and must follow certain standards to come up with a feasible design.
So as for your question, thank your lecturer for their time, and maybe make an appointment to see what your mistakes are.

@Bookworm -  To expand a little on this excellent answer by padawan: I believe you are asking too much of your lecturer. If they had to do this for all students they would not have time for anything else. The point of a first degree is to learn to work independently as far as possible. It prepares one for higher degrees or shows your ability to an employer. No employer will want to spoonfeed you when they are paying you to provide solutions for them! Sorry if I sound as harsh as the lecturer! It is a harsh truth but it is a truth.

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


text:
Is it inappropriate to ask a professor for multiple letters of recommendation (at different times)?
I'm applying for an Honors program within my college during my undergraduate degree, and need a letter of recommendation from a professor in my specific field. However, because there are few professors in this field who have taught my classes, I'd need to ask someone who already provided me with a letter last year (for an award, which I won, if that makes a difference).
I know the question of "how many recommendation letters" was answered here, but I'm referring to letters requested at different times, far apart. Will this individual, if they remember me, likely be annoyed that I returned to them? Do professors save these things (perhaps they could recycle the same letter)?

It is not a problem in principle to ask for letters of recommendation at different periods of time. However, one should certainly make an effort to keep the recommender aware of career developments since the letter was originally written. (However, the relevant time scale over which old letters of recommendation become "outdated" is much longer than one year!)
For the most part, in the digital age, we keep letters of recommendation "on file" and recycle and refresh the content as warranted, so it's not a herculean effort to write a "new" letter after a while.


text:
Do US universities validate your degree before making an offer?
I have received a verbal offer for a faculty position in the US. This was 3 weeks ago when the chair of the search committee called me to tell me the good news in addition to offered salary, etc.
As of today I'm still waiting to receive anything in writing and, upon asking, I was told that they cannot send me the written offer until they have validated my degree, which they said might take an unknown amount of time. (Note that I've obtained my doctorate from a French University that has been around for 500 years and is accredited on all continents.)
I noticed on the department's website that there are still seminars being scheduled that may or may not be talks by faculty candidates. Meanwhile I have turned down another offer and I'm beginning to get a little stressed about the uncertainty.
Thus my questions:
1. Is the above the normal process for hiring people with non-US degrees?
2. Is there anything I can do to reduce the uncertainty?

I've known institutions to check the degree explicitly because some people actually got offered the job - only for them to find out they did not, in fact, have the degree they said they did.

Does your French University have an online verification form? If so, share that information with them. It may just be that they're not familiar with the process in France, or that your verification form has been placed in the inbox of the only office worker they have that speaks French, but that he hasn't gotten to it yet. Another thing you can do is to have a French consulate translate your degree and notarize the translation. I'm not sure that a French consulate could authenticate the degree though. Maybe they could, I don't know. You should call your French consulate and ask.

Some universities do, some don't. For those that do, it is not because of suspicion on the part of the search committee that you don't really hold a degree. The academic world is small enough that we rely on mutual trust for many things: presumably the committee members know some of the people who wrote your letters of recommendation. However, especially for public institutions, there are often various rules and regulations that must be followed, paperwork to be filled, and other details to process. The fact that you have a degree from a foreign university is probably slowing things down, as the admin staff may not be used to dealing with it. On se débrouille.
If you really like, you can email the search chair, asking if there have been any updates, as you are anxious to get a firm offer in hand. Also, remember, a verbal offer is worth the paper it is written on. Until you have signed a contract, you are still on the job market and you should be acting as such (e.g. applying for jobs, attending interviews, etc). However, as you've said, there's a lot of uncertainty. So... Relax. Take a walk. Write that paper you've been procrastinating on. Enjoy the long French evenings.


text:
Confusing accusations and mixed messages with lecturer, what can I do to resolve this?
I am an undergraduate student in my final year on a Computer Science course. Every week I assist in a 2nd year (undergraduate) class that I took last year on programming. The programming class covers a range of languages, tools and topics, and is divided between a number of lecturing staff. There is one other assistant other than myself who helps in the class.
As an assistant in the practical sessions of these classes, I will often be chatted by students on Teams (course is currently virutal due to lockdown) for help in completing the practical work. I help by:

Giving links to related work (such as Mozilla/specific library documentation/stackoverflow)
Explaining tasks that are too complicated
Look over (but not add anything) to student's code
Giving broken down explainations of how to complete a programming task in technical language (eg.- "You gonna need to write a function that adds x to y...")
I should stress that I never give away answers or actually type any code myself.

I am currently unsure of what to do with the current lecturer in this class as they are giving me alot of mixed messages, these including:

Asking where students are when only a third of the class shows up to the virtual teaching and lab sessions.
Asking not to share code with students, even when they can see that I have not given any code to the student (when the conversation is in the main module chat.)
Questioning why I'm spending a significant amount of time helping an individual student who is stuck and needs help. In this case (which has happened a few times) I leave the main call, go into a private call and do a 1-2-1 with the student.

I have gathered a consensus from a number of students that a good number do not appreciate his teaching style a great deal (he tends to read off the slides he has produced and rarely gives live demonstrations.) I have generally not given my opinion on this lecturer, even though I share similar sentiment from being taught by this lecturer in other classes. What is the message this lecturer is giving and what can I do?
(It should also be noted that I have a good working relationship with the head of department, who is also my tutor, and he was the previous lecturer on this module I assist in. I get the impression that my assistance is appreciated when the HoD was teaching.)

Have you asked the lecturer for any guidance on what he wants/expects from you?

Everything you write here sounds very professional. I’d start by having an informal chat with your former boss along the lines of if, in hindsight, he had any suggestions on how you could further improve as a TA, then gently mention your worries here. If still needed, I’d talk with your current boss after to make sure it’s no misunderstanding.

Getting questioned should never be an issue unless the demeanor is hostile. But, you probably have good answers to any questions. Just tell the prof what it is you do and assure them that you, for example, don't code for the students.
In face to face education it is advised that people even professors, normally advise students "with the office door open". You might consider getting a way to retain a transcript of any 1-1 advising you do, just as a check on any misunderstandings.
But, asking the prof for advice on what they feel you "should have done" in anything that they question might help. But keep a record of their advice.
You might also exploit the relationship with the other (former) professor who might have a conversation with their colleague to make sure that the groups are treated the same from year to year and across sections. If they can come to a common understanding and communicate it to you then everyone will be better off. They don't need to say that you've complained, and you haven't, if you just point out that there may be differences that might better be resolved. It might even be a department wide issue.
If the current professor is a novice at this, they may have some learning to do themselves about how to manage a group of students effectively. Especially online.

Yep. Whoops, Getting too old for this. Thanks for the catch @JoelReyesNoche .

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


text:
How to Get Over Feelings of Being a Failure in Engineering/Academia
It's my first time posting here, and I have a relatively personal issue that I would like to discuss. I studied electrical engineering in college and was accepted to the integrated BS/MS program at my alma mater later in my senior year. However, due to immense stress over my OCD symptoms(obsessive thoughts) and long-term burn-out, I dropped out of that program after a year without a master's degree.
I spent another year trying to reset and reboot myself (doing part-time jobs, volunteering, reading, spending time with family), and am now a second year master's student in biostatistics under public health (was attracted to public health due to my mental health struggles). I can say that I am in a much better place now than the dark times and I am also working as an engineering intern at a medical device company which gives me a sense of purpose.
However, even after two years, I still haven't fully dropped my baggage of being a "failure" and not good enough. My best friend in college is working on her PhD in engineering and I used to expect myself to do a PhD in engineering as well. Even though now I have a clearer sense of what I truly want, somehow unconsciously I still think there could have been a better version of me -- someone who's stronger and more determined to get through whatever grinds/difficulties and go all the way up to a PhD. Intellectually I know that I might already have or will gain those qualities through my career, but emotionally I still think I somehow have failed and incurred enormous sunk cost and am much less of the best version of me.
Thank you for reading this far and hopefully someone can give me some much-needed advice. Hugs to you if you have been in similar situations.

Does this help? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15457/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-looking-at-others-success

Hopefully you are working with a professional on OCD. Ask them if this is related.

This isn't substantive enough for an answer, but have you tried writing down and then re-evaluating in writing your "baggage"? You might find more positive perspectives on your academic history. For instance, you say, "I still think there could have been a better version of me - someone who's stronger and more determined ..." But it takes a lot of strength to break away from a program that isn't working for you, and a lot of determination to find something else. Can't you say, "I am glad I was strong and determined enough to pursue another career instead?"

@Buffy thanks for your reply! Yes I am currently working with a therapist:)

@TaliesinMerlin thanks so much for the shift in perspective! I was a bit afraid to see what people are posting here and am glad to find some encouraging words!

@TaliesinMerlin I also agree with you that writing stuff down is a great way to sift through those internal "baggages". I have been trying to take more time for journaling. Thanks:)

It is not helpful to compare yourself to who you aren't.  There is an interesting concept in economics called "opportunity cost", which is essentially the cost of not doing something because, due to limited resources, you chose to do something else instead.  In your case, you left your program and focused on yourself rather than your academics.  Essentially, you chose to work on your internal issues at the expense of your first masters program.  You couldn't do both ,and you had to choose one.  No problem with that.
A better question to ask yourself is: "what do I do now?"  You clearly have a goal in mind for who you feel you need to be in order to be a) successful and b) an academic.  Whether there is overlap between those two or not is debatable, but for now let's assume you want to be both successful and an academic.
You also feel that there are parts of yourself that need work still, and I'm assuming this involves at least academics and personal, internal stuff.  You won't be able to fix it all by posting to stack exchange.  Instead, I think that there are some low-hanging fruit problems that you can start to tackle.

You compare yourself negatively to the person you want to be.  Instead, use that as motivation.  So instead of "I can't organize my research project" say "My best self can organize their research projects.  They do that by..." and then list the things you feel you should be able to do but aren't doing yet.

You seem to be comparing yourself to your colleague who has taken a different path than you have.  Again, motivate, don't discourage yourself.  We compare ourselves to others all the time.  It is totally fair, and probably true, to say that we'll never be "as good" as everyone we look up to.  That doesn't mean that we can't be good at things, and it doesn't mean we can't use those people as examples of how to achieve our own success.

Whether you're starting later or not doesn't matter.  I personally remember thinking that I'd be "so old" when I graduated from my undergrad that I wouldn't be able to do any more learning or growth.  I have since come to understand that what I was really afraid of was being too inexperienced, not too experienced.  I didn't think I had enough time to gain the experience I needed, but I've since realized that a few years here or there to work on things is perfectly acceptable.  How many people go back and do PhDs in their fifties or even later?  Just because it's not how it's usually done doesn't mean it can't be done.
Finally, you appear to be planning to fail.  I think that you are giving yourself an unfair safety net here.  It's easy to say that I won't start because I will fail anyway.  It's much harder to start and fail.

Hi Michael, thanks so much for your insightful and encouraging answer. It's true that there are internal stuff that I need to work on and one thing I am grateful for is that my experiences have led me to realize the importance of working on them instead of escaping from them.

The "Finally, you appear to be planning to fail" gives me chills. I have to say you are right. I think I was self-sabotaging at the time due to low self worth and I am really regretful of the unhealthy thought patterns and beliefs I held. Thanks again for sharing so much wisdom here with me and it surely will help others who are reading your answers too :)

Also, it's really nice and encouraging to know that "a few years here or there to work on things is perfectly acceptable"!


text:
Writing a peer-review suggestions letter for a journal editor
I am submitting my review for a journal but they ask for a letter with peer review suggestions (3), but it is not templete, and i am not sure if I can suggest any peer for the review or they have a specific list.
Thanks.

I don't think they are asking for the names of people, but for your suggestions for the paper. Unless the wording is pretty specific otherwise.

@Buffy I think OP is submitting a review article, rather than a peer review of another paper. They're asking for suggestions for peer reviewers.

If I'm interpreting your question correctly, you're asking about how to respond to a request for potential reviewers by the editor.
It is what it looks like on face value - you suggest potential reviewers, which the editors may or may not use. There is no "list" to choose from. You can suggest anyone as long as they have the technical know-how to review your paper. You should avoid suggesting people who might have a conflict of interest with you (so e.g. other members of your department are excluded).

Actually, if your interpretation is correct, it might also be more general and the editor is just trying to build up a "stable" of reviewers. In that case, conflict of interest becomes less of an issue. And even if not, conflict of interest seems an odd thing to bring up here. The reviewer isn't in competition with the author.


text:
Does ''recommended for publication subject to minor revision'' implies aceptance?
I have submitted my manuscript to one of the peer-reviewed journals of chemistry and the decision was 'recommended for publication subject to minor revision'. I have submitted the revision but two weeks have passed and the status is still showing that the manuscript is in peer review in scholar one. Please suggest future steps.
Thank you

Does this answer your question? Does "minor revision" mean "accepted with minor revision"?

The paper isn't accepted until it is accepted. The 'minor revision' must be done to the satisfaction of the editor before it is would be considered for acceptance.

It is highly likely that your paper will be accepted. It is usually the editor who makes such decisions (if this decision has been mentioned in the email they sent you, then it was the editor). If the email also mentions that, upon submission, your paper will not be sent out for review, then you may want to contact the editor (although if I were you, I would wait a bit more). But, if it does not mention such a thing, I suggest you wait a couple of more weeks as two weeks is clearly not enough for the review process to move forward.

Thank you for your comments. In the email it was not mentioned whether it will be sent out for review or not. Should I send a reminder mail to the editorial office in that case?

In that case, maybe it is not the policy of the journal to state clearly whether the submission will be sent out for review or not. However, If the required changes were very minimal (e.g., choice of language, punctuation), it is likely that the editor will make the final decision. But, if the required changes were somewhere between minor and major revision, then your paper could be with the reviewers. In the first case, you could email the editorial team but personally I think two weeks is a bit soon. In the second case though emailing the editor is not a good idea.

I guess you are worried about the fate of your paper but as I mentioned above the decision you have received is very positive. So, I think you could relax and maybe wait a bit more. Perhaps, wait a couple of weeks if you believe the paper is with the editor before sending an email. Of course, this is just a suggestion and you are the person who will make the final decision.

It would depend on who made the "recommendation". If it was a reviewer, then, no, it doesn't imply acceptance. It makes it more likely, but not assured.
An editor can, and sometimes does, reject a paper even with positive recommendations. That might be for business or space reasons, perhaps.
I think the "future steps" is to wait for a final decision from the editor. Or, ask the editor if there is anything more to do.

The comments were made by the editor.

A good sign then.


text:
Standard Word templates, fonts, etcetera. for non/semi-technical Springer journals?
Is there a standard typeface and/or word template that people use when submitting to non/semi-technical Springer journals? Previously I have always used Latex, which typically meant a conference or similar template was used. I have obviously searched but could not find anything, so I am wondering what the unofficial, if one exists, standard is?
I ask because I think it does give a better impression if the standard formatting that reviewers are used to is used.

Did you check the journal in question, i.e. checked the springer homepage or asked if there is a template you should use when submitting to this journal?

I have, there are Word templates for a technical field (Computer Science). Springer advises against using Word for this field, it's not the field for this paper in any case. I'm trying to find something for a non-technical field that formats everything just as Latex classes do.

@ThomasKing Just use a default LaTeX class, e.g., article.

Thanks, I'm asking for Word templates though.

Springer offers the SVJour3 Latex class (with a manual) for preparing manuscripts for Springer journals.
I use Latex for its referencing and figure-handling capabilities, but I submit most of my work to social-science journals, not all of which have Latex templates. In general, managing editors at these journals are expecting submissions to be in Word. However, the typesetting at large publishers such as Springer is typically done by central teams that can handle a wide range of formats. As such, there is no technical problem in submitting Latex files but you have to overcome the editor's unfamiliarity with this format.
To do that, the following has always worked for me.

Submit the article as a PDF, with the Latex file, Bib file and any figures in a Zip archive as supplementary material. Crucially, include an extremely polite cover note to the editor:

explaining that the manuscript has been prepared in Latex so there is no Word version,
reassuring them that the publisher's production department will be familiar with handling Latex files,
suggesting that they contact their production editor if they aren't sure if they can accept this format.

Expect the managing editor to reject the article out-of-hand because your manuscript is a PDF and they haven't read your cover note.
Reply to the rejection by emailing the managing editor, again (very politely) asking them to contact their production department to check if they can accept Latex. You may also want to explain (briefly) why you've written the manuscript in Latex (maybe because Word can't handle special characters or equations very well).

Step 3 generally produces a 'well you learn something every day' reply from the managing editor. If they still won't accept it, you may have to copy your manuscript over to Word (overview of options for doing that). Think carefully, though, since converting to Word may require lots of manual formatting/checking that you will then have to repeat if you make any changes during the peer-review process.
One reason you might not want to do submit in Latex is that the above procedure slightly increases the workload of journal editors, who are typically working for free. On the other hand, you may feel that it's worth it because you're helping future authors who may want to submit manuscripts prepared in Latex for various reasons.

You could try other editors like authorea or typeset. These are based on latex (and include lots of journal templates) but you can export the draft as a .docx file.


text:
If you had the chance to give your past self advice for your thesis, what would they be?
As mentioned in the title, when you look back on your master thesis- the one that brought you to your Phd life, which advice that you think if you had known them before, you would have had a better thesis and a more promising academic career?
I think those advice would vary from advice on relationship with advisors, work-life balance to something more specific like "Do not get carried away too much by the premature results that you come up with" -which may not be true for everyone.
I expect to learn the most from you, more about your failure and how you cope with them than your success.
Sincerely,

Unfortunately, this is probably too broad for this site.

@GoodDeeds: Oh. Thank you for your comment. It's kinda sad knowing that. Nonetheless, would you mind sharing something?

This site is for specific Q&A. It's not good for poll/discussion/share-your-experience topics, which this seems to be.

Interesting question, but this is probably better for reddit or somewhere. You may wish to check out our [tour]; we only do Q&A as Bryan said.


text:
Two PhD programs simultaneously in different countries
I am currently a PhD student in my own country. I am also applying to PhD programs in the US right now. My intent is to try and work for both degrees simultaneously because I am worried about the current political climate and want to have a back-up plan in case something goes very wrong in some way in my home country in the coming years.
I have seen cases when people go to a foreign institution, study there full-time and defend their doctoral thesis back home using the research done abroad (of course, their home institution agreed to that). May this lead to problems in the future? For example, may the US institution retract the degree it granted if it becomes aware of the student having been a student at a different institution simultaneously?

All universities have rules regarding enrolment, typically that you cannot be enrolled for the same or equivalent degrees in more than one place. For example, I have to include and sign this declaration in my thesis: "Whilst registered as a candidate for the above degree, I have not been registered for any other research award." The degree would certainly be revoked if I had not obeyed that declaration.

Do you seriously consider doing two independent PhD's? Or do you want to use the same data/work for two separate theses?

@Mark In all the cases I witnessed people used the work done in the US for their dissertation at home. But I just contacted one of them and learned that he did not disclose his status while enrolling, and he did negotiate with both universities upon receiving an offer.

Not exactly an answer, thus a comment: there are countries/universities where enrolling in a PhD program is not necessary. E.g. in Germany, you could show up with your ready-to-hand-in thesis and if you can convince a professor of your research, you can start the procedure pretty much directly at the "hand in" point. You declare that you did not try to use this work anywhere else as thesis (i.e. you didn't hand it in and were rejected, and you're not trying to hand in in multiple places), but you don't have to declare anything about not having done the research elsewhere.

I agree with the others that it is a very bad idea to try and do this under the table. However, you have another opportunity.
Joint PhD programs are a thing. Rather than violating regulations, ask your university if it is possible to find an agreement with the other institution for a joint program that would give you a double degree. I have mostly seen them between European universities, but that is a possibility.
I can foresee difficulties if the two universities have very different 'status', though.

I think it would be a serious mistake to try and deceive either institution. You could wind up ostracized by both and expelled. If both agree that you can do this then the only problem is being able to accomplish the task.
But, of course, you would need to work on separate problems as you can't get two doctorates for the same work. Your advisors in both places need to have the possibility of contacting one another.
All in all it seems like a poor plan. If your home country is in turmoil, make an exit plan, certainly, but this doesn't seem like the correct one.
And one doctoral research program is usually plenty for anyone.

Just to add to this: it's hard to imagine that you'll produce high quality work in either PhD program if you're juggling two doctoral programs. If you're hoping to enter academia following your PhD, you'll need to set yourself up as a strong candidate in a shrinking pool of jobs. Most departments are going to want to see a single PhD and a solid body of research rather than two PhDs and a thin body of research.


text:
Student talks about carrying out a shooting on campus
What should be done about a student who is widely known among students to be a bully and has recently teased another student by threatening to carry out a shooting on their campus?
Should we let the victim student decide whether he wants to report this incident, or do we report it irrespective of the victim student's decision?

Which country? And what do you mean by "active shooter"?

And yes, that sounds very much like it needs to be reported. Today's times are high-strung and you do not want to overhear a warning signal; handled discreetly, a false positive is probably better than a false negative.

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

TL;DR: you report this to campus safety (i.e., campus police) immediately.

Slightly longer response:
The proper way to handle this may vary from school to school. At my uni, which has unfortunately had to deal with school shootings, we are urged to report anything that even hints at such violence to the campus safety authorities (at my uni, campus police). There's a sound reason for this -- you may not know the whole picture. It's entirely possible that this student has made such threats in the past that you are unaware of, and that they've been monitored for an extended period of time. In such a case, this type of information may indicate to authorities that they need to take preventative action now. Even if they don't take action, they'll be able to document this and keep an eye out for worrisome patterns.
It's worth mentioning that there are those who would argue that this is premature -- or even a potential invasion of privacy on the part of that student -- with the thought that the student may not be showing further warning signs. This is not the right place for that discussion - if you feel that way, let's take it to the chat.
Ultimately, I would argue that you need to do what's best for the community here, not just for the victimized student. There may well be ways of protecting the victim's identity -- if so, feel free to do so -- but most administrators I've met would prioritize the safety of the community over the privacy of either the victim or the aggressor.

+1 Agreed. See my above comments; there may be no intention behind the statement - but it needs investigation. People should realise statements like this must be followed up on.

+1, unless the whole thing is obviously a joke, the statement itself is a criminal offense by most jurisdictions.


text:
references: Square brackets or superscripts for Scientific Reports submission
In
https://www.nature.com/srep/author-instructions/submission-guidelines#manuscript
Nature states:

References
We don’t copy edit your references. Therefore, it’s essential you
format them correctly, as they will be linked electronically to
external databases where possible. At Scientific Reports, we use the
standard Nature referencing style. So, when formatting your
references, make sure they:
Run sequentially (and are always numerical).
Sit within square brackets.

...
But then in the published Scientific Reports articles they use superscripts for references.
My question is: which should be used in a manuscript submission?

Seems pretty clear what they want for the submission. Likely they take care of formatting properly for publication.


text:
Should I talk about my single "failed" course in SOP (failed due to a disturbing reason)?
Background

I failed a course in one of the last few semesters of my undergrad. I had poor grades in most courses in that particular semester.
In the summer just prior to that semester, I had a disturbing experience in a foreign country (sexual assault by a guy, against my will and sexual orientation). It affected me very much while I was there, but assumed that I was alright after I came back to my home country.

However, in retrospect, I think #2 was indirectly responsible for #1. My grades were much better in all previous semesters and they recovered after that one.
I have already graduated from university and now wish to apply for PhD in the US/Europe (including few top univs).
Overall, my GPA is 8.9 on scale of 0-10, I have one conference presentation (conducted by top scientific society in my field) and one journal paper. However, the course in which I failed is important for my PhD field.
Question
I know that a fail grade is a huge red flag in PhD admissions, so I really wish to address it in my statement of purpose (SOP). But due to the disturbing nature of my reason, I am afraid that it might make my SOP "controversial" or just too "negative". I am also slightly afraid that it may be interpreted as seeking sympathy.
Most importantly, I'm afraid of bringing the fail grade into focus, which might have gone unnoticed otherwise.
Should I address my fail grade in the SOP or just let it be? Will transcripts be thoroughly checked?

Once you have your PhD, no one is going to be asking for your undergraduate grades.

I removed your question #2 since (1) none of the existing answers have addressed it, and (2) it is already addressed in our archives, the consensus being well summarized by astronat's comment above. I also edited some of the new info from the comments into the post.

Please don’t write answers in comments. It bypasses our quality measures by not having voting (both up and down) available on comments, as well as other problems detailed on meta. Comments are for clarifying and improving the question; please don’t use them for other purposes. Existing answers in comments have been moved to chat. Note, we can only move to chat once, so future "chatty" comments or answers-in-comments will be deleted (but posts in the chat will be kept "forever").

Here's how you can address this:

I was a victim of a major crime during [month].  This interfered with my studies during [time period].  This is unlikely to recur.  I have subsequently done/will do [whatever relevant study] to make up for the disruption.  My performance in [course] where I got a grade of [good number] is indicative of my abilities under normal circumstances.

This is essentially the same way you would address a medical, financial, or family disruption.  The details of what happened to you are not relevant to your PhD application; just explain it in a way that shows you are likely to succeed in your PhD, even if you have a few bad grades.

The suggested text looks good.  As for placement, what would be a good place for it to go?  For example, does it belong in the statement-of-purpose, toward the beginning or end, or would it be better in a different document?

No. You are understandably deeply disturbed by that whole episode... BUT other people can understand that you had some distraction that negatively affected your work without your going into any detail at all.
Having read many, many applications to grad school in the U.S. over the last 40 years, I am well aware that bad things happen to people, and that this disrupts their lives, not to mention school-work. And that the good luck to avoid bad stuff is not any sort of personal virtue. It's mostly just luck. And although I do brace myself to hear very upsetting stories... I aim to accommodate people in_advance, rather than somehow pretending to insist that they give a sufficiently awful story ...
Even at more mundane levels, I would strongly advocate respecting students' reasons for delays and such. I am not interested in doubting that they had a relative pass away, or that they were ill, or that they suffered personal violence. The kind of thinking that makes people "prove" these things is grossly abusive of sincere people who've had something bad happen.
I think we should not pretend to make rules to "be sure" that "no one ever cheats"... in part because this is impossible... and, meanwhile, it is abusive to the vast majority.
EDIT: from Azor-Ahai-him-'s comment, I should clarify: include a simple sentence in your personal statement or CV or wherever (given the format you have) that some very unfortunate external events seriously disrupted your life, resulting in that dip in your grades. Don't go into detail.

It's not really clear what you're recommending - are you suggesting the OP say nothing at all about their transcript and just rest assured the committee will assume they had some big event happen that brought their grades down?

@AzorAhai-him- I meant to say that the questioner could make a simple statement, that at a certain period they were subject to some external disruptions, which accounts for the dip in grades at that time. Not having to say what those disruptions were.

I think that could be clarified - it sounds to me like you're saying something "don't mention it all" and "mention it in passing"

The SoP is not the place to discuss the past except for brief statements that show how the past supports your future goals. It is not a place, in particular, to discuss  a failed course. The SoP should be entirely forward looking stressing goals and how you intend to achieve them as well as what prepares you for success.
The past appears in the CV. Leave it there.
I would probably suggest that you don't mention the failed course at all unless it was in a key subject in your field and you didn't have a way to make it up. If it is brought up, say in an interview, simply say that you were dealing with the trauma from a physical attack at the time. At most, a single sentence like that in some other place (not the SoP) might be given.
And, as user astronat says in a comment, no one will ever be concerned once you gain a higher degree. Few would even have a way to know. Relax.
But make the SoP entirely about the future.

+1 specifically for "have a way to make it up". Paraphrasing astronat's comment on the question "No one cares about X when you have superseded it with Y". Supersede that (vital??!) module with a short course and you've shown a specific interest in your PhD subject AND an ability to identify weak parts of your CV and improve yourself in the face of adversity.

"The SoP is not the place to discuss the past." I disagree with this. The SoP should include enough personal background to communicate formative values and experiences which are reflected in the applicant's developmental trajectory towards the degree program and aspirations for what follows degree completion. To the extent that an awful experience shaped one's aspirations it might be included (e.g., application to a professional program in counseling psychology or social work with a focus on trauma). The OP's experience may also be irrelevant to their intended degree, and thus to their SoP.

@Alexis, actually that was my intent. I've edited for clarification. The key idea is not to use the SoP to "explain" the past, but to support the future.

Right on, Buffy. :)

Unless the application also has a personal statement, there is no other place than the SOP to explain the failing grade. If i see an F (or really anything worse than a B) in a class that is relevant for the PhD topic, i will certainly notice and ask about it.


text:
My coauthor's university address has a typo in our published paper. What should I do?
I recently got a paper published. One of the affiliations (for the 4th author, more precisely) is right but it has a misspelling in the address of his university. The right address is "University X, Street y, no.1780" but we published as "University X, Street y, no.1879". Is it problematic enough to ask for a corrigendum if the other data about the affiliation (without the number) is right?

Go down the street, demolish whatever is in the number 1879, construct a new university there, force everybody to change places, demolish the previous university. If there is no number 1879, extend the street even if this means to demolish some buildings, put a number 1879 in this street, construct a new university there, force everybody to change places, demolish the previous university.

@BillyRubina It would be easier to highlight the current university, then press Ctrl-X, Backspace and Ctrl-V!

@BillyRubina but then you have created endless typos in published papers, from those who were educated enough to correctly spell their address, and are now forced to your new building; or do you only care about your own paper??? (TripeHound causes the same.) No, at the new address you just need to put a shed with a mailbox, and deliver the mail once a forthnight or so (paper mail senders don't care about speed, clearly) to the old, correct address.

@user3445853 I see. Then it's better to go to number 1879, demolish whatever is in there (or extend the street as described previously), construct another building and connect 1780 to 1879 with a tunnel or pedestrian bridge such as this one. And define this new bulding (1780 + 1879 + Bridge/Tunnel) as the university. This is really elegant because even if people don't know that the new university changed, the mail won't be delivered incorrectly. Also: If we want to extend the university further, employees just need to make more typos!

@user3445853 And if we receive mail from the previous building owner, we can just throw it into the garbage bin or  stay with it, if it's something interesting.

@BillyRubina This seems like a lot of work. If this is a typical academic paper, surely it would be easier to identify the two or three people who are going to read it, drop by their offices, and manually correct their copies?

@GeoffreyBrent Much better: Go into the wrong building (if it doesn't exist, demolish whatever is in the way and construct it), pick any person there, now: This person needs to be you, and you need to be that person. A hint to the solution of this problem is already offered in the plot the movie Face/Off. Problem solved.

@BillyRubina This is the kind of ingenious advice that makes this site what it is.

You should not do anything about this.  Nobody will use this information for anything.
Do not assume your coauthor was responsible.  It could be the journal.

This mistake does not matter at all. In the extremely unlikely case that anyone is actually going to use this particular address to send physical mail to your co-author, it would in all likelihood still reach them.

This. The postal delivery person for that route knows where the university is and can make sure the mail gets delivered properly.

@shoover And when the postal service gets replaced by robots?

@nick012000 I don't think the delivery people will be replaced by robots until these are capable of enough abstraction to notice and fix such errors ;)
Additionally mail sorting systems are already extremely error-tolerant. My brother works for the Swiss post in IT on such systems: Simple spelling errors are by far not enough to throw them off track. Rarely ever hand-sorting is needed and in most such cases the error is so massive that also the human mind and abstraction has no chance to fix it. Sorting systems can already handle most errors humans can.

"I don't think the delivery people will be replaced by robots until these are capable of enough abstraction to notice and fix such errors" Amazon already has.

Intentionally introducing a typo sounds like a great way to avoid unsolicited spam, actually.

@nick012000 Mail sorting is completely automated in the UK. The only thing that really matters on a snail-mail envelope is the post code (equivalent to  USA Zip code, though the format is completely different) and for residential addresses the house number. An organization as big as a university would have a unique post code so the "house number" part is irrelevant.

@nick012000 When the postal service gets replaced by robots, then less of my mail will start getting delivered to neighbors and vice versa. :P I once received a letter addressed to someone who lives more than a mile away from me. By pure coincidence, it was someone I happened to know.

@nick012000 Amazon has a very different situation to general post: they are delivering something you explicitly requested to a previously provided (and validated) address. The routing of the parcel is entirely electronic with barcodes. They’re not delivering things anyone could have sent to you, with any sort of mistake in the (potentially handwritten) address.

@PatricHartmann Human delivery drivers are perfectly capable of inexplicable delivery failures; no need to assume the robots need to improve up them.  (Years ago, my wife had to explain on multiple occasions to Fed Ex that her condo complex did, in fact, exist, no matter what they claimed to the contrary.)

@chepner : good point! Iwas more thinking from the machine point of view. But, in fact, a few days ago I had to get our delivery from a garden a few houses down the street. The driver had somehow mixed up "2" and "3", delivering to no. 26 instead of 36. You certainly don't need a robot to mess up a delivery :)

It happened to me in a recent paper. Luckily this was not yet printed and only in the "first online" format (but after final approval of myself and co-authors).
The mistake was that they (not sure who "they" is whether the editors or us) had placed San Francisco (California, USA) in China and it appeared as "San Francisco, China" in the official paper. The mistake was only noticed a few months later by a colleague.
I reached out to the editorial board mentioning it and they changed it almost instantly. Again, this was prior to printing, but already beyond final approval by the authors.
In any case, I don't think it matters too much. I doubt anyone reads it. I'm sure I don't.

that's pretty funny. I'd definitely keep a copy of that paper, even if just to show it to friends and ask them to find a mistake on page 1.

@sleepy Asking friends to find a mistake seems risky. They'll surely find some other silly typo you made yourself but never noticed :)

@Anyon Yeah, and that one will inevitably be a missing minus sign in front of the third term in Equation 1, which is central to the whole paper. Some things you'd rather never know.

Likely, someone mis-typed "CA" as "CN".  In a similar vein, my daughter was born in Canada.  She was living in the San Francisco bay area when she had her daughter.  As grandfather, I was charged with running the "get the birth certificate paperwork done" set of errands.  The hospital showed my daughter as having been born in "Montreal, CN",  I pointed out that "CN" was China, that Canada was "CA".  "We don't use 'CA', it causes too many errors".  So, I took that paperwork to the city.  Sure enough, the first try at a birth certificate had the mother (my daughter) born in Montreal, China

So i'll echo what the others said and say the don't worry about it and do nothing. Also your not alone, I once tried to work out which universities where citing my work. I gave up when when i realized it was more surprising when two papers agreed on the same address for the same department than when people got the address wrong. Its amazing how many ways people can format (and spell) their own departments address wrong.
At least you spelled the universities name correct (which is the main thing to get right, as if anyone cared to send you a letter though the post then I assume the University would be able to eventually find you even if some of the numbers where wrong), which is more than some people accomplish.

I have several papers where my university affiliation has changed after acceptance but before actual publication. Another reason I use my gmail and not university email for email contact - it tends to be a bit more permanent.
The affiliation address (I believe) is mainly for your university to get credit for the research done there.

But any public email address attracts a lot of spam. Ever since my (university) email address became public through my first publication the number of spam mails I recieved skyrocketed. I would not put my personal email address on a paper. Maybe a separate address for such correspondence?

Sure, but gmail has (much) better spam filters, compared to universities in general.
Also, I do not think people in academia are good spam/scam targets.

"I use my gmail and not university email for email contact - it tends to be a bit more permanent." --> Hmmm, Min university email address still good since the 1990s.  Gmail started  2004.  YMMV.

@chux-ReinstateMonica: For most of us, the permanency is more about career plans.  If you move university then that email will (usually) expire; but you can take Gmail with you wherever you go.  Most junior academics expect to have to move within a few years; many more established academics may still want to plan for the possibility of it.


text:
Is it pointless to bring up poor supervision during PhD viva?
I should defend my PhD in the UK near the end of the year.
Unfortunately I fell into the class of horribly supervised PhD students - with an ill-defined research project and an absent supervisor who steered me into so many different topics of my field that I'm convinced my results chapters lack depth and analysis.
For that specific reason I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.
Can the internal and external reviewers be receptive about objective arguments related to poor supervision during the 3-4 years of research? Or are they bound to discuss only the contents of the thesis?
PS - This is not an opinion-based or a stress-induced question where I expect "don't worry" answers. I'm well aware a PhD is a self journey and one should cope with difficult supervision. The question pertains to the viva only.

I'm not familiar with the term "viva". Can you clarify what that means? Is it a defense?

@6005 "Viva" and "defence" convey two very different examination styles to me: a 3+ hour grilling on the minutiae of the thesis by two academics vs a presentation  given by the candidate to a large audience followed by questions. The OP is having a viva, not a defence. The title should not be changed.

Comments are not for extended discussion and the conversation has been moved to chat. I left the two above comments about the possible different meanings of the terms viva and defence.

Do not underestimate the acumen of your examiners. My other half does a number of vivas every year and more than once I had him complain to me about an aspect of a thesis that (his words) "should have really been dealt with by the supervisor". Often it's blatantly obvious were your supervision has gone wrong. This does not mean that you do not need to fulfil the minimum requirements and I would suggest you make sure that you truly understand every little nook of your these before you show up for your viva. It's not going to be fun.

I'd suggest that the viva is possibly the worst time to do this. Almost anything you say could be interpreted as whining and trying to deflect responsibility for any shortcomings. Many things you might say would be countered in the minds of the reviewers whether expressed by them or not.
Whether you bring it up yourself or just reply to questions or comments with complaints about your advisor or others would seem, to me at least, as unprofessional.
If you have issues about the performance of your advisor, make it a separate issue in an appropriate venue after the degree is in hand.

+1 "Possibly the worst time" indeed. It's like complaining about your boss while giving a presentation to a prospective client.

@TooTea Most users on this SE never had a client in their life, so this comparison is a bit lost here.

Lost to some, perhaps, but I’m smirking nonetheless. +1 for @TooTea

Let me rephrase what you're trying to do: You want to complain about your supervisor, in front of your supervisor and in the presence of your supervisor's colleagues. That seems like a generally bad approach in almost any context, but it is a particularly bad idea if the point of the meeting is to assess your qualifications as a researcher: In other words, everyone in the room is there to evaluate you, not your supervisor.
You might of course have a completely valid point about the quality of supervision, but the viva is not the place to bring that up. Doing so very much smells of calling "Look over there" when what's "over there" has nothing to do with the current context of the conversation.

It is not about complaining about the supervisor just for the sake of complaining. In 3/4 years your research work is inevitably 'limited' in its scope, and reviewers might have something to say about your results or your analysis. The OP could be rephrased '... bring up poor supervision as an objective justification of thesis limitations'

@circuitbreaker But the goal of a viva or defense is not to assess the PhD process of your school, your supervisor's qualities, or whether you have done a good job given the circumstances. The goal is to assess whether you got there. Assuming that they indeed judge your dissertation lacking, no amount of "objective justification" will save you.

@xLeitix Unless it is a self-referential characterisation of a thesis on "Deflectionary tactics in modern political communication" and the candidate is demonstrating this with a live example ;-) In my experience, satire, sarcasm and irony as well as scathing criticism of the system make for memorable heroic speeches in movies about academia and school, but for a career-limiting move in real life. All will remember the scandal, nobody will remember the underlying reasons. In short, OP is well advised not to go down this route.

"in front of your supervisor" - this varies by country. In the system I'm most familiar with (Ireland), the supervisor is not usually present.

@circuitbreaker in evaluating the work any justifications literally don't matter, it either fits the criteria or not. Poor supervision is reasonable justification to postpone a defence, or to change the supervisor, or have some other result, but it's not a valid justification to accept limitations that otherwise would not be acceptable. It's your job to convince them about the originality and the importance of your research work; admitting "my thesis does not meet the criteria because of X" does not do that, it results in "yep, your thesis does not meet the criteria, come back when it does".

The answer still holds, but in the UK the supervisor is indeed not usually present.

Just to echo the point raised by @fqq - In the UK the supervisor is not present. They also apparently have no rights to intervene or comment during the viva should they be present as an observer. In addition, there can be quite a disconnect between the official supervisor (on paper) and the "real supervisor" who you work with. (The latter can be Readers, Lecturers, PostDocs, other researchers...)

@DetlevCM thanks for adding these points (Readers and Lecturers can also be the official supervisor)

Everyone is correctly saying don't do it, but my answer is stronger than "it's unprofessional" or "it's irrelevant". I think it increases the chances of failing. In the system I know (Ireland, similar to UK in viva style), there is a very small chance of failing (perhaps < 3%) but the viva is not a formality. When an external examiner is considering failing the student, they have to overcome many obstacles in their mind, one of which is that the supervisor and student both consider the document defendable, and another is that failing is anomalous. By talking about poor supervision in the viva, you tend to break down both of those obstacles.

It would not be "pointless", it would be incredibly counterproductive. Any concerns about the supervision should have been brought up with the supervisor (or in severe cases escalated to the head of department) during the course of your PhD.
In your viva, you should present your own work from its best angle. You are there to discuss your scientific achievements. Also consider that negative results are part of science, so you can do science even if your starting point was an "ill-defined research project". (Science consists in a process progressing towards results of interest, rather than just in the end results themselves.)
Publicly criticizing someone when you're supposed to discuss your scientific achievements will only reflect badly on yourself and cast doubts on your work ethic and your fitness to be awarded a PhD.
(If your supervisor is indeed a "bad cookie", their colleagues may already have noticed and will value your independence and motivation to have worked to the best of your ability considering the circumstances. They will also likely pick up on "bad supervision" and hopefully will not only assess the end result, but more generally the journey you had to take to produce these results.)

Your viva is about your achievements.  Your supervisor should not be discussed at all.

TL;DR: Do not complain outright to your examiners about the supervision. If they are any good, they will work it out for themselves.
The purpose of a viva is several fold:

Make sure the student did the work they have written about in the thesis.
Make sure the student understands the work they did.

These first two control for situations where the supervisor basically did the PhD for the candidate, and just used them as hired hands to do technical or leg work.

Probe the students broader understanding of the field and how their work relates to the field
Make sure the student understands, or can be made to understand the limitations and the shortcomings of their work.
Check that the written thesis is a fair representation of the abilities of the student.

Often examiners come into an exam unconvinced by the thesis, but the exam convinces them that the student is capable, but that they just didn't write the thesis very well.
If you feel the thesis work is not good (whether that is the fault of the supervisor or not), the viva is your time to shine. So, make sure you are confident of exactly what the strong and weak points of your thesis work are. You say you doubt its originality. Don't doubt, know. If someone else has done this before, know who, and exactly what they did and exactly where your work is similar and where different. Don't think you work lacks depth and analysis; know which ideas are not fully developed, and the directions in which they could be taken if you had more time. If you abandoned ideas uncompleted, be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of this, and say if on balance you made a mistake in abandoning or not.
Most of all, be prepared to say where you were wrong in the past. Not a general, handwavy kind of "oh I wasn't very good then", but specifics: I thought this, but actually that was the case. At the time I felt topic X was not going anywhere, but I've since come to learn that A, B and C could have allowed me to progress it.
It is highly unlikely you will outright fail. But you may well be asked to make quite substantial corrections if the thesis really is as bad as you say (students, and some supervisors often have an inflated view of what is necessary in a thesis). Think ahead what these might be, and have some ideas for them already worked out.
All this demonstrates your quality as a scholar or scientist, independently of what your relationship with your supervisor has been. Which, in the end, is what is being tested in a viva.
Traditionally it is the job of the external examiner to really probe the work, and the job of the internal examiner to a) act as umpire between the external and the candidate b) be aware of the context in which the work was done. You might be surprised about the extent to which the internal is aware of problems with supervision (especially if they are from the same department). But also, good examiners will get a feel for the supervision in the exam, in science vivas especially, the exam is as much an examination of the supervisor as it is the student. You won't pass with substandard work because your supervision was poor, but you might be cut some slack in making it better.

Yes, it's pointless unfortunately.  It's a bit late at this stage: you should have raised it with the relevant people and/or tried to change to a good supervisor as quickly as possible into the PhD.

If you want to have an academic career and/or if you would ever like a letter of reference from anyone on the PhD committee or your supervisor, I would recommend to wait until you have a permanent job secured, or at least a tenure-track faculty-like position which is stable for several years, before revealing the things you said about your supervisor here.

Let's not forget, on the other hand, that work with (academic) integrity is about being honest to facts and circumstances. So, if there have been recognisable shortcomings  limiting the researcher from achieving the prospected goals, this should be accounted for in the column of liabilities and (internal) threats. Granted that the viva is not the right place to raise internal issues (do wash dirty linen in the family), raising to the challenges and describing the coping strategies is a valued quality in any job. In sum, swallowing and waiting is not the only way out. Also @circuitbreaker

@XavierStuvw thank you for explaining your downvote. Too many people do it without even bothering to write a comment. I agree that in an ideal world, honesty and integrity should triumph  over politics, but I wanted to give the user the best advice possible. Without knowing enough details about the specific situation in this case, it is generally a bad idea (i.e. career suicide) to describe ones supervisor the way that OP is doing, before securing a job. I agree that in an ideal world, OP would be able to do it freely. But the world is nasty.

Thanks in turn. The world can definitely be nasty, even appalling, but it is not nasty anywhere, anyhow. Honesty and integrity may well be fiddling for minorities but help maintain a degree of collective, enduring, resilient decency. (My two cents.) Not to mention that integrity is a condition for getting a salary in some employments. Another form of career suicide is getting stuck in a job where you do not qualify yourself further and grow professionally: many a PhD student who feel not to have achieved anything in 3-4 years because of structural shortcomings do fear leaping into their future

There's nothing in your last comment that I vehemently disagree with. When answering here I tend to try to stay on the "safe side" because I don't want to say something that turns out to be bad advice. The OP has described their supervisor as "horrible" and is asking about whether or not they should attempt to say this publicly in front of other academics in their field. A lot of horrible supervisors are very powerful (ones that don't yet have tenure tend to be less abusive to their students since they don't want to lose their job). Without knowing more details, I recommend OP to relax & wait.

Respectable viewpoint. In the same conditions of not knowing more details, I'd be cautious not to invite an a priori submissive position, for the risk of defeating one's own true self. Sometimes the pain comes from remorse, sometimes from regret. In term of personal development I'd see more use in clarifying to oneself a positive stand, train the reasoning underlying it (if any), and then refrain to use it (not in the viva), rather than postponing manifestations after security (which may never came or be what stifles you for good). Kudos for holding this conversation and modulating agreement.

The first sentence of my answer says that my advice applies if the OP wishes to pursue an academic career or get a letter of reference from the supervisor. If so, it is not recommended to tell a large group of important people (OP suggested to do it at the viva, so I'm sure you agree it's crossed their mind to mention it in other circumstances too) that the supervisor was "horrible". I am in the exact same situation as OP, except my Viva was almost a decade ago. I can't wait for the day I get to tell my story, and I have not "defeated my own true self" and do not have regret.

Others have addressed the main part of your question; I want to refer to the following:

... I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.

Thoroughness. Let's start with the third part of this sentence: I don't know how defenses/viva's look like in the UK; but I do know PhD candidates tend to over-estimate the level of scrutiny, or the nature of the scrutiny, these events involve. I believe that PhD research work should be thoroughly assessed, but for better and for worse - that often isn't nearly as serious as one might expect.
Importance. Importance is at least partly subjective, and it is well known that most fields of research have "fashions" regarding what's important and what isn't. I'm not saying every PhD work is of the same importance or significance - but this is not an aspect you will be considered to have "failed" in. Your opposition panelists may well ask you about applicability, and may express some disappointment if you don't have a good answer for them. But it is quite acceptable to respond with "Potential uses of this work are X Y and Z, but, in hindsight, it is not as consequential than we had initially hoped." If you can add something like "But if we change ABC to be DEF, this will open up the possibility of HIJ" - that's also good. Doesn't matter that in all of your work you stuck to ABC.
Originality. Now this is the problematic part. If you mean that your work is "not original enough" in the sense of not being inspiring/surprising/insightful/groundbreaking - that's unfortunate, but assuming you've done a sufficient amount of decent-though-not-great work of this kind, you'll pass. If, on the other hand, you're saying some of your work has actually been done by others, only with slightly different notation/terminology/field - that is a serious problem and could cost you more than your PhD. If that is the case, you must find a way to announce / disclose this state of affairs this at once - and under no circumstances reach a point where your opposition brings this up. Even if it means putting your degree in jeopardy, it's the better and safer alternative. You haven't given details so I can't be more specific in my advice on this matter.

" I don't know how defenses/viva's look like in the UK" A viva in the UK is you and two examiners on your own in a room, going through your thesis a page at a time for between 2.5 and 4 hours. Of course, there is generally a lot to talk about in a thesis, and not everything can be discussed in detail, but somethings will be.

The other answers excellently summarise why negatively commenting on your supervisor is a bad idea in your viva, however reading between the lines of your question:

"... supervisor who steered me into so many different topics of my field that I'm convinced my results chapters lack depth and analysis".

It sounds like you might be worried that you could be questioned in significant depth on topics that you don't feel like you have a fully detailed understanding of.
The bad news is that this is a large part of what a viva is about, assessing your understanding of the material you've written about. The good news is you don't have to 'attack' your supervisor to handle these questions well.
Think about why your advisor pointed you at those topics; why they relate to the research you've done; what the limitations of these approaches were; and why you didn't pursue them in further depth. A well phrased answer explaining the limitations of the supporting topics, the connection to your research focus, and where that connection ends, can show a mature understanding of the broader field and help you tie back more tangential questions to your own research.