text:
How to efficiently plan holidays in academia?
It is holiday season, so I thought of re-considering my ways of holiday planning.
As a student, holidays in academia are somewhat shaped by the semester breaks and the lecture-free period. Working in academia things are slightly different. One still has to be available during the lecture times, also account for the deadlines and additional tasks.
Each time I want to plan some holiday, I remember my yearly tasks, and then I see that I don't have time to relax. Work seems to never end, I have to stay there in the office and prepare the exercises, work on the project, write paper etc. etc.
There is clearly something wrong with this, and I want to change it. But, I don't know how to distribute my holidays throughout the year, because I've been used to working all time. How often should I take holidays?
I know this question is somewhere between workplace and academia. And I know it also may provoke many opinion-based answers. But, I would like to know the different approaches from the more experienced people.

Related, as in "this is what this question will turn into given a few years": Is it normal for professors to not have families or not spend time with their families over the holidays, due to pressure of work?

@StephanKolassa Also compare Parkinson's law

Am I correct in thinking that you're in your first or second year as a lecturer/professor? That could change how people answer.

I tend to combine my holidays with academic travel. In part, because it reduces the cost of going to conferences: I don't have to fly half way across the country just for two days. In part, it also reduces the monetary cost of holiday travel.
For example, adding 2 days for sightseeing/relaxing after a conference doesn't impact flight reimbursement. You pay for the hotel/airbnb, but that's it. That is especially appealing if you are going to a conference in Europe [US] and you're based in the US [Europe], such that the flight is a substantial part of the cost.
I've also gotten flights to other cities reimbursed. As long as the flight X -> Y -> Z is not more expensive than X -> Y -> X, neither my university nor others that have paid for my travel have had any objections. It almost always costs them less (and never more), so it's a win-win situation. In that case, I still end up paying Z -> X, but that's half the fare I'd otherwise pay. If the flight to Z costs more than to X, I let them know and claim less than the actual cost for reimbursement.
Another advantage of this is that it spreads out vacation days throughout the year. I never feel guilty taking off a day here and there and I'm substantially more productive afterward. Doing nothing for two weeks doesn't particularly appeal to me and would likely just stress me out once I got back.

This is heavily discouraged and often forbidden in some countries. (The UK and Finland, at least.) If you combine holidays with a business trip, the entire trip might be considered a taxable benefit, and the auditors won't be happy.

@JouniSirén my UK University specifically provides for adding leisure days to a business trip in its expenses policy, so long as no expenses are claimed for these days (apart from flight home). I think it says something about the leisure not exceeding the business trip.

In the US, this is typically permitted as long as you provide competing quotes showing the price without the personal travel and then only claim the value of the competing quotes.  Sometimes, of course, the arcane pricing of travel means that the longer trip is actually cheaper...

@JouniSirén: This is indeed very country-specific. While administration sometimes tries to cut down university expenses by introducing rules such as "the length of the vacation should not be longer than the length of the business purpose for the travel itself to be still reimbursable", my (possibly non-representative) impression is that this is heavily encouraged in Germany (well, by everyone except said administration ;) ), also based upon a general feeling that academics should grasp every chance they get to widen their horizon by experiencing foreign places and cultures.

I think it's definitely important to be upfront with whoever is reimbursing the trip. I've only had reimbursements from institutions based in the US and UK so far, but the rules and norms may differ in other countries.
In terms of taxation: that should depend on your home country only, no? e.g. someone based in the UK who is reimbursed by a university in Finland wouldn't be subject to Finnish taxes.

@Phil: I'm currently at a research institute affiliated with a UK university. Their policy for adding extra days to a business trip is a strict no due to tax reasons. When I was at a Finnish university, the policy was less strict. You could combine a holiday with a business trip, if you were going on holiday to that destination anyway and paid 50% of the flights.

I try to take all of my holiday allowance, usually spread through the year in a few blocks of 1-2 weeks (usually clustered around June-September), and then odd days here or there.
To expand a little, I have noticed that productivity is not directly proportional to hours spent in the office. In addition to the obvious benefits to family life, taking holiday means I am much more productive when I return to work and I am happy to rigorously defend my right to take holiday if it is ever questioned (which it hasn't been, to date). I book the holiday well in advance and make sure it doesn't clash with any prior commitments, then defend my calendar. When I'm on leave I remove my work email from my phone and set an out of office reply.

Holidays have two uses for those of us who are based outside of their home countries. The first is to get to know the country where are based and its surrounding countries better. I usually take some days off when I can combine long weekends with them so that I can travel around. These short trips usually don't disrupt my work routine and provide well needed time away from my office so that I can relax and be more productive when I'm back. My field is social science and I could technically carry my work around, but I deliberately avoid doing so. Even so, many eureka moments happen when I'm out hiking during a long weekend. I try to have these long weekends at least once every two months.
A second use for holidays is to visit home and see parents and relatives. These are very disruptive, as they involve intercontinental flights and being away from my work computer for a couple of weeks. I tend to time these trips with Christmas and New Year, which are times of the year when nothing works in most Western universities anyways. These trips happen only once a year, and I try to use them to set a self imposed deadline for my research activities. Having to reach some key milestones in the project before leaving for these long holidays forces me to keep up a nice rhythm in the months leading to them.


text:
Do tenured faculty get to micromanage clinical professors and other non-tenured instructors with respect to the classroom?
Do tenured faculty get to micromanage clinical professors and other non-tenured instructors with respect to the classroom?
Shouldn't clinical professors be allowed control of their own classrooms and operate with intellectual freedom (in general)?  Let us just assume for the sake of simplicity that we are talking about a clinical professor who has done a good job in the classroom (good student evaluations, good DWF rate, hard working, dynamic, puts in a lot of effort, meets course description, etc.).
"Micromanage" includes things like forcing someone to adapt a communal exam format, removing the ability to emphasize/de-emphasize certain topics in the classroom, etc.
Also, do lecturers, adjuncts, and teaching post-docs (all with PhDs) get the same (or similar) set of rights?  Let us assume the same set of circumstances as I listed above for clinical people.  What would be the potential consequences of simply saying "No, I won't participate in being micromanaged." and fighting for your right to intellectual freedom?

Is this being done by the department chair, or by an official faculty committee?  Or is this one particular faculty member who's attempting to enforce these things without any official position or authority to do so?

Tenured faculty; not chair.

I think there are good answers here but you may want to more clearly delineate what is the relationship between you and the said faculty. If the lecture and practicum are in tandem, then I think it's not that outrageous. If the faculty just gives random comments because the faculty thinks it's a perk of being a tenured professor, that's another issue.

As always, I try to keep my questions generalized for a wider audience and less specific to me.  I am trying to explore the rights and roles of various peoples and positions in this situation.

This is too broad: you're asking simultaneously about clinical professors, lecturers, adjuncts, and teaching postdocs -- and about all aspects of pedagogy.  Also, the question is phrased in an argumentative/rant-y way, and those kinds of questions usually aren't a good fit here.  If your question is "I'm curious if other people feel like I do" or "___ sucks, am I right or am I right?", it's not suitable here: see our [help/dont-ask].  Can you edit the question to narrow the focus and ask in a neutral tone while identifying what information you seek?

@D.W.  I'm sorry you have such a negative opinion of my post.  I'll gladly delete it if all responders are polite enough to remove their answers.

I'm not suggesting you delete it; I'm merely suggesting that you edit it to make it more suitable for the Stack Exchange format.  Of course this is only my opinion; others might feel differently.

I've voted to close this question.  Thank you for your time.

I am voting to close this because I believe it will depend heavily on departmental policy. I have been in departments where the answer was very clearly yes, and others where it was very clearly no.

It's is very common for certain core multi-section classes to be coordinated or standardized in some way.  For example, the textbook and sections covered are fixed, or there is a single final exam for all sections.  Such arrangements apply to all instructors in that class, no matter what their title.  Often there is a "course coordinator" who has some of the responsibility of enacting these department policies.  It is not unusual for the coordinator to be tenure-stream research faculty and the other instructors not to be, but it's also not unusual for experienced lecturers or clinical professors to coordinate.  (It would be quite unusual for a postdoc or other less experienced person to coordinate.). The level of micromanaging varies by course and department, but usually applies equally to all instructors regardless of title.

I see three questions here

who decides how classes are taught,
how many decisions about how classes are taught are reserved for individual instructors, and
should tenured faculty have more independence in teaching than other faculty.

Regarding 1, it's quite common for authority to ultimately lie with the tenured faculty (collectively, or as delegated to a committee or an assistant chair or something similar); it would be strange for random tenured faculty to issue dictates to individual clinical faculty, but normal for the Assistant Chair for Teaching (or whatever the position is called) to do so.  (In a healthy department, I think the clinical faculty would at least be consulted, if not extensively included, in major decisions, but even then they might not get a vote on final decisions.)
Regarding 2, there are basically no decisions about teaching that are guaranteed to be reserved to the instructor. (I was told by one person that the centralized directions for his course included when to tell a joke during lecture; I'm not certain he was kidding.)  The decisions you mention - common exam format and authority to tweak the syllabus - are pretty typical ones to have centralized, because they directly address how much the course varies across professors.  I'd say dictating a communal exam format is common when many people teach the same course, while not allowing individual instructors to emphasize/deemphasize topics is uncommon but not unreasonable if there have been issues with some instructors deviating too much.
Regarding 3, it would be unusual to dictate course structure only to clinical faculty, while allowing more freedom to tenured faculty teaching the same course.  However, because tenured faculty are hard to hold accountable, it can happen that some of the tenured faculty get away with refusing to teach in the specified way, where non-tenured faculty would likely be risking their job by doing the same.  Also, lower-level courses with many sections are the ones most likely to be heavily standardized, and they might be primarily or entirely taught be non-tenured faculty.  (Note that one consequence of standardization is often that the best people lose some flexibility even as the average improves.  The question is written from the perspective of a clinical faculty member who is succeeding at using the freedom previously allowed, but it might be that new rules are directed primarily at other faculty who were using it less well; the department might have decided it was easier to tighten the reigns on everyone than to supervise individual faculty more closely.)

Your parenthetical statement at the end of point 3 is probably the most reasonable/logical reason that I can accept.  Unfortunately, this reason was omitted when certain new 'standardizations' that are being implemented were questioned while trying to seek the motivation(s)/justifications behind it.

If, from your perspective, "things like forcing someone to adapt a communal exam format, removing the ability to emphasize/de-emphasize certain topics in the classroom, etc." count as micromanaging, then in all departments of my experience, the answer is "yes."  Those are normal decisions for the institution of a department (which is, of course, embodied by its faculty) to make on a centralized level. Generally, the content of lower-level classes is carefully thought through to prepare students for upper-level classes or even classes in another discipline, and it would create chaos to let any instructors add or drop topics, etc. under the guise of "control of their own classrooms."  At my university, communal exams for big classes in subjects like math and language are so well-established, they have their own special time slots to avoid conflicts with other classes.
As for the potential consequences of simply saying "No, I won't participate in being micromanaged." and fighting for your right to intellectual freedom?  that depends a lot on the context and personalities of the people involved.  There was something of a cause celebre at Berkeley a couple of years ago where a lecturer was not renewed (in my interpretation) mainly for not following these sorts of policies (he had a much more dramatic interpretation where he was being fired for teaching too well and making the permanent faculty look bad; that did not strike me as especially plausible).  Presumably, they would be within their rights to fire you if you refused to follow their policies, but I think that would only be after trying very hard to convince you that you should just follow them.

As a tenured professor, I do not pretend to know everything about teaching, nor do I expect that my approach is the best one; I only know what works for me.  I certainly wouldn't interfere with my colleagues' methods, except insofar as they cover the syllabus.  For example:  Last semester, a young instructor came to me with a question about whether one of his students should be allowed to take a make-up exam. At first, I started to explain what I would do, but then I thought better of it, and so I just listened to the instructor and asked enough questions so that he finally realized what HE wanted to do with the case.  I was happy with how we both handled the conversation, and that's how we left it.

There is a fair amount of variability across departments. It is not uncommon for the faculty, or a faculty committee, to make recommendations regarding exam formats and the relative emphasis on different topics. These recommendations might then be voted on at faculty meeting. Depending on the department, clinical faculty, lectures, adjuncts, etc may not be consulted or given a vote.
While as an instructor you might see these recommendations as micro managing, in some ways they are macro managing. Typically, the faculty are most worried about the core courses, but sometimes they can have specific ideas for an upper level elective. It may seem like they are targeted towards an individual, but in good departments, it is targeted towards the course.
Intellectual/academic freedom typically focuses on research. There are aspects of teaching that a Dean and Faculty Senate are going to say fall within the scope of the department and others that fall within the scope of the instructor. Imagine you were assigned to teach Introduction to Good Clinical Practice and the department decided they wanted to use the textbook by Jones. Clearly teaching a curriculum that would more likely be considered Advanced Statistical Analysis is going to get you into hot water (and potentially eventually fired). Even teaching Introduction to Good Clinical Practice but using the textbook by Smith could result in getting you fired.

Depending on location, aspects of teaching may also be dictated by university administration.

Intellectual/academic freedom typically focuses on research -- Clearly, I have been spoiled.

Course directors generally get to manage courses as they see fit.  If this means asking a clinical professor involved with the course, so be it.  If a young assistant professor is directing a course, he or she gets to manage every participating faculty member, even tenured full professors.
Now, what does "manage" really mean here?  It means that one can ask for whatever they want, and hope people cooperate.  Some will, some won't.  Non-cooperation can result in a number of things-- loss of future invitations to participate in the course, if one has the luxury of having more than one person able to do the job; griping to a chair; obtaining a reputation of being "difficult"; etc.
Of course, the requests of the course director might be perceived to be nitpicky, over controlling, etc., and indeed they might be.  However, the course director may be more plugged in to the review system than other faculty, and understand past course deficiencies, needs of faculty teaching future course modules or higher level coursework that use the information in this class as prereq material, previously identified shortcomings in the student body, or some other tangibles.
The course director should feel responsible for how the course is received by the students.  It looks like a more organized and professional effort if all the course info is received in advance, if all exams have the same basic look and feel, etc.  If the requests are at all reasonable, there's not much reason to  ignore the course director's wishes.  Of course, if one thinks the course is being run in a bad way, one can always volunteer to direct the course!

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
As a post-doc, can work on applications of existing methods harm my career prospects?
I'm a first year post doc in bioinformatics and am currently working on an application project based on other's method previously developed in the lab. The application would simply be applying the existing algorithm to a biological problem and validate with experiment data. Since I'm interested in a academia faculty position, would this diminish my chance (potentially due to novelty issues by simply cashing out others work), or should I suggest to my advisor that I would rather work on other project based on my own ideas and develop my own methods? Does application of an existing method counted as novel by the academia? This project is assigned by my current PI and I'm constantly worry that I will be viewed as unoriginal by working on others method. I had to ask because my PI keep me piling up more of these "case studies" recently. I just feel that my PI care more about successful applications of this existing algorithm. If I did a great job on these projects, would this be helpful to me academically? I just want to make sure before I accept more of these cases or maybe talk to my PI so I can work on a novel direction. Thanks for advices/suggestions.

Can you talk about what field you are in and give us some more details? The answer is going to vary wildly.

As a general rule: publications tend to be the measure of whether something is novel. So, if you are publishing, I'd say you indeed are helping your academic career. If you aren't publishing: that is a major complaint you can bring up with your PI. Here you can use the outsize importance of publications in academia to your advantage. You can debate all day long whether your work is novel enough with your PI, but no one can justify leaving you without publications.
Also, it is important whether these applications are helping you grow as a researcher. Are these applications trivial, mindless work, or do you learn things while working on them? Are you getting faster/better at implementing them? Are you ever surprised at results, or can you predict what the results are going to be before the experiments are done?
Note that breakthroughs in science often rely on a strong grasp of the fundamentals and the context in which the work is done. Having strong experience in applying those algorithms could be essential in later designing them yourself.

Very true but there is only one waterman-smith but many BLAST users! I think eventually I will need to work on something novel.

I can't judge whether you are given the challenges and fundamental problems you could reasonably expect. One way to get involved with more fundamental research regardless is to look at the algorithms you are applying and think about what you miss in those algorithms. What problems do you have when applying them? What properties are properties that the algorithm doesn't have, but would make a big difference in applications. Then approach your PI or the people that are doing more fundamental research with these ideas and ask them about those issues.

Thanks, I got some ideas and already did. Its just that I got too many of these case studies that my PI eagerly want me to prove this existing algorithm works. I really want to get these out of the way and get to the sweet stuff.

Then I'd advise you to have a 'bigger picture' conversation with your PI. First talk about how you want to do more fundamental research. Maybe even talk about how the applications made you enthusiastic about working on the algorithm on a more fundamental level. Then discuss the length of your post-doc and what percentage would be the right amount to spend on applications and what percentage on more fundamental research. Then ask about how you can get involved in more fundamental research AFTER your current responsibilities in applications.

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


text:
Advisor promises letter of recommendation, but hasn't produced letter
I have unfortunately been put in a position where my advisor has neglected to write me a letter of recommendation for a whole year. We have a good working relationship, and I have no reason to suspect that my advisor is unwilling to write a letter, however, for some reason or another it hasn't been done even after numerous requests (on my part) and assurances (on theirs) that it would get done. I was unable to secure a post doc in part due to this, and I am starting to become exasperated with how this situation is playing out. Has anyone faced a situation similar to this before? What steps would (did) you take to resolve this without burning any bridges? Does anyone have any advise on how to move past this in the event that I cannot get the letter?

Could you clarify what you needed the letter for? Employment in regular "industry" doesn't usually need a letter at all, and less emphasis is put on who writes it - while with graduate school and postdoc/professor positions the letters (and who writes them) carries so much more weight. The mention of "employment" throws me off a bit.

Brian, I do mean postdoc employment if this clarifies things. The post has been edited for clarification.

Yikes, that's a rough situation. Are there other recent graduates with your advisor that you could reach out to, and see if they had this issue?

Brian, I do know a few other graduates in this same situation, I assume some got jobs through connections. To be honest, I am thinking about switching to industry, so I guess this is just one extra push in that direction.

I wouldn't say that you haven't been able to get a job due to 1 letter not being written.  What about teachers? What about any internships?  Is there anyone in the field that you know who can write you a letter of recommendation that has seen your work?  Also for the record, letters of recommendation are becoming less popular due to the fact that usually they are written by people who will write it from a biased point of view and not objectively if it is for employment.
I always maintained a close relationship with all teachers so that, if one fell through or they were unable to, I had other teachers to go to.  In terms of not burning the bridges, I think it would be best to be direct, without being offensive (as in being combative). Also it is possible that people are simply not comfortable with writing one but don't want to say no.
I would say something to the effect of:
We have a good working relationship.  Something I greatly value and I respect your opinion.  I understand for the last year, I have been asking for a letter of recommendation.  I also understand that people are busy and writing one of these could take some time.  I was wondering if you feel comfortable writing this for me?  My opinion of you won't change if you actually decline to do so but if you can please let me know so I can see about getting it from other sources.  There are a few jobs coming up that I would like to apply for and would greatly appreciate it if you can provide the letter or let me know if I should ask someone else.
you know? something that shows you value them and won't be offended, but also calls them to let you know honestly.  Gut says, if they have been putting it off for a year, there is a good chance that they actually DON'T want to write it but don't know how to say no.  The above paragraph gives them a door to kindly decline without hurting you and you don't burn any bridges.  One thing I would avoid though is state how you lost out on jobs due to it.  You don't want to create a negative aspect and it won't help him choose to write one or be more honest.
Some people simply don't write these letters.  My programming professor that I had for 5 of my classes told me that he wouldn't write a letter.  This was a bit shocking because he was someone that spoke very highly of me and allowed me to visit his other classes to help him with struggling students ( I was also the head tutor of the campus so I was able to legally TA anyways).  He stated though that he didn't want to write these letters because they are hard for him to write.  They put A LOT of stress on the writer to say the right words.  If they say something wrong, they could end up being the reason you don't get the job.  A lot of people don't want that kind of burden and will decline writing them.  Many teachers want to see you get the job on your own merit and not based on someone else's words.
EDIT: OP has modified the question to reflect post doc.  Though the thoughts about getting him to be able to comfortably state his honest opinion on whether he really will or not still should apply.

I think a prof that does not do their best to support their students with a reference (whether or not they believe in this as a selection tool, it is demanded by employers!) despite appreciating the student, are untrustworthy. One possibility is that they do not want to lose the student. This is a political move which makes them untrustworthy. Not knowing how to write a letter is not an excuse, they can look up examples on the internet.

@CaptainEmacs - Exactly my point.  They are not valued as much anymore in the work world due to the fact that anyone can just go online find a template and insert values as needed.  Yes naturally it is a political move so that they can maintain their status.  Truth is though, these letters are either A) easy to fake, or B) puts a lot of stress on the writer to say something objectively genuine.  I haven't had an interview ask me for one since leaving college because after that, everything is based on your own skill and experience.

ggiaquin- thanks for your thoughtful response! To clarify, this letter is for postdoc positions.

@ggiaquin Yes, but, whether the letters are original or not, HR entities require them for legal reasons. Furthermore, in my own experience, they are only the last tie-breaker, but a tie-breaker they are.

-1. Most things written here completely miss the mark in the context of academia (missing a letter from your advisor really is a big deal and no, most places are not moving away from using these letters).


text:
Changing major after BS and MS in CS and double major in Physics for PhD in Mathematics
Before telling about my background, I'd like to say that I did look at several similar questions, but neither involved my case (at least, not as far as I could see).
Now the background: I majored in Computer Engineering. I have expected more of Computer Science, but it was mostly business-oriented coding education (maybe I am being a little too harsh on this). So in my second year, I applied for a double major in Physics, thinking it might be more satisfying. In fact, I did enjoy Physics more than CS (or, CE in my case), and found it much more challenging and meaningful.
However, I ended up finishing my main major (CE), before Physics, so I applied for MS in CE in the same university, feeling the workload might be too little otherwise. I got accepted, and am currently enrolled in this program while taking 2-3 courses left from undergraduate Physics program. (My subject in MS is Computer Vision.)
But one thing I noticed over these years is that, for Physics I do not feel like I have the right mindset (seems that I lack a practical approach to things), and CE feels a little meaningless. Considering that I focused on Mathematical Physics, and more of the mathematical stuff in CS, I thought maybe Mathematics is the right place for me. But I cannot yet tell if I genuinely want Maths, or just whining about what I have at my hands.
So I have two questions, actually:

What are my chances if I apply for PhD in Number Theory?
Do you recommend changing the field? Can you share other people's experiences in similar cases?

For the application part, I must add that I do not have an outstanding transcript in neither of my majors (around 3.4 GPA in both fields -Physics might be around 3.5 too), although I did get a paper published which was about relativistic quantum mechanics.
Edit: This question is different from what is suggested as duplicate as this particularly involves the case of a double major background. Specifically, whether the case of double major suggests the admission committee a versatility in working different fields or not. So I do not think this should be regarded as a duplicate question.
Edit2: Experience in proofs
I have taken Discrete Mathematics and Formal Languages and Abstract Machines, in which we mostly used induction to prove things. Apart from that, in the mathematical methods courses we have gone through the proofs of Stokes' theorem, divergence theorem, etc. Although I mostly can understand a proof reading through it, and working out some things that seem off, I would not say that I am good at mathematical proofs, nor that I am much experienced with them.

I guess the main question is: how much experience do you have in writing mathematical proofs?

Edited the question, in short, I would not say I had a lot experience but I have some experience.

What are my chances if I apply for PhD in Number Theory?
Every PhD program has different requirements and the admission's committee evaluates different aspects of a candidates application. So there is no real answer to your "chances" of be admitted if you apply for a PhD program in Number Theory. However, with that said, if you can show rudimentary course work and experience in Number Theory, that can work in your favor. I do have close friends who majored in Business, Political Science, etc. who took the minimum requirements for medical school admissions (basic bio, chem, physics) and were admitted because they were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the applicants. The same situation applies here. You may not have an extensive background in Number Theory, but that's not to say you won't be admitted to a PhD program and be great at it!
Do you recommend changing the field? Can you share other people's experiences in similar cases?
You need to follow your passions for where you want to take your career. I have had friends who pursued what they thought was their "dream" career, only to recognize that it was not at all what they had imagined - and wasted all that time thinking that it would change, that if they put in more effort than it would be exactly what they imagined it. On the other hand, I've also had friends who took a job that wasn't what they had wanted/dreamed and it turned into a great career and they absolutely love it! It all depends on what you want your future to be.

Thanks for your answer :) I have followed textbooks and lecture notes used in undergraduate Number Theory courses but I do not know how to show this to a committee. Any suggestions?


text:
How do some researchers consistently get published in venues with low acceptance rates?
I'm more interested in answers from researchers in the field of computer science/electrical engineering.  Having said that, readers in a different discipline observing such phenomenon are welcome to contribute.
I know of a few 'famous' individuals who have copious number of articles appearing in top journals/conferences every year without fail.  Looking at their CV, it seems that they have a 100% success rate at these top venues.
Question: as we know, the review process is random at times, with 'dumb' reviewers rejecting papers for no good reasons.  This in turn forces us to look for an alternative or perhaps lower ranking venue to publish our articles.  Given this fact, how do the said individuals have such a consistent record?  Is there a level one can get to where every idea is gold and every presentation is such that even a dumb reviewer can't recommend a reject? Or is it the case that there is a 'back door' or the individual or institution reputation is so bright that any reviewers are obligated to accept the article?
What is their strategy?

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

I suggest reading about the NIPS experiment. Many papers are random toss-ups as you suggest; some are clear rejection; and some are clear accept. It may be incredibly unpopular to suggest that not everyone can be this way, but the very best of the best researchers will more consistently land their papers in the "clear accept" bin.

Since people rarely document papers NOT published, a 100% success rate for papers in a CV is kind of guaranteed.
It does often seem like some PIs have the 'magic touch' when it comes to publishing, and here are some factors that may contribute to this success:

they work on a very hot topic
they are very established

[a] unfortunately publishing begets further publishing as ones name becomes associated with a high quality record
[b] they are possibly personally acquainted with some of the reviewers, which could help grease the wheels

they are at a top institution (yes, this probably helps)
they are working on several projects in tandem and so submit more papers in general
they may be a pro at working the review process: invalidating certain dissenters by request or by inviting comments on a  manuscript prior to publication (disqualifying them), or through fierce contest when papers are rejected.

The publication process is far from a perfect or even acceptable, and many factors contribute. Those that know how to exploit these factors will be more successful, deserving or not.

Addition:  They might also have a lot of employees helping them improve their paper.

I agree with some if this, but "publishing is far from an acceptable process" seems both vague and extreme.  Maybe you mean that you don't like how peer review works?  If you don't believe in publishing then it's hard to say you're an academic.

@David Ketcheson, let me clarify: the peer review process, in my opinion, has become unacceptable. Publishing itself is not at all unacceptable.

@HEITZ I suggest that you edit your answer to say what you mean.

@David Ketcheson. Done.

It's not literal publishing that I myself object to, but the requirement of "publishing", and all that it entails.

The list format would make this a lot easier to read, especially when you have parentheses and sublists going on.

That's false. In CS you can check the full list of pubs in DBLP and voila.

The top item on that list should be "they perform high quality research". The rest may play a role but is probably marginal.

@PsySp What is false? That would obviously only find papers that were actually published and not rejected papers, so I don't see anything in this answer being contradicted.

@CapeCode perhaps it "should" but it is not.  Do you think that is a defect with the answer or with reality?

@emory with the answer. Side factors are generally grossly exaggerated. The vast majority of the time it's good science that leads to good publication records.

You are trying to infer the ratio
(Papers accepted)/(papers submitted)
but you have information only about the numerator.
In other words, publishing a paper every year at conference X is not the same as getting 100% of your submissions accepted by conference X.

If all your papers are at top venue X, then even if at some year it's rejected the next year is accepted. This count again as a success.
The most accurate is to see the ratio (papers in X) / (papers not in X)
The OP comments, I suppose, about people with the above ratio a very very large number.

@PsySp it's trivial to get a 100% rate of "papers in X". If for whatever reason papers not in X "don't count" for your goals (or criteria of your funding agency), whatever those may be, then it's reasonable that every paper you write will either eventually, with some revisions or using the ideas of rejected paper as a small part of a larger paper later, get in X or not get published at all anywhere as you'd simply never submit anything to a not-X venue.

Trivial to get 100% success at top conferences? Nice!!

@PsySp you don't need a 100% success rate at top conferences to get what the OP observes - instead, you need to make 0 submissions to lower ranked conferences; some teams do that. Also, after a few years you'd get a good idea about what is generally required to pass the bar at these conferences and you'd not submit (or even write up) research ideas that seem unlikely to be published there. In any case, I really doubt "The OP comments, I suppose, about people with the above ratio a very very large number.", in fact, that seems to be entirely opposite - the OP seems simply (falsely) assuming it.

@Peteris If you make 0 submissions to lower than X conferences but you wait few years to see the "pattern" for TOP venues so that you can "revise" your papers accordingly (like simply this is gonna help you with STOC/FOCS in my domain), then I doubt you will ever reach that point of having to wait without publications for few years till you get the "pattern" of acceptance at such venues

@PsySp yes that's what I mean.. these individuals have a disproportionate high number of papers in X and I'm trying to understand why they seem to be able to only publish their work in X 'easily', when X is very difficult to get in for mere mortals. :)

@Prof.SantaClaus So the correct ratio here is (papers in X) / (papers not in X) as I said above. Because some (not just few) people, at least in TCS, they have this ration very high. From what I can tell, they are extremely good, hard working, and work in a stimulating environment. Of course being at MIT (for example) always help to increase your chances of acceptance at X (but not consistently). To put it another way, do you (or someone else) disagree about the quality of their published research? To me most of these papers are stellar (I don't know how they do that besides being damn good)

@PsySp so that is what I mean by being at a certain level where even a  'dumb' reviewer is enlightened.

I know of a few 'famous' individuals who have copious number of
  articles appearing in top journals/conferences every year without
  fail. Looking at their CV, it seems that they have a 100% success rate
  at these top venues.
  ...
Or is it the case that there is a 'back door' or the individual or
  institution reputation is so bright that any reviewers are obligated
  to accept the article?

Those 'famous' individuals have submissions being rejected much much more often than you think.
I know this because my boss and my collaborators are also kind-of famous, ACM Distinguished Scientist, more than 100 papers etc etc, one even has more than 20k citations.

What is their strategy?

AFAIK, there is no such backdoor or reputation that can help you to get papers accepted, at least in my community. The strategy is to submit a lot of papers :) Last year, many people really got mad because ICSE, top conference in Software Engineering, only allowed 1 author to submit maximum 3 papers.
Think about it, while you think they are awesome because they have published a paper at ICSE, but behind the scene they got 4 or 5 papers rejected at the same time :)
Famous people often attract a lot of people who want to collaborate with them. They are often very successful in obtain funding, and have a big group to do research for them.

UPDATE
Answers to comments of Prof. Santa Claus.

What do they do with those rejected papers? Revise and submit next
  year? or do they dump them into lower ranked conferences? Is the
  strategy then to always push all rejected papers, given 'infinite
  time', into top venues?

Of course revise and re-submit, but why wait until next year? If your paper is rejected at ICSE, the next step should be to re-submit it to either one of ECOOP, ISTTA, FSE, ASE, ICST...(the list doesn't end here) which are in the same rank, or just a bit less. Famous people, with their vast experience, do not submit paper which doesn't stand a chance. After being rejected, they know where the problem is, and know how to improve the paper to be accepted.

a 'back door' is simply to send a draft of your paper to likely
  reviewers for the conference. If you are famous, you tend to know most
  of the people on the program committee anyway -- birds of feather
  flock together. You get their feedback and if they hate it, don't
  submit. If they like it submit.

There are more than 20 PC members, who you should send your paper to? To the ones who work in the same problem? But they are direct competitors :) And you do this every time you want to submit a paper,i.e. 10-15 times per year, you will piss them off. If you think your paper is good, submit it regardless of what other people/reviewer think.
By the way, all the conferences I mentioned adopt double-blinded review. And you need to mark conflict PC members, who are your advisor/advisee, collaborators, institutional colleagues and so on. What you just said doesn't seem practical in the communities I know.

Another backdoor is that you know the EiC of a journal and you can
  give him/her a call when there is a reject. I know of a prof who does
  this regularly. Also, look up 'guanxi'. If you have enough of this,
  papers get in, and this is the 'normal' practice of certain people.

Is this "quanxi" only a Chinese thing? I don't think you can do this for top journals/conferences.

What is the success rate of your boss(es) at top venues

If "success" means eventually (even after some rejections) appear in top venues, then it would be more than 90% :) If you include also the rejections, then 60% is a rough guess.

What do they do with those rejected papers? Revise and submit next year? or do they dump them into lower ranked conferences?  Is the strategy then to always push all rejected papers, given 'infinite time', into top venues?

a 'back door' is simply to send a draft of your paper to likely reviewers for the conference.  If you are famous, you tend to know most of the people on the program committee anyway -- birds of feather flock together.  You get their feedback and if they hate it, don't submit.  If they like it submit.

Another backdoor is that you know the EiC of a journal and you can give him/her a call when there is a reject.  I know of a prof who does this regularly.  Also, look up 'guanxi'.  If you have enough of this, papers get in, and this is the 'normal' practice of certain people.

What is the success rate of your boss(es) at top venues?

@qsp thanks for your responses.  In my field, top conferences are staff by other top people that know each other.  They don't compete.  They help each other publish the next 'great idea'.   Yes, 'guanxi' is a Chinese thing.

Except a very few number of people who have manipulated the system to work for their benefit, in most cases, there are some closely related factors:
(1) Practice already made them perfect: These people publish many papers in certain top venues. Probably they have had a lot of rejections in the past and now they have mastered the art of getting their papers published. This includes knowing the writing style of a certain community, as well as knowing the audience (reviewers) and identifying what contributions matter the most in these venues (in my area for example, the experiments, while in some other areas theoretical results are really important).
(2) They have a lot of resources and academics working for them: Not only they have big groups of PhD students working on similar problems, which results in larger number of publications. But they also have many post-docs and visitors who are usually professional in publishing. This comes down to being resourceful. They get grants and other resources, and fund academics to work for them.
(3) The rich gets richer effect: If you are famous and you have published a reasonable number of papers in your area, you are most likely to receive invitation to contribute to projects done in other groups and get credit for your (even minor) contributions. In fact, some people like to get these people involved, because they own a good record of publication, which means acceptable writing style for that venue, being familiar with the review process and reviewers and etc in (1). They may have a lot of graduated students who still publish with them because of (2).
(4) They are good leaders: Leadership has a lot to say, when it comes to productivity of a research groups. I know some academics who are really good leaders, so they can motivate and lead their (even though small) research groups to publish in an incredibly high volume. They is no limit in their productivity, because they posses leadership skills. This leadership helps them get to (3) from (2). Unlike them, there are some really smart, hard-working, focused, dedicated academics who reach a certain limit in productivity, because they have no leadership qualities and no strategies for leading their research group.
As I said, these situations are very closely related and influence each other. However, making impact does not always mean producing publication. Academia is sometimes viewed as a publication factory, but a genuine impact is usually different.

This. I don't think one needs to be famous to have good success at getting published. I don't think of myself as famous, but most of my 45 or so papers have appeared in the top level of journals, and I've only had 2 papers that ever got rejected -- which I attribute to putting care into choosing subjects I publish on, and being a good and careful author. I also have excellent co-authors who know what they are doing and produce good data. In other words, I think that "practice", "resources" and "leadership" are exactly the factors.

@WolfgangBangerth I totally agree with you on that. I think (1), (2) and (4) are the most important ones. However, these are not the necessary factors for everyone, so a person can have a subset of them. Also, it really depends on the subject matter, some areas are more subjective than others, so the presentation of a work matters a lot. That's why people get a lot of rejections in those areas.

@WolfgangBangerth thanks.  I like your answer!  You seem to be one of those individuals  :)

Also after one or two successes at getting into prestigious journals, they're more likely to be willing to try (a sort of point 0)


text:
review of a submitted paper
I submitted a paper in april 2017 to the POP Journal, it took 18 days to secure a reviewer. After about 24 days the status said that review has been received and thereafter it said awaiting editor response.
Soon the status went again to securing reviewers. this time the reviewer was secured in about 23 days. It has been almost a month and it still shows review under process, generally the POP journal is fast. I don't know what I should do?

I don't know the journal "POP." In my experience, the journal process should be measured in months, not days. So you should just be patient.

It seems to me that the first reviewer provided a report that the editor found inadequate, so your paper was sent to another reviewer in hopes of getting a more useful report. The need for a second review slows down the process.  So I agree with "just be patient."

Voting to close as a duplicate. The timescales of the journal in the other question are different but the question is the same.

As far as I can tell, there's only one thing you can do: wait.
We've all had to wait longer than we'd like for reviews, and there are any number of possibilities as to why the paper may have had to be rereviewed (e.g. made it past the first round, a conflict was discovered that wasn't previously disclosed, etc.)
If any acceptance decisions get announced and you are never informed of a decision, THEN you may want to get in touch with the editor.

The last paragraph seems like it only applies to conferences, while the question is about a journal submission.

@TobiasKildetoft I was hoping to have my answer be general enough to apply to either situation, but you're correct. I'll update for clarity.


text:
Am I obligated to continue to work on a paper I contributed significantly to?
As an undergraduate, I did some group research a little over a year ago which is now being compiled into a paper. My advisor at the time is contacting us to request feedback and help writing it. I am especially important to the effort, because I am the only one who knows some of the results (and proofs) well enough to be able to explain them and structure the paper around them.
However, I am just beginning a PhD, in a completely different field than my undergraduate research. This comes with a new set of challenges to focus on, including that I have to find an advisor here within my first year. I would like to be primarily focused on making the most of my PhD program and thinking about current research, rather than having to worry too much about this old research I did as an undergraduate, which I do not feel will impact my career. Even if our research gets published (which it might not), because it's not in my current field it does not seem that it should be my top priority.
In summary, I do not think that assisting with the writing of the paper is in my personal best interest. However, I also understand that I have some obligation to the research group I was in and the research we did, and that it could be rude and irresponsible, even unethical, to drop out of the picture entirely. What exactly are my obligations to writing this paper? What is the most ethical thing to do in this situation, which also preserves my interests as much as possible?
Finally, if I should avoid working too much on this paper, how do I communicate this to my undergraduate advisor and to my fellow researchers? It would be rude to cut back on the work without any explanation.

It sounds like much of the work for this paper is already done, so you may be able to get a journal publication with limited effort. Even if it's not in your current focus area, this may be a better time investment than writing a paper from scratch in your new area. Plus, you never know whether you might want to go back to that earlier area later. Plus, some (some!) diversity of interest looks good on your CV. Plus, your undergrad advisor may be a good reference some day if you make him happy. I'd recommend you try to find some limited time to push this through to publication.

An early start to your publication record, an early insight into the paper-writing process,  and friends in academia are good things.  Needlessly annoying people isn't.

How long ago was this research? Months? Years?

I will say this: a friend of mine recently finished her PhD. The couple of irrelevant publications she got in her undergrad, which have little to do with her current field, helped a lot in her job search - they make her look well rounded and more established, even if her new stuff is much better. I wouldn't be too eager to lose the chance to get these publications!

As you get to the end of your PhD, how would you feel if somebody bailed on their part of a paper you wanted/needed to publish? Spend the time and do the right thing. Those downpayments on good will will be returned in the future.

Can you list the reasons you think obligate you to contribute further? It is reasonable to expect (and require) mutual recompense and equitable exchange for rendered service.

@Lilienthal a little over a year.

@NoctisSkytower Because I agreed to participate in the project at the time and received some funding for it. Also maybe because it seems academically dishonest to have a contribution but not put it out there. I am not sure what you mean by "mutual recompense and equitable exchange for rendered service".

I think the Golden Rule applies here. While you have no obligation to act against your own self-interest here, if you were in your former collaborators' position, you would probably be rather unhappy at being blocked from publication because one co-author is no longer available.
Is your preference to not work on this paper at all, or just to limit the amount of time you spend on it? From your collaborators' point of view, a few hours of your time might be  sufficient to avoid blocking the publication, while not placing much of a burden on you. It's perfectly OK to tell your collaborators, "I'd like to help, but I have many other demands on my time right now. I can devote 4 hours this Sunday to helping you get this publication ready, please let me know how I can use this time in a way that is most helpful to you."
On the other hand, if a few hours is really unmanageable to you right now, just tell them this, and let them know if you expect to have a little more time in the near future.
I suggest that you learn from this experience going forward, and make sure to document your work in sufficient detail for others to follow before you leave any research project.

If you're still the expected first author (who should do most of the writing) you could offer to just give the data and an explanation to someone who's still in the field. That person could write his or her own paper using your data, and might save you a whole lot of time.

In addition to the golden rule considerations, your undergraduate advisor is a potential ally in finding a PhD advisor at your new university. If you have changed fields, any networking may be rather indirect, but just being willing to say "user61117 is a good researcher who did x, y, and z" may help.

+1 for that last line.  Not just in academia/research, but in any field where someone else might have to continue something you started after you've moved on.  You always want to leave things in a state that someone else can pick them up again.

+1 especially for the "golden rule" bit while is a good basis for answering many of academias questions, especially when they involve dealings with other academics.

I think you're wrong about it not being in your best interests. Having a paper from your undergraduate work will help you when you come to apply for jobs in the next stage of your career, and gaining experience of the writing and submission process now will help you when you come to publish papers from your PhD work and in writing up your thesis when it comes to that. Having work from more than one area published shows flexibility and is a useful asset if you want to move into a different area later.
Publishing your work is a key part of science, without it your work will be for nought. There is no hard obligation on you to publish but your previous advisor would be within his rights to be upset with you for walking out on your earlier work at this stage. If you're struggling for time, then explain the situation to your previous advisor and see whether you can reduce the time commitment needed while still providing the necessary work to get the paper published.

You don't mention who the first author is.  Assuming that it is not you, then you should be able to draft the changes required and let the others in the group polish your contribution.  The key to being an academic is to be a good team player.  In the long term it will work in our favour if you are willing to collaborate.

I don't think you have any formal obligations, and if you don't want to work on it because you have more pressing obligations, then don't work on it. It is usually a good idea to talk to the people you work with: tell them that you have little time to spare since you have a new job. That is perfectly reasonable, and reasonable people should understand and accept this. If your former co-workers want to publish, and you don't care, then they can do the work.
However, journal papers is academic gold. It always looks better with more papers on your publication list. Very few people actually read the papers when assessing your credentials; so even if the paper is in another domain, it will still look better on your CV. Something to consider.

I just think (and ff524 pointed it out) that it may not go very well with them. Maybe it's "reasonable" but it's also really unfortunate for them. Thanks for the comment about journal papers being academic gold.

If I were you, I would welcome the opportunity to publish this early in your career.  You are getting a PhD so it sounds like you are considering academia as a possible career path.  If you believe that the research you did contributes to the body of knowledge in whatever field and was done in an ethical manner..publication can't hurt.

I've faced this situation several times as an adviser. I'd recommend your continuing to contribute within your own time limits: this collaboration will be a credit to you in future. Whichever way you choose, remember that in order to be listed as an author in a reputable journal you must be available to read the final submitted manuscript and sign a declaration that you contributed.


text:
Should I reference the book I got a formula from, or the source that book got the formula from?
I need to use a formula, found in a book "A". The book itself refers to an academic paper from the 50s, "B".
So when I use the formula, who should I reference?

We use the formula given as g = 4x^2 ("A", 2001).
We use the formula given as  g = 4x^2 ("B", 1950).

Why not both?  One to show priority, the other to show an easy place for the reader to find it.

I asked a similar question some time ago : https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68979/should-i-cite-a-paper-that-i-havent-read-if-i-use-a-theorem-in-it The situation is not exactly the same, but maybe it could be useful.

You should try to cite primary sources whenever possible; in this case, that means citing the original paper "B".
However, as GEdgar says, a textbook may be an easier source for people to find, particularly if that book is the de facto standard text in your field. It is therefore a good idea (and perfectly acceptable) to cite both "A" and "B", for example:

We use the formula given as g = 4x^2 ("B", 1950, "A", 2001).

Personally, I prefer to be more verbose and might write something along the lines of

The formula we use is given by Author B ("B", 1950) as
g = 4x^2.
This was later used [confirmed/ expanded on/ usefully re-derived/ etc] by Author A in their book "A" ("A", 2001).

I particularly like the more verbose approach you suggest, since it makes the original authorship of the idea clear and also allows clear credit to the contributions that may have come after.
In terms of usefulness, including multiple 'important' sources for a formula make is easier to later track down related works.

Important and/or well-used equations/relations/results have a certain  evolution to their citation pattern.

First their original authors are referenced.
After time has passed and it has appeared in several textbooks, people tend to just quote the textbooks, simply because these are much more accessible than an old paper.
After it becomes a basic, people stop giving a reference altogether and treat it as god-given (who quotes Cooley & Tokey 1965 for the fast Fourier transform).
Some relations acquire the name of their author (some even acquire the name of somebody else), such "Maxwell's equations": nobody quotes

Maxwell, James Clerk (1865). "A dynamical theory of the
  electromagnetic field". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
  Society of London. 155: 459–512.

Many fundamental relations that form the basis of contemporary science have been developed by scientists in the past century, but rarely is appropriate credit given.

In your particular case, point (2) above appears to apply, but in the end this is a matter of taste and personal judgement.


text:
How to (gently) pressure a collaborator?
During my PhD I had an awesome collaborator that taught me a lot in an area that my main advisor had no experience at all.
I have a paper draft with him that's getting more than 3 years to get published. He is extremely perfectionist and always wanted to add one more little detail here and there. With that, I don't mean from a writing standpoint. He actually asks for new calculations and analysis which usually takes months to finish. I read papers in this area which presented much fewer results and details than my paper. It's frustrating because I'm applying for faculty positions and I need this paper to show as a record of a very important part of my research plan. I explained it to him, many times. I also like him very much and would like to have him as a collaborator. So, I don't want to make pressure in a bad way. In short, he doesn't need this paper, he doesn't need the collaboration. He is a very accomplished researcher. Also, he didn't have any formal responsibility for my graduate studies. But still, I need the paper. We are in different countries, so I cannot have a one-to-one conversation with him. My former advisor cannot do much as well. My question is simply: what should I do?
Edit.
I talked with my collaborator and everything went pretty well. I submitted my paper this morning!!! Thanks for the feedback. I think just the act of writing here, in addition to the feedback I got help me a lot to leverage. (I also followed some Carnegie's rules)

I don't understand why you can't make a phone appointment.

I can make a phone appointment. with one-to-one conversation I meant a in-person meeting.

You mentioned that you explained your situation to your collaborator many times, but you didn't mention the most important part: after you explain your situation, you ask for something specific and actionable, with a specific deadline, and you listen to what they have to say.
Outside pressure requires leverage; internal pressure requires agreement. The situation is asymmetric, as you describe - you need the publication, they don't. Nothing you can do really changes the difference in your needs. However, they hopefully have their own interests: they might be interested in helping you in your quest at this crucial time in your early career, and they might look forward to continuing your collaboration (hopefully they've enjoyed working with you).
The question is: what are you asking for, and are they willing to agree to the plan or not? There needs to be a clear answer here, an unambiguous commitment, and you also need to start considering a plan B if they are simply unwilling to agree or follow-through.
I would suggest an in-person meeting if at all possible, or at least video-chat. You can explain, but most importantly you have to make it clear that there is a real deadline you can't put off. For instance: "we would need to submit this by Date X, as I have to change my focus to application deadlines, and won't be able to work further on this. I think we've done great work, and it would greatly add to my own chances of getting a permanent position, so I really don't want to just let this just die, and I'd like to work with you on more things in the future after I get a position, but personally I either have to push towards publication by the deadline or just give up on it."
You should ask how they view the situation. Is this just something that's been put off to continue to improve because there was no reason to rush, or do they have some more fundamental concern about publication? Acknowledge their concerns, and try to find common ground. I doubt they want to lose you as a collaborator entirely, and if they can just keep polishing and putting things off they could very well do so indefinitely.
Most importantly, you need to come to a crystal-clear mutual agreement on a plan. If they just aren't willing to, so be it - at least you know and you can switch focus to Plan B. But if they can, then follow up in writing with the plan you both agreed to and thanking them for working with you on this, etc. They might still fall through - not all collaborations end up as productive ones - so you should still consider that Plan B anyway (especially as rejection is still the most likely initial result, but obviously "submitted" or "under review" is better than "in preparation").

Really precise advice here. Can you be more precise with what you mean by Plan B, though?

@ziulfer Oh yes, sorry about that - I just mean generally, what are you going to do if they just don't agree and you can't submit the paper? That's totally up to you - but you could for instance ask if he'd be OK with sharing a pre-print (doesn't buy you much, so don't know that I'd default to that), you could work on an option to submit something of your own, or you could figure how to position yourself if you can't submit the work and just have to talk about it is as being a paper under preparation. The reality is you just might be unable to convince them, so prepare a plan for that.

Just want to let you know that I submitted my paper today!!
Your advice was great and actionable. Thanks once again!

@ziulfer that's fantastic, congratulations and good luck! Thanks for updating us!

You tried to persuade him already many times, to no avail. Now you need to bargain. Explain once more that you're under publication pressure, and that you believe your paper is long ready for submission. But now also mention that you will have no other choice than to pull out of the collaboration soon and to publish your part of the work separately as a single-authored paper. This of course presupposes that your contributions are separable and that you are prepared to upset your co-author. (Regarding the latter: he upset you already and after this experience you probably don't count on working with him in the future anyway.)

Actually, as I mentioned I really want to work with him in the future. One of the projects of my research plan is based on some work I did with him. Besides, he is awesome as a person and as a researcher. I guess that's the greatest problem I'm facing here, if he was a jerk it would be really easy to just let it go and publish whatever by myself.

@ziulfer, sorry I must have overlooked that part. I fear you have very little leverage then.


text:
How to approach disclosing a marital relationship when we both want to be post-docs in the same lab?
I and my spouse are planning to apply for a post-doctoral position with same professor. Since we both are eligible for and interested in the positions, we want to communicate the same to the professor.
I want to know better etiquette in communicating with the professor.
We have the following possibilities.

Sending emails individually without mentioning our marital relation;

Sending emails individually with mention of the marital relation;

Sending a single email on behalf of both.

I believe that the last option may not be recommended, but the professor will be aware of the complete context, which may be advantageous to the professor as well as to us.
Note that we include all the documents such as CV etc., in each email and the professor has enough positions to offer.
What is apt for us to do in this context?

Are the two of you a package deal? I mean, is it both or none?  Also, is there any possibility of one of you being in a supervisor position to the other if you are both accepted? Usually most institutions dislike having married persons supervising their spouse.

@BillOnne We like both or none. There is no hierarchy among us. Both are in the same position.

It's only my bias, so I won't put it in the answer. I would let the researcher know and that you both need jobs, that you would turn it down if only one person got an offer. But keep in mind it might hurt your chances.

There are two positions?

@AzorAhai-him- There are at least two positions.

Probably #2 is best, with #1 worst. I wouldn't phrase it as "both or none" but as "we both need positions in the same place (university, city, department, ...).
The recipient may have suggestions for fallback if only one of you can be offered a position. It leaves more options open to discussion.
Don't make demands until at least one of you gets an offer and you can then evaluate your position. You might be able to negotiate something if one of you is "highly" desirable..

Any chance you could elaborate on why you think #1 is the worst? From what I gather from the comment "we like both or none" is that that would be the preferred outcome, but that both spouses would still consider the position even if the other one did not get it offered. And while I did not have a partner while going through my postdoctoral stage, if I try to imagine myself in that situation I find the thought of mentioning it before getting the offer strange - as I am always looking to land a job based on my own merits rather than external factors.

Basically I think I would personally always have a doubt in my mind whether I was offered a position on my own merits or "only" because I presented myself as part of a package, if I had been offered a position after presenting myself as part of a package. Of course, I would mention the relationship to the supervisor the second after being offered the position, regardless of whether I would eventually want to disclose it to my colleagues or not. But I can't really see what one's marital status has to do with their job application, especially in a way that you see option #1 as the worst.

To be fair, I might unconsciously be taking a page from my PhD supervisors' book - while they were always approachable and great to work with, they kept their private life very private. To the point that most of the people in the lab only realised in my last year of PhD that my supervisor was in fact married to the person two offices down the hall, when they sent out a celebratory e-mail about the birth of their child and signed it together. And I can kind of see why - when we had couples join a department, soon somebody would ask "So, who came in the package? I bet it was [female spouse]!"

Actually, the only reason I don't recommend #1 is that you need to disclose the relationship. But the points you make in the comments are valid.

Phew, good to hear there's no further reasons against #1. I agree that you need to disclose the relationship, I'm just not convinced you need to do it unless you are in (or are about to accept) a position in the same lab/institution/group.

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


text:
What should I do if the editorial process 'may' cost me my publication?
I have submitted a manuscript on COVID-19 to a scientific journal in mid-2020. Since then, I have not heard from the journal, although the status says 'Under Review'. As the publication is related to COVID-19, I believe that it is imperative to disseminate the publication as soon as possible once it is accepted. However, as it has been more than half a year, I am afraid that my manuscript's findings are obsolete once it is published, especially considering that evidence related to COVID-19 is quickly expanding.
I have posted the paper to a preprint database. However, I believe that it is important for the peer-reviewed publication to be disseminated at the earliest. In this regard, I have tried contacting the editorial office several times, but I have not received any replies yet. I am afraid that the editorial process may cost me my publication, especially considering that it has been more than half a year since I gathered the evidence.
Is there any suggestion on what I should do?

If you have already contacted the editor there is probably not much more that you can do. Perhaps do that again, politely.

There are a few different potential concerns mixed together here, e.g. (1) your work will have limited visibility because it's not in a peer-reviewed venue; (2) your work will have less acceptance because it's not in a peer-reviewed venue; (3) your work will have trouble being accepted if the review process is so slow that it's no longer relevant by the time it's reviewed (and if rejected it will be harder to get accepted in a new venue). Can you say which of these you're (most) worried about, and clarify what you mean by "cost me my publication"?

If the paper is good science then it should be timeless. If it is something other than good science then you may have the wrong venue. In particular, things that demand action now are poor topics for journal articles.

Thank you very much. I'll try contacting them again with a more intense manner @EthanBolker

I believe I am currently most afraid of number (3). With the rapid dissemination and availability of preprints in several databases (Europe PMC, PubMed, WHO Database), I don't think I will have to worry about number (1). Furthermore, I believe that the quality of the study and analysis will determine whether the work will be accepted by the global scientists. On the other hand, if the findings are obsolete, I don't think there will be a way to salvage the paper. @BenBolker

@BenBolker What I meant by "cost me my publication" is that I worry that my paper will be more likely to perish if it is not accepted in the journal, especially considering the long editorial process.

@Buffy I agree that a good paper will last for indefinite time. However, as my paper is based on secondary data (i.e. systematic review), there will be many new studies by the time my paper is published, and the findings may be obsolete as the pooled results may differ when the new studies are incorporated to the model

@Buffy "If the paper is good science then it should be timeless" - yes and no. Papers become obsolete whether or not they contain "good science". There are also times when certain areas of research are particularly hot such that the impact of a paper is greatest within a particular time window. Some medical journals see everything they publish as demanding action now due to the direct relevance to patient care that is ongoing, and top journals have some editorial criteria that translate to something like "only papers that will make a clinical impact today".

@BryanKrause, not this journal, apparently.

@Buffy Agreed - and that's why OP is asking what to do about it (as far as I can tell).

@BryanKrause, I worry, though, that the OP is only worried about the cost to them and not the implications for clinical usage.

Does this answer your question? What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

Submission date MUST be considered before rejecting a paper solely based on novelty. Also, claiming first publication is one thing, novelty it is completely different. It is not that the paper arriving second is obsolete! Back to the first point: no serious editor / honest referee can keep a paper months then claiming that the paper isn't new because a similar one appeared last week. So you shouldn't loose a paper. But I will be very disappointed, too.

Based on the discussion in the comments, i.e. given that your primary concern is that the paper might be rejected after a very slow editorial process and then be hard to get accepted at another journal because it is no longer relevant/"hot"/topical/etc ...
I think you have only two (not entirely distinct) choices.

As suggested by @EthanBolker, try the editorial office again (politely but firmly).
Contact the editorial office and let them know that you're withdrawing the paper from review. Unfortunately, this means that you have to start the review process all over again at another journal (you should probably explain the history of the paper in your cover letter). If you are willing to sacrifice impact factor for speed, you might try an 'open' venue like Faculty of 1000 Coronavirus papers or (if you or one of your collaborators has Wellcome funding) Wellcome Open Research.


text:
Should I accept this unfunded offer from my dream school or wait for funded offers?
I just finished the grad school application process, and I'm getting my first letters of acceptance. I got one letter from one of my bottom three schools, one from a "middle of the pack" school, and one from a dream school. And, at the risk of humble bragging, this is a great school with a great reputation and true luminaries in my specific research interest amongst its faculty. I literally screamed when I got the letter. However, it is not funded.
They sent me the letter of acceptance only three weeks after I submitted my application. As I understand it, that's a very quick turn-around time, especially for a prominent research institution. I assume that's a very positive thing.
I'm not sure whether to just accept the offer right away, or wait to see if some of the other dream schools respond. At least one of the other dream schools will have funding for me from the get-go if I'm accepted. I know "non-funded for any amount of time" is a big red-flag, but I feel the pedigree of the school that I got accepted to trumps that. Having good recommendations from any of the professors I would work under would be worth more than gold. I feel like, in this situation, you just bite the bullet and go for it.
But I also feel that if you might have basically the exact same opportunity, except with funding, at another institution or two, it might be worth waiting/holding out a bit to see how things play out.
I feel left with a few questions:

Is it stupid of me to hold out at all, given the high level of the institution I received the letter of acceptance from? I worry my ego might have got too inflated, and it's wrong to  hope that another dream school (with or without available funding) will come knocking at my door.

If I do accept the offer, but then receive an offer from another dream institution that could offer me funding, would it be bad form to pull out of my agreement of acceptance? I wouldn't want bad blood.

How long is too long to wait on accepting the offer? Will they fill the open position if I take too long to respond? I don't want to miss out on what could be the opportunity of a lifetime because I sat on my hands.

Awesome. BTW, I added the word "unfunded" to your title, as that is a critical detail that the answerers will need to note (i.e., because the April 15 resolution does not apply to unfunded offers).

PhD or masters?

Are they all? What is your goal in pursuing grad school?

Why are you injecting this urgency into a process with clearly defined deadlines far in the future? What am I missing?

Shortening the question means summarizing / removing irrelevant details. Please do not completely change the question once it has received answers.

@GoodDeeds I received the helpful answer I was hoping for. I don't particularly care to leave the question up any longer, especially when most of the answers/follow up questions are either probing to the point where I would have to compromise anonymity OR are simply saying "unfunded is bad" (I addressed the fact that I understood unfunded offers are a red-flag and that I'm ambivalent to the red flag). If I delete my account, will the post go away? I really don't care to leave this up any more.

That's not the point of the site -- questions are meant to help others. Removing the post after it has received answers violates the site policies. If you have specific reasons that are not covered there you could flag for moderator attention and explain there.

I shortened the question to the important parts (we're all familiar with not naming schools - in fact I don't think you're allowed to; we don't need to know how many schools you applied to, etc). I still think it's too long, but I didn't want to hack off too much.

You could have the question disassociated from your personal account by a moderator. You would have to ask for that using a moderator flag and explain your reasons.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29504/is-it-worth-self-funding-a-phd-to-attend-a-top-10-university/62469#62469

Generally speaking, there’s no need to accept an offer as soon as you receive it. Offers have a standard deadline for you to respond. It is normally somewhere on your offer letter. It’s absolutely fine to make further inquiries with HR or one of your prospective advisors regarding funding opportunities:

Can I apply for financial assistance?

Are there any scholarships or teaching assistantships I qualify for?

Can I be funded by your research grant professor X?

All excellent and valid questions that show your genuine interest in enrolling. Graduate school is expensive, and not everyone has the financial privilege of spending several years with no financial support. Admission committees know this and will try to make it easier for good applicants to get some support if possible.
Accepting an offer and then backing out in favor of another is a big no no. Not only did you waste everyone’s time, you also made some other candidate miss an opportunity. People will rightly be upset.
What you can do is ping the schools you’re waiting on. A simple “Hello, I just received a few offers I’m seriously considering and would like to know whether your department had the chance to review my application. I need to make a final decision by XXXXX so would appreciate an answer before that deadline, many thanks!”
You will likely get an answer pretty fast.
Edit: as Alexander Woo mentions in their answer, taking up an unfunded PhD is a bad idea. You may find yourself in a financial hole that you may not be able to get out of for years to come, having to hold off on other important life decisions (buying a house, starting a family) that may look very far away now, but will become frighteningly, depressingly real before you know it. This comment does not hold for Masters degrees: these are often offered on a full tuition deal, but are also a short term commitment.

Ok, all of this makes sense. The 3 questions for HR and/or advisors that you offered are especially helpful. The deadline is definitely after the April 15 resolution that cag51 mentioned in his comment, so that's good. I think I'll avoid bugging schools with "pings" for now, just because I get this year is especially crazy for committees, given the whole COVID-19 thing.

You can hold out for a bit longer, there’s no rush.

Maybe helpful to OP to specify that if there is a stated deadline, then the offer will be held for them until that deadline (unless there is some sort of departmental calamity, which is very very unlikely at a top school).

That fast answer is likely to be "We will release acceptances when we're done" ...

Yep, but in the case of good candidates (as OP self-describes) departments may speed things up.

This is missing advice not to do an unfunded PhD.

I understood that question is about masters right? I can add that in an edit though.

Unless you are independently wealthy, you should never take an unfunded offer for graduate school in mathematics.
Even before the pandemic, some people with a dozen good papers after two successful postdocs - a well above average publication rate - were failing to find jobs.
When I was last broadly applying for academic jobs 10 years ago, the general advice was to send 80-100 applications to jobs you were competitive for in order to have reasonable certainty of getting at least one offer.  Even before the pandemic, there weren't that many jobs in total to apply for, and each job gets more applicants than they did 10 years ago.  (This year is brutal; the only people getting research-oriented jobs will be AMS Sectional plenary lecture candidates (there are roughly 40 per year, total - that's less than the number of Berkeley+Stanford PhDs per year) or better.)
There are even fewer jobs in industry for which a math PhD is a better qualification than several years of experience.
For a more teaching-oriented academic job, the funded position at a lower-ranked graduate school is actually better preparation, because you will be teaching for your funding, and because the undergraduate population at a lower-ranked school is generally more similar to the undergraduate population at most universities than the undergraduate population at a highly-ranked school.
If you borrow money for graduate school, you could end up in a situation where you are unemployed with no means of paying back your loans.  Don't forget education loans cannot be discharged via bankruptcy.
Going to graduate school in math with funding is already a costly decision from the financial point of view, though it's fine if getting to spend a few years doing math is worth it for you (as it was for me).  Going to graduate school in math unfunded is potentially ruinous.

I don’t think OP specified PhD or that they wanted an academic career. Although if that were the case this is good advice.

@MintBerry Brunch: this is for a masters --- I think you're way overestimating the effect of rankings of a masters degree program (in the U.S.) on the eventual realization of an academic research career. There are of course many exceptions, but generally speaking if you have the potential to get a strong Ph.D. followed by a such a career, it should be very apparent by now. (Of course, realizing this potential is another thing.) Perhaps you have some poor aspects in your past record (I certainly did), but if so, (continued)

then there almost certainly needs to be a few things that you've truly excelled at mathematically (took the USAMO, top 100 Putnam score, successful completion of graduate classes at age 18 or 19, very successful REU experience, a publication or two even in an MAA journal, more than one letter of recommendation saying your potential is higher than anyone at your undergraduate college/university the past several years, etc.), but I see nothing in what you've said that suggests this. (continued)

That said, I think you should focus on "fitness" issues, which we know nothing about in your case, and on the subsequent placements of recent graduates in the programs you're considering. In other words, I suggest you stop being so narrowly focused on rankings and such, and instead focus on things that will allow you to be the best you can be. For example, if you grew up in a large city, then you probably don't want to be in a very rural area. Also, some people perform better as big fish in small ponds, whereas others perform better as little fish "underdogs" in big ponds. Which are you?

Very good reality-check answer. I would add, consider the toll on your mental well-being that worrying about money and debt could put on you, and the hours and energy you may need to put to a side job to support yourself. These would likely affect your studying ability and, in a way, reduce the overall academic potential of the dream school as an entire proposition. Of course you may feel you can tackle it, I would just advise to not take it lightly.

There are even fewer jobs in industry for which a math PhD is a better qualification than several years of experience.
I'm not sure how will be the industrial job aspects post-covid, but I thought the situation wasn't so grim pre-covid, and if someone is a math PhD from a (say) top 50 grad school then if they decide they want to leave academia one-two years before the completion of their program they can self study and do some internships to "easily" land into a $200k+ data science/finance/hedge fund job immediately or atmax an year after graduating. Is this very far from the reality?

@noobie - With the significant number of masters in financial engineering programs, this is far from automatic for finance/hedge fund (and has been for 15 years).  Maybe data science, but that window is closing.  Also, if you can get into a top 10 grad school (which is closer to the cutoff for this), then a hedge fund will hire you out of undergrad, make sure you can do work in that environment, and train you, paying for you to do a masters in financial engineering if necessary.

cutoff for this cutoff for what? Also, damn didn't know that things aren't as rosy as I was told. Anyways, then what are the industry jobs for which a math PhD is a better qualification than several years of experience, and what do you think the situation will be 10 years later?

@noobie - cutoff for being seriously considered by hedge funds just for being smart - industry jobs that actually require a PhD are basically just NSA and its contractors, plus some biotech and DoD contractors if you're super-applied in one of those directions.  (I'm not counting stats.)  Pure math is about 20-25 years behind English.  If you look at English before or after the 2008 recession - an average student from a good program has a reasonable chance of getting some kind of permanent academic job eventually, but it's not by any means guaranteed (before) or far from guaranteed (after).

tl;dr: Agreeing to work for free hurts your colleagues. Don't.
Graduate-level research is important work, which benefits society, the academic institute and the PI/advisor/lab/research group. It merits reasonable compensation - similarly to how you would expect payment seeking other work based on your undergraduate degree.
In many places the term "unfunded PhD" is not used. As a PhD candidate, you are a proper employee of your university or research institute. If you don't finish your PhD within an allotted amount of time, your employment will run out, but doing a PhD while being non-employed is like volunteer work. It's not impossible, but it is unreasonable for you to work full-time as a volunteer, for years.
Unfortunately, graduate researchers, whose work involves both practical contribution and an aspect of traineeship, are in a situation that's easy to exploit - and exploited it is. The struggle for proper employment conditions, and even recognition of status as a contributing employee, is ongoing in many countries.
See also: Why do universities fund Ph.D. students in the sciences?
Now, you might say "Ok, but personally I'm willing to forego a salary and various rights and benefits to get into the research institute I like" (and note: It's not primarily a school, despite the term).
But - it's not just about you. You are hurting your fellow graduate researchers by accepting a position as a PhD candidate researcher without pay. So - you should not do it.
Maybe you don't need the income and can live off of savings, or support from your parents or spouse. But - suppose one of them worked as, say, a nurse or a teacher; and now, the government starts a volunteer program to promote education or public health, and places volunteers as nurses or teachers, in hospitals and schools - for zero pay (This is not a made-up example, this happens in some countries.) I'm sure those volunteers will have the best of intentions; and it is not inconceivable for someone to volunteer to tend to the sick or teach children in their community - but still, in a money-based economy, they would be used as a cudgel to beat down those who rely on these job for a living.

A related question: Can I somehow leverage my willingness to work for a lower salary in job applications?

I like this answer overall, but:  Demand for PhD students is very high.  Supply of money for paying them is lower.  If a few PhD student work for free, this does not reduce demand enough to cause universities to pay less to the remaining PhD students.  That said, don't work for free.

I think it is more important to emphasize: Working for free hurts OP. Not just in terms of lost money, but in terms of lost reputation. It says: they are not worth being compensated. Good grad students can expect to be compensated.

@AnonymousPhysicist: 1. The claim that salary is a balance between externally-determined supply and demand is at best overly reductionist, and at worst an ideological tool of employers. 2. More specifically though, it's true that the actions of OP, or a couple of people here and there, won't alter much of anything. But if instead of a few PhD candidates working for free we would have none working for free, then - that does have an effect, at the very least psychologically.

Pure math is not a science.  Are you also willing to argue that writers/actors/musicians should not work for (almost) free?

@AlexanderWoo: If you are offered a full-time position in a more desirable orchestra or theater for no pay, and other positions for pay, I would make the same suggestion. Otherwise - it depends on the context. I didn't say one should never do any work for no pay.

I should comment, demand for native PhD students is somewhat high, the US universities get flooded by foreign applications yearly. It's literally a tsunami of applicants from India and SEA.

Accept the offer. If you receive a better offer down the line, politely back out.
This may not be easy for you, but it's not personal, it's business.
What can happen is that you decline the offer, the others say no... and you're left high and dry with nothing.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава