text:
Do I have a chance at an academic career in North America or Europe?
I have two masters, topped both of them, and published articles that have been widely cited, though they date before 2013. I am struggling with my PhD because of a lack of support from the faculty and funds. I have been too busy surviving after that. What can I do to maximize my chances of an academic career in Europe or North America? Is my age a crucial factor?

There's a chance this will be closed as opinion-based. Could you rephrase so that the question focuses on something more operational and/or narrow? E.g. how can I maximize my chances for program X with my particular resumé? How important is age or time-to-submission? How important is a gap in publications? etc. (Some of these questions already have answers on this site.)

My answer to this question of yours Does the time taken to do a PhD affect post doctoral applications? does also apply here: There is a chance, yes. How high that chance is depends on many factors. Your age, your publications, etc. are some of them, but others are for example the quality of your work, the availability of the position you are looking for, the energy you put into applying (e.g. do you contact every last university in all of North America and Europe?), what you want as a "career"  - e.g. are you happy with a postdoc position that is not limited, or do you want to get to dean of the department before you hit 60 - etc.
So yes, there is a chance and yes, it is somewhat lowered by the points you gave. If you want to take it or not is your choice, no one else can make it for you.


text:
A terrible PhD situation in Germany. Please help
I am an international student in a interdisciplinary PhD in the social sciences.

My supervisor has about 60 students and does not do any advising beyond a few personal favorites.

My second supervisor considers me a student of the first, resents the fact that he is the expert on the subject, and as a result won't read my thesis either. This has gone on for seven years and now I must submit. I speak four European languages and my thesis is in an area which is very relevant. Right now I can t see any future for myself as there are no jobs back home.

1.What do I do about my supervisors as the PhD is graded here?
2.Can I apply for post docs/tenure track (community college is more than fine) in North America with a PhD from Germany, or do they prefer N.American PhDs? How do I go about it? I have publications.
I'd be grateful for any advice/career suggestions etc. I don't mind leaving academia but I cannot return home as there are no jobs there.

Welcome to Academia SE. Unfortunately your question is too broad as it stands. Please [edit] it to boil it down to a single issue and specify a goal that you want to achieve. For more details on this, please read this and this FAQ.

A community college job may actually be harder to get, as they tend to ignore applications from people who do not live near by.  They usually cannot afford to pay travel expenses for job applicants.  They may also be unable to pay visa costs.

I dont believe that this situation really happened, 6 years is maximum you can stay at phd.please provide us more details

@SSimon, in my university you can register as a PhD student as long as it takes and for international students if the Auslanderbehöhrde gives you permission it is accepted.

Meanwhile, not forget to work on new papers also, and to initiate projects, it might be important also to improve the publication list. Good luck!

60 students? I don't see how it's possible to call yourself an academic supervisor when you have that many students. We've got one with 10 at our university in the UK and that's considered severely pushing it (there have been complaints).

@SSimon I think you are confusing things. 6 years is the longest you can be employed as a PhD student on regular limited term contracts, because after that the exemption from worker protection rights runs out. However, if you are not an employee but e.g. on some kind of stipend, there is no legal limit except when the university sets one.

@Maeher wow I thought by Bologna system you are required to study only 6 years, please correct me. thanks for info

This question is about three and half years old, please update your situation. As it stands currently, it's still too broad. Please improve it.

It is not uncommon that a German professor does not give advise to their PhD students. Neither is it uncommon that the 2nd referee does not want to read your thesis. In Germany, whether your dissertation is good enough or not is mainly decided by the first advisor. If they say it's ok, then it's ok. Your advisor theirself is the chairman of the exam committee, the other members would not say "no" to him.
That is, there is no need to worry about your situation.
If I were you, I would just write up my dissertation, give it to my advisor, and ask them for advice. Then, from what I know, the advisor would find some time to read it, and tell you something to improve (they have to pretend as if they understood your thesis). Then you could do the improvements, mail the thesis to the 2nd referee. Again this guy would also tell you something to improve, you do it, and that's it.

In all cases I know, the advisor is not the chair of the exam committee.  They are, however, likely the person who has the most say (practically) in the exam committee.

Did your first supervisor ever say to you that he/she won't read your thesis? Why don't you try to finish writing the first draft of your thesis first and let your first supervisor to read and comment? My supervisor also is a type that doesn't do much supervising and only let me do whatever I want. But she took time to read my thesis and I finally managed to submit mine. I am not sure whether it is possible for you to apply for postdoc without PhD degree. Correct me if I am wrong. The fact that you already have publications means you will have a good time writing your thesis.

I have had problems that are similar to yours.
I would say that you need to finish your PhD. The strongest thing you can have in your CV besides your publications is your degree.
Apply for Postdoc in other countries within the EU. There are many opportunities and you may get lucky. America is having difficulties with funding for Science and Humanities, but of course, you can still try there.
The situation with your advisors is terrible, but you can always ask for other people to read your dissertation, like your senior colleagues and professors. Ask for their opinion and suggestion. Make your dissertation as well written and coherent as you possibly can in this situation. It can indeed bring you some job opportunity.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I apply for postdocs with a mediocre PhD that took years and is interdisciplinary?
I have a double master's from two prestigious European universities with the highest grade, but my Ph.D. was a nightmare. My advisors were at loggerheads, never read any drafts, and finally gave me a cum laude, which in Germany is equal to "just pass" and  It took me more than a decade, working in odd jobs, to get this Ph.D. which is in an interdisciplinary social science subject.
I cannot go back to my violent home country in the Third World.
Can I apply for postdocs with a Ph.D. that took years to complete and is interdisciplinary? My advisors may give good recommendations if only to get rid of me.
My main aim is to immigrate. I would be happy to go to Canada or the US, but I understand getting permanent residence is easier in Canada.

Yes, as long as I can immigrate. I can t go back to my own country.

What else are you going to do with it?

If your main aim is to immigrate, consider exploring career options other than an academic research track. With a double Master’s degree from prestigious universities and a PhD, even a (supposedly) mediocre one, your employment prospects in most western countries should be excellent, and some countries’ immigration systems will explicitly favor a person with your credentials (Canada and Australia come to mind).
A position as a lecturer, school teacher, researcher at a think tank, government agency or non-profit, and a variety of industry/private sector positions are all options that would be realistically within reach, and potentially easier to secure than a postdoc if you feel doubtful about your ability to present yourself as strong in the academic research context.
Of course, you might have additional goals other than the desire to immigrate. Continuing in the academic track is no less of an option than the other ones I’ve listed. Even from a shaky starting point, it is not too late to launch a successful academic career. Depending on the discipline and on how broad you are willing to make your search, the bar for getting a 1-year or 2-year postdoc can be pretty low. The fact that you are interdisciplinary, which you see as a disadvantage, can become an advantage in certain contexts, so try to look for places or opportunities where that will be the case. Being flexible about geographical locations can also be a big advantage. The world, and also the academic world, is a big place! Good luck in any case.

But avoid things like "adjunct professor", which isn''t a permanent (or desirable) position.

@Buffy sounds like a hasty generalization to me. A postdoc also isn’t a permanent position, nor high paying, yet many people regard both postdocs and adjunct positions as suitable and desirable for them.

The warning, actually, was not to be misled by the name. Typically, in US, adjuncts are very poorly paid, at-will, employees with few benefits unless unionized. But the word "professor" in the title is misleading. Post-docs on the other hand are recognized researchers, not just abused, low level, instructors.

I think "look very carefully at a position labelled 'adjunct professor'" is maybe better advice.  As a tenured academic, I agree that's the least desirable academic job and that someone could be a bit misled by it.  On the other hand, the OP wrote "I cannot go back to my violent home country in the Third World," so maybe they have a different cost-benefit analysis than we do!

@Pete agreed, mostly. My point is it seems disrespectful to imply that anyone who takes an adjunct professor position is some kind of gullible sucker or a member of an exploited academic underclass. That’s far from the case. Is there a widespread problem of adjuncts being underpaid and overemployed by institutions keen on cost-cutting? Absolutely. Nonetheless it’s a job that many people are happy holding for part or all of their careers, for a variety of reasons. Some people here seem to have an axe to grind on this issue and keep beating up on the adjunct category, and that seems wrong to me.

You can always apply, and the old adage is true as well: If you don't apply, you will never get the job.
For sure you are at a disadvantage compare to people with maybe smoother trajectories and CVs that more clearly show their strengths. But in the end, people mostly get hired based on (i) their qualifications, not on how they got them, and (ii) whether those who seek to hire already know an applicant. As a consequence, your #1 priority should be to make sure you identify people you know (and who know you) and make sure they know that you are on the job market.

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


text:
Does time taken and a poor grade for a PHD in Germany destroy chances for a post doc?
I  come from a violent country that gives me no hope for the future. I cannot go back. My supervisor has more than 30 students, did not read my chapters, and insisted that I give in the first draft as final. The second supervisor, the expert on the subject, resents that the first supervisor will get all the credit. So neither helped. Refused to read drafts. The defense was full of questions that a reading of the first draft would have easily fixed. There was no support from the institution and I ended up with an average grade of cum laude after more than a decade of effort. All on my dime. Odd jobs. The reason I delayed was that my home country is hell and my family depends on me.
I am so desperate that I d rather do a second Ph.D. than go home. I don t know if they will give me recommendations for a postdoc.
Any solutions to get out of this? I mean can I get a postdoc with lukewarm recommendations? I have a sterling academic record, publications though a bit dated, and I truly think this grade is unfair.

"The problem is finding a non-academic job, I believe, means that I need to have a high salary" - what do you mean? You need a high salary? Is that essential? Why not prove yourself and develop your salary? US may not care about the 'cum laude', but they will care about publications, so the latter is more of an issue there.

@CaptainEmacs It's about getting a visa, I assume. EU regulations on that should be public. (Though I don't think it is astronomically high - should be possible to get with a PhD.)  EDIT: 56800 in Germany.  I'd say high for the 1st job but not impossible.

Yes, exactly to get a job outside academics there is a high threshold. Right now I d be happy to work for a decent anything but that wont gets me permanent residence unless it is connected to academics. Essentially I should show a job that requires a PhD.

Can you shorten this post to be only about the actual question you have? It seems like the last line is what you actually care about, but I'm not sure.

In the US, the grades (and "cum laude") will mean little. It is the possession of a doctorate and letters of recommendation that will mean more.

@Buffy: In Germany, PhD "grades" are undergoing inflation, depending on the subject area, "cum laude" can indicate a very mediocre thesis evaluation. That also might imply unwillingness of the supervisor to provide a good LoR.

@Peter. I'd be much more worried about letters for positions in the US. And even more about whether skill match any advertised position.

Also, the 56.800 mark does not hold for STEM or medical degree holders, in that case it's 44.304 Euros which is very achievable depending on Bundesland. EDIT: nvm, that doesn't seem to apply to the OP.

My subject is interdisciplinary and I really doubt I would get a job that pays 44, 304 euros per year. That s why I am really worried. The committee said that the work was good but that procedural norms were not followed. Frankly, if they had read the first draft once over the criticism could easily have been addressed, but they refused to.

@user78397: Is the subject one of "mathematics, computer science, natural sciences or technology"? If so I don't see a problem, if you get a job in e.g. Munich as a PhD graduate in one of those areas it's absolutely unthinkable that you will be paid less than 50.000 Euros a year. For someone with a PhD the limit might actually be even lower but I'm not quite sure.

@Buffy At least in math/physics, a grade below "magna cum laude" points to a  mediocre thesis (but this might be very different in other fields, grading standards at least in undergrad e.g. differ vastly!).  If everything else were fine (CV, publications, letters), no issue at all, but I don't think this would happen - for a bad grade, it is clear that you advisor was negative about your work, so if they were to write a strong letter, they would be dishonest in their letter.

@user151413 Good letters and mediocre thesis seem kind of mutual exclusive though.

Related, particularly for a German context: I believe my PhD dissertation was unfairly graded too low (cum laude): what should I do?.

@lighthousekeeper Sure, that's my point: If you have a bad PhD grade at least in math/physics in Germany, you will have difficulties finding a postdoc, because you won't get a strong letter from your advisor (or the absence of a letter from the advisor will point towards the bad grade).

In the rest of the world, nobody cares about the grade of the PhD -- just about the three letters. It took me till the question linked to two comments up before I understood what my own grade actually meant. Nobody has ever asked me about my grade in my 18 years in the US and I don't think anyone has cared at all.

There are different regulations for getting a work visa after finishing a course of study in Germany (which includes PhDs). In particular there is no salary requirement, but it has to match to your degree. That does not mean you can only take jobs in academia though, anything requiring a university degree in your field should do. (E.g. math PhD -> Insurance company is an example I know of). There is also the possibility to become self-employed in something related to your field. Your university should have an international office who should know more details, so you should talk to them.

@Wolfgang Of course no-one would ask for it - but if you apply in Germany and you got a "rite", I'd recommend to not mention the grade in the application, say, in math.  For me, this would be a red flag.

It is a multi disciplinary social science PhD. I was the topper of the Master course and that's why I got it.. I deeply regret taking it. With average recommendation is it possible to get a post doc if my idea is good? I can ask for recommendations but they did not even read it. They refused to

@user151413 Maybe with a "rite", but OP did not get a "rite"; they got a "cum laude", which is not actively a bad grade. Even in Germany (I am German, just for the record), what matters more is good ideas, good recommendations, good publications. In the absence of an actively bad (rite) or exceptional (summa) grade, that's what every candidate is rated by.

@Wolfgang Well, there is "summa cum laude", "magna cum laude", "cum laude", and "rite".  I think the typical grade is a "magna cum laude", with the frequency of the "summa" depending on the place (most places I know try to decrease the number of summas).  So I'd say a "cum laude" is a pointer that something didn't go quite well, though maybe not bad as it could have gone.  As I said, I'd be surprised if someone got a strong letter from their advisor after receiving a "cum laude" in math or physics; other fields might well differ.


text:
For PhD admissions, do I need an LOR from a current PI in addition to former PIs?
I am applying to USA PhDs and have three strong letters of recommendation from immediate former PIs who directly supervised my work. How essential is a recommendation from my current PI? During my interview for the research specialist role in my current position, my PI mentioned that the position would span two years, though no formal contract was signed. I have been with the lab for four months now. Should I ask my PI for a LOR, or would the three letters from my former supervisors suffice?

The best letters (US perspective) are from those who know you well and can honestly and accurately predict your likelihood of success in doctoral study and beyond. Given that the new PI may not know you as well, at the moment, that the others might be better. But you need to judge that.
And, if you think that the new PI would be greatly disturbed by your leaving (doubtful, actually) then they might not be the best source.
If you are unsuccessful in the current round, then the importance of letters from the new PI might be increased as they will know you better then.
Note that the answer of David Raven gives important notes about the case where you are chasing (sub) fields. Don't neglect that advice. Good luck.

Okay thank you so much !!

If your past research, current research, and future research are all in the same field, I would choose the strongest 3 letters.
Your current PI can still give a strong letter, by saying great things, while explaining that you haven't been working together for long. For example, they can explain why they are excited to work with you; that you are knowledgeable about X, have already contributed to Y, and are quickly learning how to do Z.
If you think this PI will write such a letter, and that it would be stronger than a previous PI's letter, then I would go for it.

If your past research areas differ substantially from your current and future research (which I presume align), I think you should strongly consider asking the current PI for a letter, even if a former PI can give a stronger one. However, if you think it may actively be a bad letter, then it is probably best to not ask for a letter.

I wanted to ask how important a letter of recommendation from my current PI would be, given that I’ve only been in the role for 4 months. During my job interview, my PI mentioned he expects me to stay for 2 years, and I’m applying for PhD admissions this year, which he doesn’t expect. I already have LORs from three immediate former PIs I’ve worked with. Would it be fine if I don't ask my current PI for a recommendation? - @David Raveh

Okay noted, thank you for the detailed response, it definitely helps. Would it impact my application if I choose not to ask my current PI for a letter, given that I have 2 strong LORs from my former PIs?


text:
Is it acceptable to cite review papers when they don't provide any references for where the information has come from?
Is it acceptable to cite review papers when they don't provide references for where the information has come from?
I'm working on a report, and I've cited quite a few review papers, whose number I'm trying to minimise. Where possible I've found the original source for the information and cited it.
However, there is content which is the authors' own writing rather than a review, where they don't cite a source. I'm presuming this is where it's their own conclusions from their reviewing rather than a conclusion from a reviewed paper.
For example, in one source that highlights the advantages of post-combustion carbon capture compared to other technologies there is no citation for this. I've found other (non-review) papers reference this paper.
I'm being cautious, as it's generally bad practice to cite review papers.

Why is it generally bad practice to cite review papers? I see "See ref [x] and references therein" fairly often.

@Allure Depends on the field, but if you cite review papers, which are basically collections of parts of other works, the original work that  actually found the info you’re citing doesn’t get the attribution (and citation count) it should. In physics, my field, it’s expected good practice to go all the way down to the root of the citation tree, unless your info is the result of the review article itself (such as a summary statistics, a comparative analysis, or a record value). I would expect this to hold for the majority of fields.

When you say you're "presuming it's their own conclusions from their reviewing", is this not made clear in the paper? A well written review should have clear separation between the evidence they are reporting from the existing literature, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

In the example of the paper that highlights the advantages of post-combustion carbon capture, it should be clear what the source of the evidence for this claim is. I would expect them to have included multiple papers that show different advantages of this technology which are cited earlier in the paper, so that this claim can reasonably be stated as a synthesis of the included evidence.

I've noticed an increase in the number of really bad review papers lately. Long ago in ancient history, like maybe 15 years ago, at least in my field, most review papers fell into one of a few categories:

expert reviews by top names in a field summarizing their work and the work of others in their fields over a career of 15+ years
forward-thinking reviews that were really making an original case for a specific hypothesis, supported by previous literature but also really being intended to drive future work
very comprehensive, systematic reviews that filled some gap in the field and should probably be treated as original research except that the research data were from the literature rather than biological specimens

There were a few duds, but mostly these were excellent resources.
However, these days, I have encountered a couple new brands of reviews:

The student review, written by someone brand new to the field just working their way into it trying to have a publication in their first year.
The junk review. Maybe it's written by AI, maybe the author just typed it up over their lunch break, maybe it's the 5th almost identical review paper published by the same person over the past year or two.

These (4) and (5) seem to be pushed by the new trend towards open access publishing. Publishers are happy to take a fee for these papers that really serve no purpose except to pad someone's CV.
Anyways...reviews of the first three types are generally pretty authoritative. They contain not only statements regurgitating what is published, they also contain their own original thoughts in the synthesis of ideas. You absolutely need to cite them for that synthesis. You should also cite them when they've done the work for you of identifying useful sources.
I would be wary of the other two types, and if you're new to a field unfortunately you might have trouble identifying them. But, if you're finding a lot of statements of fact (rather than synthesis) that are unsupported, I think you've stumbled onto the "junk review".

A very important post

100%. I have noticed this too from more recently published review papers.

I sometimes call category 5 reviews “Google page reviews”, as they’re often barely more than the Google Scholar page you get after searching for “title of the review”.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't (3) be a meta-analysis rather than a review?

@BenVoigt I had in mind such papers that do not do any meta analysis and mostly synthesize data qualitatively. I also realize I used the phrase "systematic review" which is its own kind of research approach, which I didn't really mean to do, I meant to use systematic more broadly as an adjective to describe the depth.

I disagree that it is generally bad practice to cite review papers; see for example this answer. While it is good practice to track down, read, and cite the original source of a fact/idea (both to give credit and to avoid errors accumulating by the citation game of telephone), the broader perspectives of review articles can be very helpful to your readers, and provide an overview of more and more recent evidence than in the original source. Thus it often is appropriate to cite the review, or to cite both the original source and the review article.
In this case you mention original aspects in the review article. It is worth distinguishing two cases:

The review article includes statements of fact, with no source or evidence presented. If so, the review is likely a bad source for such claims, and it would be a good idea to look elsewhere.
The review article contains novel ideas/insights/interpretations/commentary synthesized from the primary research articles it cites. If it's done convincingly and carefully, this is a mark of a great review article—one that contributes more than an extensive list of references and some prose—well worth citing for such ideas.

Your example of "one source I have used highlights the advantages of post-combustion carbon capture compared to other technologies" doesn't really provide enough context to tell, but it might fall under the second category if it analyzes a variety of technologies and then arrives at this conclusion. But note the qualifiers "convincingly and carefully" and beware of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Especially for complex and policy-relevant claims like this it is good practice to be critical of the arguments presented, and to look also for evidence and arguments against the claim.

If you use something from a paper then you cite that paper. If that paper is flawed then you either cite it or avoid using it.
Not citing it when you use it will be the same error that is exhibited by the paper you use but don't cite.
But beyond the immediate question of citation, there is the issue of whether you should use such a paper at all. It seems flawed as you describe it, possibly even plagiarism in the worst case. In that situation you shouldn't touch it at all.

The issue of whether to cite a review paper versus a normal paper is a red herring here. What is bad practice is not citing a review paper, but citing a paper containing suspect information (whether it is a review paper or not) without alerting the reader to the issue.
If a paper makes a claim and doesn't cite a source for the claim or otherwise provide supporting evidence/reasoning, then if you repeat the claim in your paper, you have a duty to:

Cite the source where the claim came from.

Alert the reader to the fact that the claim is not substantiated in the source.

To be clear, you don't need to outright state that you believe the claim to be false. The readers can judge that for themselves. But you need to convey to the reader that you are not endorsing the claim and that they need to be aware of the lack of clear sourcing or reasoning. This can be done by writing something like:

Scienceman et al (2014) discuss the benefits of osteopathic healing techniques in the treatment of cats and other household pets, and claim that such techniques can extend the expected life span of the average household pet by 27 years. No source is given for a peer-reviewed study supporting the claim.

Even if you believe the claim you are mentioning is probably true, it is prudent to point out the lack of clear sourcing. Propagating facts which are possibly true but unverifiable is only slightly less bad than propagating outright falsehoods, particularly in the context of scientific research.
Of course, another option is simply not to mention the claim at all, in which case you also do not need to cite the paper where it is mentioned.

This. A citation should be more than only giving the bibliographic details of a paper. The text around it is important. It can be used to write something almost like a mini-mini critical review like in the given example.

The last sentence rings all the alarm bells: Look for a different paper! If you cannot find any backing the claim, it is probably not scientifically proven.


text:
Should I obtain permission for publishing a vector drawing based on a published photo?
I have drawn a schematic image of a museum object for use in my forthcoming paper. The object itself is over 1000 years old, and my vector drawing is based on a photograph published in an exhibition catalogue some 30 years ago (where the photograph is credited to the museum holding the piece). I will of course give credits to the image source in the caption ("Drawn by the author based on the photograph published in Smith 1985, 88 fig. 88" or "Drawn by the author based on the photograph published in ABC 1985, 88 fig. 88 (@ Museum XYZ)"). However, I would like to ask if I should also obtain a permission for publishing my drawing, as I would do if I republish the photograph itself. Or does the fact that I have drawn the image myself free me from that obligation?
My question is thematically close to the two earlier topics on Academia SE ( How do I give credit to some image I included in my paper? and Recreating images from a source ), however these earlier questions concerned primarily with credits, and my question with getting a permission. Besides in these earlier questions the image sources were drawing, and mine concerns with a photograph as an image source.

Thank you. But is the jurisdiction of my university relevant in this case or is this the jurisdiction of the publisher (located in a different country)?
As for the second part of your answer I'd not call the photograph is an original work, it is a routinely done photograph of an archaeological object. However, to my knowledge it is a common practice that the museums regulate the reproductions of museum objects, which are legally in public domain, by claiming the rights to the photographs.

Your best guess is asking the museum. I could even imagine they might like the graphic and then on their part will ask you if they can use it.

What is your original motivation to create that drawing? Escape reproduction rights? Or else?
The usual practice with museums and objects that are not involved in copyright any more because they are too old, is that you don't pay for the picture of the image if you take the picture of the image yourself. You pay if you use the image that the institution provides.
My guess is that publishing your drawing is not like 'republishing the photograph itself' because your drawing makes an original contribution that goes far beyond reproducing like for like the original photograph.
Agreed with commentators about approaching the institution out of common courtesy, if nothing else.

Thanks. The main reason is that the published photo is of low quality. Ordering a new one is difficult (depending on the museum it can be costly or time-consuming or both, but worst of all is that this particular museum can turn my request down or never reply, and I have a fixed deadline to submit my paper). I hope that the request to allow printing my own sketch is less troublesome for the museum and thus my chances are higher. Yet I wonder if abstaining from requesting a permission (lucrative when the museum seems uncooperative) would be considered a breach of the code of conduct.

They could always claim. Any chance you could take your own photograph of the object, or ask someone who could take the picture for you, so you could use it on a creative commons basis? Speaking of which, ever looked up if there is a photograph of the object available in the public domain online? like in Flickr creative commons?

I sure did check, but it is currently not on display; hence, no visitors photos.

tried asking for a storage visit to take your own pictures?

That could as well be possible, but I was absolutely not planning that, for it incurs substantial travel costs, and I just need a figure for my forthcoming paper. This makes sense to access the material, which is otherwise unreachable, not to make my publication fancier. The drawing costed me less than a working day and would suffice to support the idea I am putting forward.

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


text:
Should I decline to fill out a recommendation form after saying that I will do it?
I received an email from a student today. The email said that she was applying to a program, and that she needed her professors to fill out a recommendation form. She added that it shouldn't take long, because it should be easy to fill out. The deadline is exactly a week from today.
I am currently away from my institution, and will not return until her deadline, so this already puts me in a tight spot. She was also a weak student, maybe in the top half, but by no means a memorable one.
So I replied very quickly to her email (within 30 minutes of receiving her email), telling her that 1) if it's just the form, I can do it in a week; 2) if she needs a letter, I cannot write her a good letter within a week; and 3) overall, although if she insists I will do the job, she is advised to ask someone else for a letter.
She responded in a half-sentence, saying "it's just the form" So I asked her to send me her CV, transcript, and any relevant application materials. She has not responded yet.
I made a mistake here, though, because I was so busy that I did not open her attachment, thinking that if it's just a form, it should be easy to fill out. Now that I opened the form, I realized that I have seen this form before. I have already filled out this form for another student, and furthermore, I have written a detailed letter for her, because the form has an "additional comments" section that is very short (that I assumed had to be interpreted as a recommendation letter). I even asked about this letter here:
Should I write that a student is a feminist in my recommendation letter?
So now I am facing some tough choices.
Should I still agree to just fill out the form for her? Given that I have already written a strong letter of support for another student on top of the recommendation form, this will be a death sentence to this other student's application since her grades on the form will be lower, and she will not have a letter to supplement it (however, the first student is a lot stronger in every dimension that I am qualified to assess them on).
I could email the student again, and tell her that because of the above reason, I cannot even fill out the form because it is too weak and that she will surely not get in.
Or, I could just do a half-assed job of writing a recommendation letter for this student as well, although the letter will have to be very generic and neutral, as I have none of her application materials, I do not remember her well, and I am also pressed for time since I am at a conference all week. Even physically sending the letter will be a pain since I do not get back until the day of the deadline.
So I am once again turning to you, hoping that I can get some quick answers (if I decline to write the letter, I had better let her know soon, so that she can find someone else). What should I do?

Why is filling out the form a second time a death sentence for the other student? I assume you won't be giving this one as high marks as the first.

@Ric  Because I have written a separate letter of support for the first student, and I will literally be ticking some boxes (lower than the first's) for the second student, without any letters. I think the difference will be clear to the committee.

If you already felt that you were not the best person to do this, whether you fill the form now or write a letter will probably be equally bad for the student. If I were you I would tell the student that the form is actually more than "just a form" and thus your point 2) for declining to help her applies.

@Drecate Are you saying that at least I should disclose this to the student? I guess that sounds fair.

You fill the form, and write a short letter (as I mentioned in below comments, one or two paragraphs are fine for a student just known from lectures, and not memorable for particular strikes of brilliance). I strongly suggest not to retract, even if you do not get sleep in the night. Don't worry about "death sentences" - if you do not write a reference when the student and admission office are expecting one, that's a guaranteed "death sentence".

"She was also a weak student, maybe in the top half" I'd love to know what you think of the bottom half then!

@LightnessRacesinOrbit that bell is very bent.

I don't understand.  The deadline is exactly one week.  You told her it would take a week.  You asked her to send me her CV, transcript, and any relevant application materials.  She has not.  Why are you even worrying about this at this time?

It's been a week.  What did you decide to do?

@aparente001 I told the student that I have filled out the same form for some other students along with a letter, and that she needed to provide me with her application material for me to be able to write a substantial letter. She refused and told me that the form should be sufficient, and still told me to fill it out, so I filled out the form with the note attached that although I am just sending the form, I can still provide a letter if requested. Told the student that I sent the form, and that was it! It later hit me that the student never once thanked me, but that's just an aside.

You seem really to be overthinking this. You're writing a recommendation -- you're not the student's full-time advocate or cheerleader. Fill in the form, send it in, be done. If you want, to mirror the structure of the other student's application, write a supplemental letter also for this one, just a paragraph or so -- shorter than what you've spent time on in your question here!
By the way: there is nothing at all wrong with having your recommendation for one student look worse than another's if you believe the former is actually worse for the program than the latter. In fact, I've often explicitly written on recommendations that A and B are both applying, and that A is stronger than B. Your job is to help provide an assessment with which the program can make a fair choice among applicants.

Yup, the issue is that most things I could use in the letter (past exams etc) are locked up in my office in a different city, and as I do not remember the student very well, I don't feel comfortable even starting that letter before going back to my home town.

@Sana - You could use this as an out, if you decide you want out.

@J.Doe, no, I don't think he can use that.  That ship has sailed.  If he wanted to use that excuse, the appropriate time was before he said yes.

@NicoleHamilton Fully agreed. Retracting on a promise for being a referee is in my opinion a strict no-no. The student told you it's just the form - so you fill just the form and add, if you have nothing to say, nothing to the "additional comments". That is fine; not sending the recommendation is not.

Presumably, she already knows what her grades are, you did not promise to make any claims that were not true but you did promise to write the recommendation.  The time to say no because you don't think she's a strong candidate or because you're too busy was when she asked and before you said yes.  Similarly, you don't get a pass because you don't read email or attachments.
Let her know that, on reflection, you're concerned that your recommendation won't be as strong as either of you might like and offer her the opportunity to choose a difference reference.  But be prepared to learn that you're as good a reference as she's got and that you will have to write the best recommendation that can be supported by the truth, no matter how much you'd like to get out of it.  You promised, so keep your promise.
One way of doing this without stretching the truth or saying anything she might not expect is to focus on reporting facts rather than opinions, e.g., the actual grades and ranks in the classes she took with you and descriptions of the assignments she did for you.
Learn from this and think first next time before saying yes.

Thanks for the advice; no need to be patronizing, though.

@Sana - This answer doesn't strike me as patronizing.  What did I miss?

@J.Doe The last paragraph ;-)

@Sana, sometimes you have to say no when someone requests a reference.  I've had to do that sometimes (including once only a couple weeks ago) for students I really, really like and who I know really, really like me and who I wish I could recommend but can't because I know I can't write what they need.  It's not fun, but it's something you have to learn.  You might post a new question, how do you say no without being cruel or seeming uncooperative, and I'll address that.

@Sana I am afraid the poster is right and I do not see them as patronising - as you accepted being a reference writing, and you saw too late what's required, there are some elements in the current situation which are of your making. The fact that the student missed some things does not matter. Also, in principle, it is ok to make mistakes, we all do. But your current mistake has the potential to be very costly to the student. I think that's the message in this response. Anyway, good luck with the case.

No idea if this is helpful, but how about:
Fill in the form, and add in the comments box that you intend to write an additional letter (as you did previously) but cannot get it done in time for the deadline because you're at the conference. Send the letter a few days later.

The letter does not have to be long for a student only known from lectures (rather than projects). One, two paragraphs are pretty sufficient if in doubt. No one expects one to know a student (say) out of 100 well.

I believe the standard response when you don't feel able to write a strong recommendation letter is to say, "I don't feel I know your work well enough to write a strong recommendation, and you would be best served by finding someone who knows your work better than I do."  Or something to that effect.
When a student receives this somewhat coded response, she can say Thanks anyway, and approach someone else, or she can try a little harder with you.  At which point you could either stand your ground, or relent and write her a lukewarm letter.
What complicates your current situation is that you already said yes, and now you are trying to figure out if you can, and should, back-pedal.
The options available to you, that I can see, are:

Back-pedal, and send her the above message.  You could apologize for sending an incomplete response previously, having glanced at her email in a cursory way without really taking it in before responding.  Or whatever excuse you care to give.
Tell a white lie.  Apologize and explain that your week has gotten more complicated than you anticipated, and you're not going to have time to do her form.  If you choose this one, the email you send must be very brief and apologetic, and should contain a couple of spelling mistakes, to look authentic.
Invent an illness or an illness in your family that prevents you from making her deadline.  This is a variant of option 2.
Tell her honestly that when you agreed to do it, you thought the form was going to be shorter than it turned out to be.  Explain that you had not opened the attachment until now.  Point out the "comments" question.  Explain that you don't know her well enough to tackle that question, or explain that you don't have enough time to do anything more than check off boxes and fill out short response questions.
Proceed with filling out the form, knowing that your recommendation will not be very strong.  Do not say anything to the student about how lukewarm your recommendation will be.  Remember that this is not the only program she will ever apply to, and your responses in the form are unlikely to change the outcome of her application one way or the other.

As you are considering your options, you may want to try to apply the Golden Rule.  In other words, what would you want Prof. Sana to do if you were Prof. Sana's less-than-stellar student?
What do you think would be most helpful to this student in the long term?  You know more about this than we do, because one can only fit so much into a post, about the student's potential, temperament, ambitions, reasons for a mediocre performance, and hopes and dreams for herself.

I like your answer because it's an honest one. However, I don't like option 2 and option 3. I think a professor should not lie to the student about the recommendation letter. If I were the student, I rather hear the professor tell the truth to me and then I can find someone else to write the letter if it's not too late.

Backpedaling on a reference promise is a clear taboo. It's the OP's fault not checking the reference requirements, not the student's. I've let a lot of things slide, but never a reference on which the career of a student may hinge. We do not know this for sure, as the student is not brilliant. We cannot judge how strict the acceptance criteria are. However, without a reference, the student fails at the basic check and is guaranteed not to be accepted. Do write the reference, even if being bland is the only thing you are able to be.

@scaaahu - Clarification about my answer.  It is an attempt to list ALL possible next steps.  This kind of brainstorming can be helpful when a person feels boxed in and stuck in one's thinking during a decision making process.  I made a conscious effort to present all the options without introducing any subjective skew, so as to bounce the responsibility for deciding back to the OP.

@CaptainEmacs - See clarification comment.


text:
Does Utilitarian ethics have a place in Academia?
Most academic ethics (indeed, most professional ethics in general) are heavily focused on Kantian/Deontological principles. For academics, the basic rules are blatantly Deontological - don't plagiarize, don't falsify data, don't cheat on exams, don't abuse research subjects, don't divert grant funds to unauthorized activities, don't engage in discrimination, etc. Is there a place in Academia for Utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number of people" ethics? At first this seems absurd - that anything worth doing is worth doing right, and that the damage done by violating ethical principles simply can't be quantified in any meaningful manner.
There are plenty of examples of post-facto ethical issues with respect to using past data obtained through problematic methods, but I'm asking about present day research. Can someone give an example of a scenario where an ethics committee, IRB, or other social establishment in academia might advise a researcher to go ahead and commit what would normally be misconduct because the likely benefits are just too great to pass up? For example, "This research is so important and so urgent that you need to do anything you can to finish it as soon as possible. Take restricted funds from other departments, bribe government officials, look the other way while your co-researchers sexually harass their grad students, inflate your own students' grades in exchange for extra work hours from them, do whatever you have to to finish it. Once you publish it will truly all be worth it as it will save countless millions from impending doom, balance the national budget, and restore Order to the Galaxy."
Note that I'm not asking about any specific scenario, but about whether utilitarian ethics even apply - that is, if having the basic rules (don't plagiarize, don't falsify, etc.) is normally just the most efficient way to do research (e.g. unfalsified data is worth much more than falsified data, a subordinate who is not being sexually harassed is less likely to quit in the middle of a big project and much less likely to sue, etc.), or if they are truly indispensable in all cases. I also recognize that the cases I am talking about are somewhat rare, probably more at home in a bad sci-fi movie than a real-life university, and that most people probably won't encounter them.
While "Nazi data" can be considered an example of this, I want to concentrate on other things that are less politically charged - say, deciding not to censure a professor for sexual harassment because of the importance of his current research, or falsifying a minor paper in order to qualify for grant money that you intend to use to do much more good than the harm caused by the falsified paper.

Are you confusing the theories of ethics with the actual ethical principles and actions of ethical people? People who act ethically can explain their reasoning in various ways but in fact those theories are less important to them than are the acts themselves. While it may be simpler and arguably clearer to express things as forbidden and harder to use more inspirational language, the result is the same. Don't confuse the theory of the thing with the thing itself. It works in cosmology also.

In my experience, any arguments based on 'utilitarian' values will lead you to do the wrong things, including the cover up you will need to try and keep it secret. No, always do the right thing.

@JonCuster that's what I believe too. The question is what an exception would look like.

An exception would look like something you don't want to have to defend in court.

There are some real-life examples, like medical researchers who experimented on themselves, sometimes without permission, and made important discoveries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine), and the US hiring a Nazi to help them develop rockets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun). As you say, these situations are very rare, but utilitarian ethics has its place in academia as it does anywhere else.

Not posting this is an answer, because it is against "site policy" and may not be what you are looking for,but this is often done by covering up. E.g. what often happens is that some important prof does not go to lectures or behaves inappropriatly there -- when students report this, nothing happens (because the university knows this guy's research is so important).

Your examples are rather odd, because AFAIK none of the things you mention (redirecting funds, bribing officials, turning a blind eye to misconduct,  etc) are within the scope of what an IRB has the power to approve.  Typically IRBs and similar bodies oversee the methods used in the research itself, not the acquisition of the resources to carry it out or the workplace behavior of the researchers.

Now, I believe there are situations where methods that are normally frowned upon (deceiving human subjects, involving them in research without their consent, etc) can be approved by an IRB, if they are inherently necessary to the research (e.g. you are studying a behavior that changes if the subjects know they are being observed), and if appropriate safeguards are in place.  But that does not seem to be what you are asking about?

@Thomas: On the other hand, if the sort of "utilitarian ethics" discussed in the question were prevalent, the university could openly admit that "yes, this guy behaved inappropriately, but because of his important research it's still worth keeping him around", and the academic community would find that acceptable.  So the fact that they instead cover it up is, in itself, evidence that the community does not accept this sort of "ethics".

@NateEldredge: You do have a point here; however, I do believe that it's mostly not covered up because of the academic community (which would most likely not care) but rather because of the general public who should not find out about some prof's misdoing.

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking.
No, covering up a given researcher's misdeeds because their research is so important isn't acceptable under academic ethics, both under deontological ethics, but also under utilitarian ethics: almost all research is incremental in nature, with the potential direct human benefit being very small. Things like curing cancer or solving world hunger are very large, very difficult problems, that would require far more than a single researcher to solve, no matter how brilliant they might be. Further, by covering up a given researcher's misdeeds, you're creating an incentive (or, rather, removing a disincentive) that would act to increase other individuals to commit similar harms in the future.
However, there is a very important area where utilitarian ethics have a place in academia: the prioritization of research, through mechanisms like grant applications. When a grant committee is evaluating a grant application, they are carrying out a utilitarian calculation, comparing the benefits and costs of the research and thereby evaluating its utility.

Deontological and utilitarian ethics usually lead to the same course of action, so the premise of the question is incorrect.  Usually, both forms of ethics "have a place."
Your examples of utilitarian courses of action that break the rules are not actually the best way to achieve the desired result.  They are not utilitarian.


text:
What happens if an IRB mistakenly approves unethical research?
In human subjects research, it's fairly well settled that researchers may not go ahead without the guidance and approval of an IRB, even if their research otherwise lacks ethical infirmities.
What happens in the opposite situation? That is, suppose a researcher gets IRB approval for their project, but later on, ethical issues are found in the research that the IRB missed?
Since researchers are not allowed to trust their own understanding and must seek IRB approval even in the most obvious "there's no way that could be unethical" scenarios, it stands to reason that the opposite is true - that if research has been IRB approved, then researchers may go ahead with a clear conscience even if there could still potentially be ethical issues in the research.
I recognize that there could possibly be civil or criminal liability outside of academia, but I'm not asking about this.
If research turns out to be unethical, but it received IRB approval, who is held responsible? Is it solely the responsibility of the IRB for misguiding researchers, or does the researcher bear some responsibility for not recognizing the ethical infirmity?
Another way of asking this is whether researchers have a duty to police their own IRB, potentially second-guessing their approvals.
To be clear, I'm asking about situations where the average non-expert might be unclear as to whether or not something is ethical. Obviously, if an IRB tells someone, "Yes, it's ok to torture political prisoners as long as you kickback 5% of your grant to us", that's blatantly unethical and no one should accept that, but an IRB saying, "Yes, we reviewed your consent form and we don't think you need to disclose the extremely remote risk of the subject being hyperspace tunneled" might be one where the average person (or even researcher) would just get glazed eyes and defer to the IRB.

I don't see how anyone could go ahead with a clear conscience doing something they personally think is wrong and unethical. Maybe they can convince themselves it's fine since the "perfect authority" (IRB in this case) says it's fine, but that's an altogether different scenario.

@Anyon I edited my question. I'm not primarily asking about doubts, but about real ethical issues, whether the researcher recognizes them or not. For example, if my IRB tells me "It's ok to do XYZ", am I allowed to simply take them at their word or do I have some additional obligation to investigate whether they might have made a mistake? I'm primarily asking about situations where the ethics are not obvious (e.g. not "The IRB says I can torture political prisoners"), but a reasonably diligent researcher might raise an eyebrow and wonder if the IRB was as thorough as they ought to have been.

If you harbor any concerns, you should talk to your supervisor/advisor and re-check with the IRB. Any subsequent issues will be associated with your name as well...

I know you ask a lot of IRB questions here, but I am curious what your actual experience is with IRB, because what you are describing doesn't make any sense to me. IRB is not a mechanism for researchers to submit unethical proposals to get a stamp of approval that makes them magically ethical. Researchers don't second-guess IRB approvals, they "first-guess" the protocols before they are ever submitted. IRB approval is a minimum to doing research in human subjects.

One suspects quite different outcomes between intentionally misleading the IRB and the IRB not operating to standard. With shades of gray in between.

@BryanKrause honestly, I don''t really have much at all. That's perhaps why my questions might not be phrased in the way that you might expect.

@RobertColumbia Have you ever applied for IRB approval?

@Bryan Krause : I think what he is after here is not that "IRBs" "make unethical things magically ethical", but rather to what extent that the emphasis put on IRB usage and their relevant "expertise" shifts blame away from the researcher when the IRB, in such position of expertise, makes an error of judgment and the researcher relied on it in good faith? I also believe OP's idea of a situation is less one where that the researcher harbors doubts and does not disclose them to the IRBs, but rather where the researcher does not have the competence to assess the ethical dimensions.

That is, how does "deference to expertise" mask, alter, mitigate or change ethical responsibility in light of both that experts are not infallible and that it is not reasonable to impose upon a non-expert to act in the capacity of an expert?

(And also, note the last bit at the end of OP's post: ""Yes, we reviewed your consent form and we don't think you need to disclose the extremely remote risk of the subject being hyperspace tunneled" might be one where the average person (or even researcher) would just get glazed eyes and defer to the IRB." The researcher here both did have a doubt and reported it, and then took the advice on the principle of deference to expertise. It is a situation of conflicting imperatives, and thus raises questions as to what does/doesn't mitigate/excuse what when they can't all be satisfied at once.)

@RobertColumbia University IRB meetings are typically at least somewhat accessible to the public. You could check with your local IRB to see what their policy is on visitors and you may be able to sit in as an observer (though not ask questions) and learn a bit that way. Of course you won't see the whole process, because a lot of the work of the IRB is done by individual members in between meetings, but given your interest it might be useful anyways.

Since researchers are not allowed to trust their own understanding and must seek IRB approval even in the most obvious "there's no way that could be unethical" scenarios, it stands to reason that the opposite is true - that if research has been IRB approved, then researchers may go ahead with a clear conscience even if they personally feel that the research still has ethical issues.

I don't see it that way.  The IRB doesn't replace the author's judgment, it supplements it, and the ultimate decision should be based on the "logical AND" of the author's and IRB's approval.
Since conducting unethical research seems clearly worse than not conducting ethical research (a Type II error is worse here than a Type I error), it makes sense to have an asymmetry between approval and rejection.
So in my view, even if the IRB has approved the research, the author should not go ahead if they do not believe it is ethical.

If research turns out to be unethical, but it received IRB approval, who is held responsible? Is it solely the responsibility of the IRB for misguiding researchers, or does the researcher bear some responsibility for not recognizing the ethical infirmity?

Practically speaking, the researcher would have some cover because of the IRB approval, but I would still hold the researcher primarily responsible.  After all, it is their name on the paper.

Another way of asking this is whether researchers have a duty to police their own IRB, potentially second-guessing their approvals.

Well, the researcher ought to make sure they think the work is ethically OK before submitting to the IRB in the first place.  But if they start having doubts later, or they are ethically uncomfortable with changes recommended by the IRB, they should not proceed until those issues are resolved.  So in short: yes.

Actually, the IRB does more than supplement the author's  judgement in the case that the IRB points out ethical issues. In general, you need approval, but, as you say, approval may not be sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.

"But if they start having doubts later, or they are ethically uncomfortable with changes recommended by the IRB, they should not proceed until those issues are resolved. So in short: yes." However, what happens if they have already started "proceeding" - the research is off the ground and into the air, and only then is the issue discovered, which to me was how I read OP's post?

@The_Sympathizer I don't see how this changes anything. The responsibility to conduct ethical research should be blind to where in the research process one is.

@DremConspiracy : I did not say it removed the responsibility, but rather because you phrased it as "should not proceed" regarding doubts that come up "later", but "later" suggests they have already "proceeded" into the research to at least some extent even if not all the way, and it's impossible to act on doubts that have not yet arisen. Do you mean "proceed further"?

While the exact advice will depend on your institution's IRB, researchers have a duty to follow up with IRB if something goes wrong in research.
For example, here is the FAQ at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville:

What if I have an “adverse event” occur during my data collection?
Adverse events must be reported immediately to your advisor and the Compliance office.

IRB training and policy covers what an adverse event is. Here is the University of Michigan glossary definition:

Adverse Event (AE)
Any experience or abnormal finding that has taken place during the course of a research project and was harmful to the subject participating in the research, or increased the risks of harm from the research, or had an unfavorable impact on the risk/benefit ratio. The FDA also includes in its definition abnormal preclinical or laboratory findings which may not yet have resulted in direct harm to subjects (e.g., a bacteria is identified in a culture from the same batch of cells used to produce a vaccine which has been administered, even if no cases of infection have been reported). The event may or may not be caused by an intervention (e.g., headache following spinal tap, death from the underlying disease, car collision). Adverse Events also include psychological, social, emotional, and financial harms. See also Serious Adverse Event and Adverse Drug Reaction.

Michigan's Office of Research has an entire timetable to determine how soon one should report an Adverse Event, as well as policies for reporting an ORIO (Other Reportable Information or Occurrence).
Generally, your IRB training should cover when and how you report issues, and if you have any questions, you should ask your institution's IRB. In other words, researchers definitely have a duty to recognize when harm or risk of harm is incurred by their research, even if their project is already approved.

There are really two kinds of answers to "what happens?"

IRBs are regulated  by the OHRP which is a federal agency. If an IRB is actually approving things that should not be approved there are a variety of possible sanctions, which can range from mandated retraining to all research at an institution being shut down until the situation is remedied. Yes, this has happened when the situation is bad enough.
IRB approval is not supposed to be a one time thing, there is supposed to be ongoing monitoring, dealing with adverse events and often continuing review on a regular schedule.  If the IRB discovers a problem (or is informed of one) they will shut down the research or take other actions and will report to OHRP if appropriate.


text:
Refencing own previous experiment work in literature survey
A senior of mine and I worked on a research topic. He contributed to most of the baseline works(say experiments A and B), and I continued with some more baseline work along with many additional experiments(say experiments A1, A2, B1, C[baseline work by me], C1, C2; experiment C has setup similar to A and B).
My senior completed his thesis some time ago, and now I'm writing my thesis. I have a chapter for my experiments, but the additional experiments will only make sense by describing the baseline experiment, i.e., A1 and A2 can't be described without telling about A first. But as most of the baseline experiments A and B are conducted by my senior rather than by me, I think I should leave them out of my experiment chapter.

So I was thinking of adding those baseline experiments to the literature survey. Is this the right approach? If I add this to the literature survey, what should I name the subsection?
Setup-wise,  experiment C is similar to A and B. If I'm discussing A and B in the literature survey, how should I describe C in my experiment chapter without repeating myself?

The thesis is a master's thesis. I have consulted with my supervisor; adding baseline experiments to the literature survey was his suggestion.

What's the problem with following your supervisor's suggestion?

No problem. But to explain C, I need to talk about A and B. So if I include A and B in the literature review while explaining C in experiments, I'll be repeating some parts of A and B.

As another answer indicated, with a master's thesis, you should go by whatever your advisor says. There are many correct solutions, but the most practically correct one for you is the one that your advisor is most comfortable with. (Things are slightly different for a Ph.D. thesis were community standards are more important, but for a master's thesis, your advisor's opinion is almost all that practically matters.)
That said, if it were me, I would recommend not presenting these experiments as separate "past literature" but rather presenting them in a dedicated section describing all prior experiments. You should explicitly cite your senior as the author of experiments that he did alone and you should explicitly cite you and him together on experiments that you did together. One great thing about a thesis is that you are not writing for blind peer review, so it is quite appropriate to fully disclose who did what. This gives your senior colleague the appropriate credit for his contributions and it would probably be a much more natural way for you to present the context that lets you then go on to the new experiments that you have done for your thesis.
That is just my suggestion, but again, go along with whatever your advisor feels best.

Where you put them is less important than that you cite them properly. Putting them in the literature survey or a "Previous Work" section seems fine.
If the work is published, then cite it as usual. Otherwise mark the citation with something like "private communication" or "thesis-unpublished" or similar.
Your advisor seems to be giving good advice and will likely need to approve your work in any case. Just make sure that you give proper credit to the other person.

I agree with these points. Can you suggest something for question 2?


text:
Why Elsevier Journals don't change status of a paper?

Why  Elsevier Journals don't change status of a paper?

I am new to this publishing world and I don't have much knowledge in this field.
I am Junior Researcher.
I communicated only one paper until now  in Elsevier Journal.
My question is "Do Elsevier Journals not change status of a manuscript"?
I have submitted my manuscript nearly 5 months back and it is still showing the status "With Editor"
I am kinda confused whats going on.
How will a researcher come to know about its status?
I did mail the Editor two times but got no reply.
What should I do? Should I continue waiting and hope that one day I will get some reply and status will change?
Do all Elsevier Journals keep the same status from Day 1 until acceptance which is "With Editor"?

There are around 1,700 Elsevier journals.  I doubt there is any answer that applies to "Elsevier journals" in general.

Make sure to check your spam filters in case they blocked the editor's reply...

See also: What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

Of course Elsevier journals change their status when there's an update. "With Editor" is one of the earliest statuses, and not progressing is a bad sign.
You "come to know" about the paper's status by looking at its status. It's "With Editor" right now.
You didn't say which editor you emailed, although not getting a reply is another bad sign, of course. Did you email the journal office, the editor-in-chief, the handling editor, etc? Whichever you emailed, try emailing a different editor.
Considering it's been months and the editor apparently hasn't invited reviewers, waiting is not a good idea. Email the other editors, or withdraw your paper and submit elsewhere.

I had mailed the editor in chief of that journal and also the Associate Editor but got no reply

Same thing, mail one of the others (in this case, the journal office).

There is no email address of the journal office provided

There is only one address provided and that of the editor in chief


text:
Can reading book review substitute reading the whole book in a literature review?
This book has 570 pages, a lot of information about my research subject and several studies are included.
However, I don't want to spend my time reading it because one professor wrote already 12 pages review, emphasizing most important finding and conclusions. As well critical perspective.
Should I cite both of them in my literature review so I can honor in a way book author or is it dishonest from my side to cite something I didn't read? I don't doubt he did a great job, even people from Cambridge are praising him, but I think I will lose a lot of time since I am a slow reader and in the review is represented a lot what I would like to know.

I would cite the review as well as the main source (here, the book) for which the review has been written.

@Coder how common is it? have ever seen something like that?

@Roland this is not Sci Fi or any other literature, this is purely scientific based book using scientific methodology to follow longitudinal changes and effect. Most information is good, but it is not valuable to me reading them in details

One isn't required to read an entire book in order to cite it. If the book contains vast swathes of irrelevant information, skip those parts; just read and cite the most relevant chapters, or even the most relevant paragraphs, and cite those parts that support your assertions. The review may, of course, also be useful.

To give you a good answer, please clarify in what context you are considering citing the book. Is it a literature review of works on the broad topic? Is it an article where the book's idea is an important reference point? The clearer you can be concerning your specific context, the more useful the answers you might get to your question.

@Tripartio literaature review

I'd recommend you should at least read and understand the chapters pertaining to your research.
If you trust the other professor wrote a concise, but complete and truly impartial review (because "even some people from Stanford praise him"? Think again: does that sound like a valid scientific reasoning?), you certainly may decide at our own risk to cite only the review.
By academic standards, as soon as you just add something to the bibliography you didn't read, it's... an academic misdemeanor. And adding a reference to something you did not even browse is quite the opposite of "honoring the author".

I understand your concern, but this professor has higher credibility from the author of the book.also in this review he adds some critical perspective and explain additionally results.

Contrary to what some others have responded, I don't believe that it is necessary to read an entire work (not just a book, but even a short article) in order to cite it. A citation does not mean "I've read it"; a citation means "if you want to know where I got this idea from, or you would like more detailed information, look here". However, a comment below notes that this might only be true in some fields (I mostly publish in business, management, and information science).
That said, you are certainly responsible to cite a work responsibly, by which I mean that the work should indeed support what you are citing it to support. Without reading at least the specific sections that relate to the point related to your citation, it is impossible to be responsible in this way. For a literature review, although it is ideal to read everything that you summarize as part of your review, it is often not practical to do so, especially for reviews that evaluate a very large number of references. (This is different from a book review, which has the implicit understanding that the writer has read the entire book being reviewed, or is otherwise expected to explicitly say that they did not.) I personally consider the standard for a literature review to be what I am calling "responsible" citation: anything cited must accurately reflect what is summarized or claimed concerning the original source, which does not necessarily require reading the entire work.
For your specific situation, I suggest writing something like this: "OriginalAuthor (Year) wrote concerning ________, as summarized by BookReviewAuthor (Year)." From then on, whenever making any claims about what the book supposedly says, I would cite BookReviewAuthor, not OriginalAuthor. To me, this would be an honest way of indicating that you did not read the original book, but are rather summarizing or commenting on the book review. Of course, some readers (and reviewers) might not like the fact that you didn't read the original book, but whether that looks good or bad is secondary: it is honest. At least you're not pretending to have read a book when you only read the summary. If the readers don't like that, then they are free to read the entire book themselves (which you properly cited for their benefit). Of course, they would probably go to the book review, too, since that is easier, unless they are really, really interested.

What a citation means differs a lot between fields, thus your first paragraph is only true for some fields...

@user1310503 I like your linked answer; In fact, this is what I'm talking about when I emphasize the need for "responsible" citation. I hope it makes sense from that perspective.

@user1310503 Good point; I've corrected the wording.

@DirkLiebhold Good point; I've added that qualification.

@user1310503 yes, I agree, but this reviewer has high credibility than author of book.

The review does not substitute the book of course, but it may be enough for what you need. I would cite both and look roughly in the book on the main informations you need.


text:
Is it okay to discuss personal experiences or observations in literature review?
Is it okay to discuss personal experiences or observations in literature review as long as they are relevant and contribute to the presentation of the summary of literature?
In other words,
I am not intending to reference or cite any of my experiences as a source, but rather, I am seeking to use my experiences to essentially add to the research story.
For instance,
The Blah Blah theory by Smith (2010) suggests A, B, and C. I experienced event M and I observed event N, which may potentially be manifestations of the phenomenon described in the Blah Blah theory, with event M being a possible example of A and event N being an example of C.
Something to this extent.
Many of the papers I have read primarily use examples from their studies or hypothetical scenarios to explain models/theories, but I have only ran across personal experience examples in textbooks and not in academic review papers or theses.

Maybe its just a matter of taste, but I prefer to read articles/thesis that are  "streamlined" and not the story with personal experience. (Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy to read stories about research and failed attempts, but not as articles or thesis, but, e.g. as blog post or in popular science books.)

Can you put the personal anecdote in as a footnote or endnote?

Although you didn't quite ask it this way, I see two parts to your question, and I will offer answers accordingly: "Is it okay to discuss personal experiences or observations in academic writing?" and "Is there any difference when it comes to literature reviews?"
Is it okay to discuss personal experiences or observations in academic writing?
Although it is controversial (some people will tell you never to include personal experiences), I think there is a place for personal experiences. But first, you need to understand why this is generally frowned on.
Everyone has personal experiences and everyone has different ways to interpret them. Anyone can write a magazine or blog article sharing their personal experiences. That's just their opinion, which the reader could take as good or bad. What separates an academic article from such opinions is that academic writing is usually expected to be fairly objective (tries to take a disinterested third-party perspective) and critical (takes nothing at face value, but tries to dig under the surface to understand what is really going on from multiple non-obvious perspectives). (One notable exception to this is critical social theory, which does not necessarily try to be objective, but nonetheless strongly emphasizes being critical.)
So, where do personal experiences fit in here? Most of the time, they are not objective (by definition) and all too often, they are insufficiently critical. This is why they are often frowned on. However, I believe they could be helpful and acceptable if the writer considers their own personal experiences this way: "What makes my personal experience more outstanding than other random personal experiences related to this phenomenon?" If there is nothing particularly outstanding about it (e.g. it merely serves to illustrate the point, as do other people's experiences), then it is best not to mention it, since such a mention would weaken an otherwise strong academic argument. But if it is unique or original (e.g., the entire study is propelled by the fact that the writer's personal experiences contradict the dominant scholarly discourse), then it is definitely worth mentioning. However, in such cases, the writer should try to describe their experience as objectively as possible and should be critical in not accepting their own interpretations of their experience at face value. When presented properly, such personal experiences can strengthen the credibility of the writer.
Is there any difference when it comes to literature reviews?
I believe the principle I laid out for academic writing in general also applies to literature reviews. However, there are two levels or two aspects to a literature review that you need to distinguish in this case:

Including your personal experiences as part of the "literature" being reviewed: NO. Your personal experiences are not "literature". "Literature" means published works (by "published" I include grey literature such as working papers; I also include non-scholarly practitioner publications). It does not include unpublished, unwritten anecdotes. That is at best to be considered primary research, which is never part of "literature" being reviewed in a literature review. (Don't misunderstand me; you are certainly free to supplement a literature review with original primary research if you want to, but you just have to clearly distinguish that from the "review" part of the article or chapter.)
Including your personal experiences as part of the introduction or discussion of your literature review: In this case, since you are clearly not presenting your own experiences as part of the "literature" being reviewed, then my comments above apply. I see no problem with this if it is done properly. But again, this is controversial; "controversial" means that your supervisor or journal editor might disagree, and so you might have to drop it regardless.