text:
Trends on time spent studying over the the past few decades, for students outside the US
Is there any research/study/survey/dataset that looked at the trends on the time students spent on studying, over the the past few decades in different countries in the world (aside from the USA)?
I am mostly interested in the field of computer science, if field-specific, and college level, if level-specific.

In case anyone else tries the same thing I did: the OP is the same as on the earlier question about why study time in the US has declined, and so the linked sources in there probably aren't satisfactory.

What are you trying to ask about the US that is not already answered by the data set in the other question?

@chipbuster yes my question contains a link to this question.

@jakebeal ok I'll exclude USA from the question. I am indeed looking for something similar for other countries.

For Germany the data is there in the form of the "Studierenden survey", which exists since 1982. However, I don't know if it is analysed. The datasets are available, so I added a list of links to the datasets for the different years in case you want to do the analysis yourself.
2012/13: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.5126
2009/10: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.11059
2006/07: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.4263
2003/04: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.4344
2000/01: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.4208
1997/98: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.3511
1994/95: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.3131
1992/93: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.3130
1989/90: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.2417
1986/87: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.2416
1984/85: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.1885
1982/83: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.1884


text:
Importance of Math Subject GRE
I will be applying for a PhD program for mathematics this year. When graduate schools are considering applications, how much weight does a GRE score carry compared to research experience and grades acquired in undergraduate coursework? I have all A's in my math and physics course, with the exception of one A-, and two papers. Mind you, these are not papers based upon solutions to trivial undergraduate problems, but are problems of interest to professional mathematicians, especially those working in operator algebras.
My question is, if I were to get a less than fantastic score on the GRE, would I still be considered because of my grades, research experience, and two publishable papers?

None of these components (GRE, research experience, undergraduate grades) matter as much as your letters of recommendation. It's worrying that you don't know this; you should look at other questions on this site to determine what makes a strong letter and who you should ask to write for you.

@TomChurch do you have any specific questions in mind? Could you post some links?

I think the simple answer here is that (a) it depends and (b) the entire application "package" is considered when admission decisions are made.
What I mean when I say that it "depends" is that it depends on where you are applying. If you are applying to a top math program then there will be many many individuals applying for admission. Of these, a subset will also likely have publications and will also likely have high GRE scores. I say "likely" because it's impossible to know the strength of the applicants in any given admissions cycle.
What I mean when I say "entire application package" is that, in some respects, you can make up for one lacking area by excelling in another; take this with a grain of salt however. You are applying for admission into a PhD program. The important question the admissions committee is trying to ask for each applicant is "Is this individual likely to succeed in doing research in this department?". Past publications speak to this much more directly than do GRE scores. Classroom performance is no longer the emphasizing factor -- it's all about the research!
As others pointed out, if you have a faculty letter of recommendation that supports your contribution to the publications you have that will be huge! If not, the admissions committee may certainly wonder what your role in these were, particularly if you are not the first author.
Additionally, top PhD programs may use GRE scores to "weed out" some initial applications. Nobody has time to go over the complete admissions package of 500+ applicants.
My advise: if you have time, spend another month or two doing some extra GRE prep and retake the test. It sounds like you have a strong application other than the one score. Spend your time only studying for the math portion. Some programs will let you "pick and choose" which scores of which test to submit (i.e., submit math from "test #2", submit vocab from "test #1", submit writing from "test #2"). At any rate, because you are applying to math departments, the math score is really what matters!
Hope this helps and good luck!
Edit and disclaimer: My background and experience is in applied math and computer science fields. As another poster pointed out this may be different for pure math department applications.

"Past publications speak to this much more directly than do GRE scores" - From what I've heard around this site, that is not at all the case in pure math. Do you yourself have experience with PhD admissions in mathematics that contradicts this?

@ff524 Thank you for pointing this out. Editing my post with a disclaimer for "applied math and computer science".

(Also note that when the OP says "math GRE" he/she is likely referring to the subject exam, not the math portion of the general GRE.)

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:
How can I distinguish harsh treatment from my advisor from "tough love" and direct feedback?
Usually during our meetings my advisor will complain a lot and tell me I am doing stuff wrong.  How can I tell if he thinks I am a bad student or if he is just trying to give me direct feedback?
Keeping this general so this question becomes a reusable resource.

Advisors don't hate or love students. If your advisor doesn't want you; he/she will ask you to look for another advisor.

So, are you doing stuff wrong and need to get your act together? Are the complaints about you, or your work? Is he challenging your work (which he should do), or challenging you as a person? What is wrong with direct feedback?

Without wishing to be dismissive of your concerns: I don't think you should use words like "hates me". I'd feel better if you changed the title to say "... advisor thinks I am bad" which seems to preserve the intent of your question but is less inflammatory

@seteropere Students will not be asked to leave if that makes faculty look bad in front of peers.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2257/how-to-deal-with-constant-pressure-given-by-advisor

@seteropere I find that highly unlikely; last I checked, advisors are human.

You could ask? e.g. "I find it difficult to tell if you think I am performing poorly or if you are just giving me direct feedback. If the former, I don't mind the honesty, but I would appreciate knowing."

A teacher's dedication to and needs from a student change significantly as you go from undergraduate to graduate school.  Sounds like you are talking about an undergraduate advisor, who is probably trying to motivate you.  If it is a graduate advisor, he might seriously be concerned about your ability to finish your projects.

@Amadeus9 advisors hate and love your work. You, as a person with body and language, isn't a factor in this.

@seteropere I agree that it shouldn't be, and maybe I'm most cases it isn't, but it seems naive to dismiss it entirely out of hand.

It doesn't matter. What matters is what he is telling you to do about it and whether you are doing it, and whether it is reasonable. If it is unreasonable, or if he hates you for extraneous reasons, there is nothing you should do about it, unless it impinges on his professional behaviour, in which case you need evidence for a complaint. If he just wants you to improve, improve.

Certainly an advisor CAN hate a student. You have to cope with this if it happens, as long as the hate doesn't completely interfere with the work. Which is what matters.

I only bother with hard feedback if I believe the student is capable of more than what is currently happening...

@Amadeus9 So... you devote time to ensuring advisors are human or something? Seems like an awkward way to spend your time.

What is the job title of someone who gives direct feedback, if "advisor" isn't it?

@Dilworth, Quote:"You have to cope with this .." (emph mine)- No, no one "has to" cope.  Kaz: well, if only things had been just so very clear cut in real life.

@PKG, you are correct. The OP in fact has two options: either cope with it, or quit the PhD.

He's probably giving direct feedback. If your adviser really hated you, he wouldn't spend the time in improving you.

I don't know why this answer is getting thumbs down... I think it's a valid point. Maybe not the longest answer in the world, but pretty accurate

@marcman - Yes, it's a valid point, but it doesn't really answer the question. The question asks, "How can I tell if it's X or Y?" and this answer only says, "It's probably Y." (Not my downvote; I'm just speculating.)

Also just speculating, but it's perfectly possible for someone to spend time berating if they hate you. That is, after all, how you end up knowing that they hate you.

@J.R. I interpret the answer to be "You can tell that it is Y, because X makes little sense. Of course no guarantee as I can;t read his mind."

@J.R. No, the answer says "It's probably Y because of Z", where Z is a concept that doesn't take many words to explain.

Sometimes advisors have trouble recruiting and don't have a choice. A mediocre student is often better than no student at all.

This isn't necessarily true.  There are many reasons one might give feedback other than "because they don't hate you".  They may be compelled to by department rules, they may be trying to scare you out of the department, they may crave a sense of superiority and gain that through berating others, etc, etc.  There is a long list of reasons a professor may provide "feedback" other than the one listed here.

@JayCarr, I like your way of not treating the matter simplistically, which is untrue of other responses.

Know his style. There are advisors who think that it is better to be direct and tough with their students. At the end, they are preparing you to the real-life after PhD and don't want you to waste your time (and theirs) with something they see as incorrect. There are other advisors who are very polite. "You are wrong" is their last resort. This also depends to the student's culture and how he/she perceive such criticism.
When I first visited my advisor's webpage, I thought he is rude. At least this is what others have told me about him: tough and rude. Very hard to work with. Now, After 5 years with him, he is just a serious guy. Loves research and wishes students to be serious like him.
On the other hand, some advisors care about every detail you give to them while others are very hands-off. Knowing your advisor's style would help you very much.
So how can you tell? Act as a professional. If your personality is involved within the criticism then he might have some prejudice against you. IF it's all about the work, then most likely he is just a serious guy that wants you to proceed fast. The best thing to do is to stick with one of his criticism, fix it, do your best in addressing it. And check with him again. Then compare what he's saying now with before.

You thought your advisor was rude because you visited his homepage?

@Sverre Not really. I was mainly mis-informed about him before visiting his webpage.

I just don't understand what you visiting his homepage has to do with anything, then.

@Sverre I think he means his impression of the advisor before he met him (looking at his webpage searching for advisors) was "tough and rude"

There is a third explanation:  your advisor does not know how (or lacks the motivation) to give feedback that is not complaining.

Get a second opinion
Try to get some feedback on your work from someone other than your main supervisor. Maybe you have a secondary supervisor you can talk to, or you could offer to give a talk at an internal research meeting. If people bring up similar points (perhaps in a politer way!) then this points towards your supervisor being harsh but fair.
Is the criticism constructive?
Is your supervisor bringing up points that are useful, and possible for you to act upon, or just putting your work down without any indication of how to improve it? If it's the latter, try pushing your supervisor for constructive points. Something along the lines of: "OK, that's a good point, can you suggest a way that I can get around the problem?" If they avoid the question, then that's not a good sign.
The previous two points won't distinguish between a poor supervisor who is not good at giving feedback and a supervisor who has something personal against you. So, you also need to find out:
Are they the same with everyone?
If your supervisor has other students, chat to them. Have they had the same experience as you? If so, then it's probably nothing personal and is just your supervisor's style.

If your supervisor is old and established, chances are they are just being short and to the point. It isn't about what they think about you, its more about what they think about the thing you just handed them.
If your supervisor is younger though, then all bets are off. It could mean anything. My supervisor went to one these "How to be a good manager that gets the most out their workers" type 3-day courses, which he and other PIs at my place of work were encouraged to go to. They hold them every year, but last year the notes of the in-house management course was "leaked" (well, left in a bin..) and it suggested PIs try using tactics like "tough love" on at least 1 student in the coming year so you can see if its a good management style for you/your lab, plus its an important skill for a manager to know how to do, and it sends a clear message that you're the boss, etc. There are numerous books on how to manage a lab -- I encourage anyone who feels like they have a strained and unnatural relationship with their boss to read one.

I don't think it has to do with age.  Advisors can be skilled or incompetent at any age.

Haha, true :) But certainly for young advisors they are incentivized to try "modern management strategies" which at the student level manifests itself as "I think my supervisor thinks X, but I don't know why because we have no history that would result in X".

I would question why the advisor's intention is even relevant. Many times in my own life I have been presented with antagonistic attitudes / individuals. The question that I always asked myself was:
"Is this helping me?"
If the critiques were aiding my quest to better myself, if they were helping me to be better at the task at hand, then I allowed for the harsh criticism that I was receiving. Sometimes in my life I have found that kind of criticism to be highly motivating. At other times, it has been detrimental to my mental health. This judgment call has to made irrespective of the intent of the criticizer. An overzealous coach can be just as emotionally draining as a belittling advisor.
The key determining factor is how you, the target of the criticism, feel about the message being received. Does it inspire you to do better? Does it make you want to curl up and cry? This feeling may even vary day by day based on your own emotional state.
In summary, I would offer that the important question is not the intention of the advisor, but how you receive the criticism. What better way to handle an advisor wishing to do you harm than to transmute that negativity and better yourself with it.

I'd ask.
"What do you think about me as a student?"
Aside from being a mind reader, this is your most direct route to the truth. The "as a student" part is optional really. It could open the floor for a more communicative relationship. You might find out some good things. You might find out some bad things. But in the end, you'll learn something. If your advisor's replies are equivocal, ask a more specific question. The mere asking of a personal question like this could soften your advisor up a bit, at least momentarily, or have them reflect on your working relationship.
You could pursue second-hand information, either about yourself or about the instructor's previous relations with students, but anything you hear is likely biased. Anything negative you hear this way could merely stem from your instructor's natural venting process and may needed to be digested with a grain of salt.

I would say you should just ask him.

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


text:
Should postdocs work only on the projects they are hired for, or can they work with other people in the same research group on other projects?
Would the latter be an issue with the funding body, when the project proposal and budget only covers the expenses for hiring one postdoc? Note: it is the supervisors who got the grants, not the postdocs themselves.

See http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3327/what-is-expected-of-a-postdoc?rq=1

My question might be a duplicate of http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4745/collaborating-with-professors-other-than-the-advisor

Since the supervisor got the grant, he is ultimately responsible to the funding agency for the research that was funded and for any results. So the postdoc should definitely talk to the supervisor.
Actually, this would be a great opportunity for the supervisor to help the postdoc grow academically, since postdocs are of course expected to take on more responsibilities than Ph.D. students, and start making their own reputation in a field, not stay in the supervisor's shadow. So the supervisor should certainly understand that the postdoc will start flexing his wings and be interested in other topics - it just needs to be commensurate with the goals that the supervisor got the money for.
If, conversely, the postdoc got his own grant, he should first of all look through the paperwork he presumably got, signed and returned before the money started rolling in. It is quite possible that an expectation of the funding agency as to the amount of work the postdoc should be spending on this particular project is already somewhere in the paperwork. Of course, even in this case, it makes a lot of sense to discuss this with the supervisor, who presumably has a lot of experience in this field, and possibly with this particular funding agency.


text:
How to cite and publish unpublished governmental statistics correctly?
Conducting a research which needs governmental statistics, I have encountered a problem. The problem is I need to have precise data on farming in an area, but the data are not published.
I had to go to the relevant governmental office and convince them to provide me with the data. Afterwards, I had interviews with officials and they--based on their internal documents--provided me with the necessary detailed data.
Now I am thinking how to cite the information; I think the obtained data should be published, at least as a letter to the researcher, so that I can refer to it.
What I am going to do is that I give the obtained information to the department and ask them to check it for reliability, then they issue an official document containing the necessary approved information. However, the point is I am myself preparing the tables etc., so this is my work--the tables produced by hours and hours of interview and then extracting the info and then making tables based on it--not theirs although they will check it carefully.
What to you think? How should I deal with it?

You should inquire what the relevant laws say. Otherwise, you might get in trouble publishing governmental information. Usually there are fairly strict regulations for this kind of data.

@skymningen I already have the department permission to use the data; the data are not confidential.

But there is a subtle difference between "use" as in "use to generate your own results from" and "use" as in "use as your own, including publishing the original data". (That's why we have so many GPL licenses and such.)

@skymningen I have told them I was going write a scientific article which will show the data they provided me with.

To reword what @skymningen says - as I had told my team of (coincidentally, government-employed) analysts at the time, it's one thing to have possession of the data. It's another thing to actually be able to use it for your purposes. I would get a lawyer if I were you. There are some states (assuming U.S.) that have laws in terms of how their data are reported or used.

@Clarinetist Interesting! Assuming that there are no legal constraints and I have the right to use it for my research purposes, how should I deal with it methodologically?

@Juya how about you do it the other way: you get permission to use and publish the data THEN come back and ask about methodology...

@SolarMike I already have their cooperation and I am permitted to publish the data.

So what is your problem then? The permission to publish the data (if legally backed) will have specific rules about how you can or cannot do that. Anything that is allowed you can do. Anything that is not, you can't your question starts with the premise that you want them to pre-publish the data (letter to the researcher) under their name, but ends with you being unhappy with their plan to publish the data without your name on it as an official document. That is a contradiction we cannot solve for you.

I would cite it as "Agency name, unpublished data" in the text. As a made-up example in a list of citations:
US Department of Agriculture, Farm Information Statistics 1999-2015, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, unpublished.


text:
Can I do experimental research after doing a computational PhD in Chemical Engineering?
I am a graduate student in Chemical Engineering at a good research university in the USA. I came for the master's program and started working with a professor from day one. It has been a year, I like the research I am doing, and am on my way to publish a paper. The research is challenging and impactful but is purely computational.
I am moving to the PhD program here. There is no issue with research problems or stipend—I am fully funded—but the idea of pure computational for the coming  years is freaking me out. I am worried because I cannot run experiments anymore and I am wondering whether this limits my opportunities after my PhD. Am I going to narrow myself in research careers if I am going for a computational PhD?

I've removed the question at the end: "Is experimental research given more value than computational, even in the scientific community?" That's because it's a separate question, and SE questions should have only a single topic. It is also too subjective to be answered here.

Especially in chemical engineering, it is definitely possible for people to move back and forth between experimental and computational work, and even to combine the two in a single career (although this is much more difficult, obviously).
Both of my graduate co-advisors have made similar transitions during their careers—from a mainly computational focus to a primarily experimental focus. It is definitely feasible.
The main issue that you'd want to remember at the earlier stage of your career is that the further away you want to leap from your PhD research, the harder it is to find someone willing to sponsor you to do that. For instance, doing an experimental PhD related to the topic of your computational PhD should not be too difficult; moving from computational combustion to experimental biomedical engineering would be much more challenging.


text:
Advertising one's publication
After posting a preprint on arXiv, or after an accepted paper appears online, how to bring other's attention to it?
(Unless one is already a big name in one's field, or one proves a long-standing and well-known open problem, I doubt that just waiting for things to happen is going to suffice.)
For sure one can give talks or present posters on relevant conferences. But are there any other methods of bringing it to the attention of others who might be interested and for whom it may be beneficial?
The question is both about "classical" methods and any relevant Internet tools.

This question is highly relevant. The accepted answer (mine) is probably the worst one; be sure to read them all.

I disagree with eykanal's evaluation of his answer.

I am surprised that nobody suggested blogs.

@ArtemKaznatcheev Actually, I was thinking about such things. However, if a blog has one entry per a few months, I guess that readership would be ~ 0. So, do you know any collaborative blogs inviting others to present their results?

@PiotrMigdal well, if you don't keep an active blog or use it solely for advertising, then obviously nobody will read it. Presumably your blog hosts content other than your own papers and updates regularly. Otherwise it is more an extended CV than blog. However, combining efforts to run a blog is a good idea: just talk to others in your field or with similar interests (I know you do this already for Open Science). My personal experience though, is that it is often hard to convince others to contribute to joint projects like blogs :(.

@ArtemKaznatcheev It was my point. That I don't have time or energy to run a quality blog. But if I could contribute a few times a year, among many others, it would be great. (BTW one of the ideas in Hacking Science is exactly to make blogs acting like lectures or journal clubs, so man people can present their, or other's papers, to everyone). Yeah, I have a lot, lot of experience with convincing others to contribute. And usually, unless you kidnap their family (which is not an option, as you need to feed them with your PhD money), it almost never works...

Eykanal is basically right, but there's a fine line between networking and being annoying.  There are plenty of circumstances where sending email to more famous/senior colleagues is perfectly fine.
If you already have a professional relationship with someone, it's perfectly fine to write a quick email saying something like "Thanks for the great lunch conversation we had at [conference] last month.  You might be interested in this paper I just wrote."  Yes, a recent lunch conversation counts as a professional relationship.
If you don't already have a professional relationship, then you should probably limit emails to a few key people who have a direct connection to your paper -- either you build on one of their results (which your paper cites), or improve one of their results (which your paper cites), or they've written papers on closely related topics (which your paper cites) .  But within those constraints, emailing your paper is perfectly fine; everyone likes to hear that their work is useful and interesting.
If you do send your paper out, be sure to welcome comments, but don't expect a response from anyone.  That silence from Famous Person On The Internet doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't reading your paper; they're probably just really busy.

In general, I would say no. Poster sessions and talks are the main way of sharing your research. You can try contacting the authors of any widely-known blogs in your field, and you can try sharing your research with any collaborators from other projects (i.e., ones who don't already know about it), but anything beyond that and you're venturing in the realm of being annoying.
There's one major exception that I can think of, and that's in the case where you're publishing a research analysis technique. In that situation, you can publish a toolkit that uses your method, and that may help speed up adoption of the technique. For example, in neuroscience, the SPM fMRI data analysis toolbox is very widely used. The group behind the toolbox came out a few years ago with a new set of techniques—DCM—for mapping brain activity, and incorporated those techniques into the toolbox. Because of this, many researchers now use this analysis tool. (Of course, this also means that you'll have many researchers using the tool incorrectly, and you may have to publish instructions on when and when not to apply the technique.)

JeffE pointed out another exception; if you're building on the results of another research group, it is definitely acceptable to contact the researchers in that group to let them know if your work. They're the most likely people to be interested in your work, and (arguably) they are in a position to give you the most useful feedback.

Don't forget about old-fashioned face-to-face conversation.  If you go to a conference, it is likely you will meet new people or re-connect with friends or acquaintances from other institutions.  A common first question in such conversations is "What do you do?" or "What are you working on now?"  This is a natural lead-in to tell this person about your latest work.  Try to keep it short and tailor it to the known interests of the person you are talking to.  If they are intrigued, they can ask more questions and keep the conversation going.  The same principle applies if you meet someone on a research or seminar visit somewhere (whether you are visiting them or they are visiting you).  Face-to-face conversation is less efficient than a talk or poster, since you are only getting to people one or two at a time, but it is also usually more compelling.
It's worthwhile doing this even if you are also giving a talk or poster at the conference, since it can serve as advertising to convince them to come to your talk or visit your poster.  Alternatively, you can give a talk on one topic and advertise a different topic (say your previous paper) in conversations.  Again, it's worthwhile to tailor your choice of which result to advertise in conversation to the interests of the person you are talking to.
Other suggestions:

Encourage your co-authors to give talks on the paper as well.  This can be a mixed blessing, because people tend to associate a result with either the person they hear it from or the most famous person on the paper, but it definitely helps to spread knowledge about the paper.
If you have your own travel money, you can write to someone and suggest you visit them and give a seminar.  You can also write to someone asking for a visit if you don't have money, but that is rather pushy, and is best reserved for cases where you have a strong existing relationship with the person, such as a past supervisor or recurring collaborator.
Again, if you have money, you can invite someone to give a seminar at your home institution.  This is an opportunity to learn about their latest work and also to chat with them and tell them about yours, as above.  Even if you don't have money, there may well be a local seminar series that has some, and perhaps you can make a speaker suggestion.
This one is less under your control, but one of the main ways people hear about new results is indirectly, when someone else mentions them or cites them.  What this means is that if you can get the information about your paper to just one person who can directly use it to advance their own work, you have doubled your advertising power.


text:
What are the main reasons why academics leave academia? (Looking for references, not personal opinions)
Is there any research/study/survey that looked at the main reasons why academics leave academia?
I did read a few articles explaining why some particular academics left academia, but I would like to have some statistics to see what are the most common reasons invoked.
I mostly interested in the computer science field (machine learning) in the US, but curious about other fields and locations as well.

From what point on is someone an academic?

@TheAlmightyBob Let's say PhD student or after. I'm mostly interested in tenure-track or tenured persons though.

What counts as "leaving academia"?  For example, do soft-money research positions or national labs count?

@jakebeal I am definitely open to surveys that include them.

"What are the main reasons why academics leave academia?": Retirement? ;-)

I suspect the number one reason is that the offer of positions is much smaller than the demand (with some notable exceptions).

I don't understand why there are 2 'too broad' close votes while there is no real answer to my questions (the existing answers are interesting but don't give any reference). Please comment if you cast a close vote.

@CharlesMorisset Thanks, I have modified the title to make it clearer. Please let me know if it's okay now.

I retired immediately after completing my Ph.D., but would have switched back to industry if I had continued working.
I am much, much happier and more effective doing technical work than teaching or managing. The computer industry has well-established technical tracks that allow career advancement without becoming a manager. The academic world, at least in the USA, seems to require teaching and administrative work from everyone, regardless of individual preferences and talents.

No hard stats on how often each reason occurs, but from anecdotal evidence:
Switching fields
Some people simply choose other carreers - either they're disillusioned with their research topic, or with some specific people/managers, or found a much better paying job in other domain. This is pretty much the standard set of reasons for any other jobs.
Lack of continued funding
The only academic-specific reason that I have seen - it's often hard (or subjective) to say if it's "not enough money" or "you and your research are not good enough to compete for the money", but it certainly happens - some research project ends, a new one doesn't get started (yet), then people get other jobs to feed their families, and don't come back afterwards if/when new funding arrives.

For machine learning specifically, I think a major reason is the high demand for such skills in industry (both in existing businesses, in startups/spinoffs or as consultants), which makes leaving easier compared to some other fields. This applies to other fields that are close to the market as well (for instance engineering).
Innovation and tech transfer is important for universities, so I am not entirely sure how to classify researchers that 'leave academia' to start a spin-off to valorise the IP generated during their research career. That said, many machine learning scientists take this 'exit', which can be unavailable to researchers in  more fundamental fields.


text:
Are people who left academia happy with their decision?
Is there any extensive research/study/survey that looked at what percentage of people who left academia were happy with their decision after X years?
I mostly interested in the computer science field (machine learning) in the US, but curious about other fields and locations as well.
People leaving academia can be PhD students or after (tenure-track, tenured, soft-money research positions, national lab researchers, etc.).

Surveys are essentially flawed in this regard. If someone quits academia (for whatever reasons), irrespective of what he feels inside, on being asked, he will always say he is happier now, plus tell you why academia is so loathsome, and why he is so proud of not adding more "nonsense" to the world. What else will he tell people?

@New_new_newbie Not really true for me. Please see my answer to another question.

@New_new_newbie: many people (me included) quit academia for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional. If I could go back with a reasonable job stability, I wouldn't think about it for a moment. I love some aspects of the academic culture, the freedom, doing research, even teaching. But at the moment I'm not prepared to pay the price of endless postdoc contracts involving restarting my life every two-three years in a new country until that hypothetical permanent job comes.

Define 'happy'. How would you expect any sort of objective answer to this question?

@finitud - I am not disagreeing that that particular reason is not a valid reason that drives people away. I'm only raising doubts that people won't (in general) open up about regretting this decision in a survey.

@CapeCode: There's lots of research on what makes people happy.  Just because you can't define happiness in an external way doesn't mean you can't ask people if they're happy; of course, you have to take self-reported results with a grain of salt, but that's true with almost any survey.

This does not answer to the specific question, but it could be of interest: A lot of work has been done by Johnsrud and Heck (check GG scholar) on predicting who will leave and who will stay in academia, and the effect of morale on leaving or staying.

@TheDarkSide: Your first comment makes it sound as if people who leave academia would exclusively do so because they become disappointed with academia (and therefore have bad feelings when looking back to their time in academia). At least in my field of CS, to me it seems more like one of the most common patterns is that people stay in academia until they get their doctoral degree, but it is the plan all along that after getting their doctoral degree, they head for the industry.

I believe some of the national longitudinal surveys would cover this for the US.
For instance, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort started tracking "middle school" age students in 1979 and is still tracking them. They have hundreds to thousands of attributes including education and many measures of health and happiness (though not all are updated every year).
Another example is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health).

Well, I cannot think a reason that such a study should be either thought of doing or published... It lacks in many aspects (strictly speaking of study) and has really many dependencies (e.g. economical, political, cultural, scientific discipline, field in the discipline and others).
What I think that you actually seeking is some sort of justification for preferring one after the other. Since I can only speak of my self, I will try to present my point of view.
Professional and academic "worlds" are interconnected. Neither is better, "scientificier", more correct or anything than the other. Actually, (I believe that) it is supposed that academia is the more risky research department of a society, where by "risky" I mean research that mostly not results in a commercial ready product. But academia involves also teaching, where by teaching means that you have to pass to others what you know.
On the other hand, professional world is not only sales. It has development, implementations and other really interesting parts (at least to me). Of course, without sales there would not be any actual "sales"... but that's something that I cannot discuss because I think my self as a little biased on that subject. Professional world has also patents, applied knowledge, problem solving on implementation (and not in simulation) and actually making things that work all the time.. not only in the lab or at the presentation. I think that you can image what would happened if your car, your kitchen, your laptop and all the other facilities worked as most things in academia presentations, applications etc.. Armageddon!
Finally, a PhD is not only a way for an academic career. It is also a good way for creating a start-up company! Or obtaining patents! Especially of you get paid during your PhD.
So, what someone should choose must not be based on "how most people felt" but on which enviroment feels better and what goals this person have, i.e. wants to create things that actually work? things that are used as they are by many? Or teach and conduct research for unsolved problems or in order to optimize existing implementations?
And a final tip, if you are thinking on starting a PhD for pursuing an academic career then you choose it for the wrong reason (at least on my perspective). A PhD should be started for satisfying the inner need of research and not because taken as a career solving degree.


text:
How often do authors actually perform and publish the work they indicate as the future work they plan to undertake in a publication?
Quite often authors indicate that they will carry out some more work to complete /extend the project in the future work / discussion section.
E.g.:

We need to automatically create new entities; this is work in
  progress.

or:

In the future, we plan to deploy more sophisticated copy detection
  mechanisms, such as those in [10].

I have a high respect for the paper I used as an example, but I have first-hand witnessed other authors who write strong commitments like "We will do X in a future work" without any intent to do so.
Hence my question: Is there any research/study/survey that looked at how often authors actually perform and publish the work they indicate as the future work they plan to undertake in a publication?
I am fully aware that some formulations seem to indicate a strong commitment, while some are more suggestive ("some ideas thrown in the air").

An aside on "We will do X in a future work" -- The purpose of such a statement can be actually twofold: on one side, it allows authors to keep an article focused on a specific topic without enlarging the discussion too much; on the other, it allows authors to publish quickly. In the latter case, however, it can backfire: the reviewers might reject the article with the motivation: "well, do X, first". In any case, the future of a certain work might not go as it was planned for various reasons, that is, shit happens ;-)

The statement can also a highlight a future application of the presented method or put the method in a larger context without obligation to do it. The goal is not to commit, but rather to reinforce the utility of the paper.

I have witnessed a few times where 'we will do x later' is honestly their goal, but their mindset is to call an academic 'dibs' on that later work.  Meaning, we know this project can go in x direction, and we want to take it there, but it might take some time, please dont do it before us.

Interesting idea. However, you also need to consider funding issues. Having the ambition to do something and having the possibility to actually do it are two different things.

Having the ambition to do something and having the possibility to actually do it are two different things. — Funding is not the only reason one might not achieve a research goal, or even the most significant reason.  If you already know that something will work, doing it isn't research.

@JeffE Yes of course(?), and I haven't implied otherwise. Also, the Q is asking about extensions of research projects, and why these ambitions are fulfilled or not, not about doing something that is known to work (i.e. pure application).

I don't think there is any data on this, so answers will be no more than anecdotes and opinions.

It depends on two factors: how well the researchers are organized and funding. I would say less than half of the research groups I know in Computer Science manage to follow their future work plans. The ones that do manage to follow their plans, have clear areas in which they are active and write their projects after half the work was done :)
Funding has repercussions on what you do at work: most of the time you will have to do the tasks related to your funding as opposed to what you would like to do (future work of your favorite article). The problem is funding stops at some point and then you take another project without getting to the future work from your previous article.
If you had worked well in a field, had some articles, there is no reason to abandon that work just because the funding ended, but you will have to follow it between the funded tasks and in your free time.
There is also the alternative that you write a follow-up research project and get to do a part of this future work in the second project.
I have gone through all these phases:

I have future work that was never done
I have future work that was done in the follow-up project (precisely a sequel project)
I have future work that was done in projects that were not related
I have also seen future work from some of our articles implemented as commercial project at a start-up by some of the co-authors of the papers

If you work around the clock and if you like the field you're working in, you will definitely find a way to integrate your long-term research goals with the current project goals or with the next project goals.
EDIT:
At least in CS there is no survey/study/article about such a thing, as far as I know. There are though articles that look at how often a certain technology gets into a new company.

I recommend you reread the question, especially the paragraph that starts with "Hence my question: Is there any research/study/survey..." Is your "answer" to the question "Is there X?" Yes or No?

Please can you explain the basis on whch you say there are no studies of this in CS? What literature search did you do: what databases, what search terms?

@EnergyNumbers Here is why I can say these: I have kept detailed records of the activity of several of the top research groups/universities in several fields like Semantic Web, NLP, IR, ML, InfoVis, and Logic. I know this does not apply to all fields. I have then looked through what the history of their publications and overall narratives say, as well as at Google Scholar, IEEE, ACM, Springer and DBLP. Scholar offers top publications for each field, for example, DBLP shows citation graphs, etc. You can use as keywords the hot topics in each field, and you will get to the bottom of it.

@EnergyNumbers Please keep in mind that projects dictate what the future work is, and sometimes the future work sections are written with the knowledge of what the next phase of the project will need. In that case typically future work is done, because the project requires it, but otherwise, one of the things I have mentioned in the answer will happen.


text:
What percentage of papers submitted to a conference or journal have been previously rejected in the same or another venue?
Is there any research/study/survey that looked at what percentage of papers submitted to a conference or journal have been previously rejected in the same or another venue?
I am mostly interested in the computer science field (machine learning) and English-speaking venues, but I am curious about other fields and languages as well.

Although your question is interesting, it seems like a question aimed at your individual research, which I do not think is on topic here

@Alexandros IMHO whether it relates to the OP's individual research agenda should not be taken into account when voting or closing questions.

@Alexandros I don't see any issue with this type of question. A quick search indicates that perhaps 5% of papers survive submission to The Lancet, for example. What happens to the other 95%? Surely they don't just get forgotten.

As a PS to my comment, even with a hypothetically generous 75% of the submitted papers are absolute garbage and would never get into any journal, that still leaves 20% of decent or almost-there papers with their fates in the air.

Yes I am basically looking for some studies on paper recycling.

To collect such data you would need to access all the submissions at some conference/journal, then check the submissions of a following relevant venue to see if any papers were resubmitted (including resubmissions that use different titles, related work, or with different flow, order of authors etc..) I don't think accessing all the submissions of a venue is possible as an external person, thus the whole process in not feasible in my opinion..

I haven't found anything in computer science, but this has been well-studied in other fields.
For example, one study1 surveyed authors from 923 scientific journals from the biological sciences in 2006-2008 and found that

about 75% of published articles were submitted first to the journal that would publish them

(implying that 25% of published articles were rejected by another venue before finding their ultimate home).
A more common approach found in the literature is to follow up on the fate of rejected manuscripts from a particular journal (as opposed to the original target venue of published manuscripts).
For example, a study of manuscripts rejected by the British Journal of Surgery2 found:

From the 926 manuscripts rejected by BJS, 609 (65.8 per cent) were published in 198 different journals with a mean(s.d.) time lapse of 13.8(6.5) months. Some 165 manuscripts (27.1 per cent) were published in general surgical journals, 250 (41.1 per cent) in subspecialty surgical journals and 194 (31.9 per cent) in non-surgical journals. The mean(s.d.) impact factor of the journals was 2.0(1.1). Only 14 manuscripts (2.3 per cent) were published in journals with a higher impact factor than that of BJS.

This trend is not especially new. Studies from decades ago also show large numbers of rejected papers being accepted somewhere, eventually. For example:
A study of 350 manuscripts rejected by the Annals of Internal Medicine, a general medical journal, during 1993 and 1994,3 found:

Of 350 rejected manuscripts, 240 (69%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64% to 73%) were eventually published after a mean of 552 days (95% CI: 479 to 544 days, range 121 to 1,792 days).

A study of papers submitted to the American Journal of Roentgenology in 19864 found:

At least 82% of the major papers and 70% of the case reports that are submitted to AJR are eventually published, either in AJR or elsewhere

An interesting study I came across measured the reverse phenomenon: published articles that are subsequently rejected5.

As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected.

1 Calcagno, V., E. Demoinet, K. Gollner, L. Guidi, D. Ruths, and C. De Mazancourt. "Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns." Science 338, no. 6110 (2012): 1065-1069. DOI: 10.1126/science.1227833
2 Wijnhoven, B. P. L., and C. H. C. Dejong. "Fate of manuscripts declined by the British Journal of Surgery." British Journal of Surgery 97, no. 3 (2010): 450-454. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.6880
3 Ray, Joel, Michael Berkwits, and Frank Davidoff. "The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal." The American journal of medicine 109, no. 2 (2000): 131-135. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00450-2
4 Chew, Felix S. "Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR." AJR. American journal of roentgenology 156, no. 3 (1991): 627-632. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.156.3.1899764
5 Peters, Douglas P., and Stephen J. Ceci. "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no. 02 (1982): 187-195. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00011183

For atmospheric science, I surveyed a number of journals.  The results are published here:
David M. Schultz, 2010: Rejection Rates for Journals Publishing in the Atmospheric Sciences. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 231–243.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1

I suspect the numbers for journals in CS vary widely, as do the numbers for specific conferences.  But I will say that most CS systems conferences, as an example, have acceptance rates in the 15-25% range.  As someone commented above, most of these papers don't get submitted once and die after rejection.  Some get submitted multiple times, get rejected each time, and eventually the authors give up.  But I imagine a pretty high fraction get published in the same or a different conference a year or two later.  I know of some cases, including a paper of mine, where something rejected one time got revised and selected as best paper in a later instance of the same conference.
So I guess it's a question of why this was asked [some time ago].   If it's to have assurances that one shouldn't give up hope after a rejection, rest assured!


text:
Optimal structure of cover letter for PhD application submitted directly to PI
I am currently applying for PhD positions (mainly - though not exclusively - around Germany and Switzerland). As I would like to start as soon as possible and would rather be paid than receive a scholarship, I am not applying via grad schools but directly to potential supervisors.
This is an arduous process as very many PIs interest me, though most do not have the financial freedom of creating new PhD positions on the spot. Consequently I have written a lot of emails and I have developed a short formula which I adapt to each individual PI. The structure is roughly:

Title: 2-3 buzzwords related to the PIs work followed by " - PhD Opportunities"
Introductory statement - Who am I
Short summary of my experience, explicitly mentioning points relevant to his focus and including a link to my full CV
Explicitly state my preferred topics related to his focus
Explicitly ask if he has a PhD position opening, possibly including a suggestion of what sort of project would motivate me, and what about him/his group precisely I found interesting.

Here is an example e-mail:

Neurogenetics and Psychopharmacology - PhD Opportunities
Hello, I am a Molecular Neuroscience major from Heidelberg. I have
  recently graduated from our MSc. program and am currently looking for
  groups in which to pursue my PhD.
I have very versatile experience in neuroscience - ranging from
  molecular biology, microscopy, and genetics in model animals up to
  fMRI, eye tracking, pupillometry, and behavioural tests in humans (for
  more on this please refer to my CV:
  http://chymera.eu/docs/cv-acad-gen.pdf ). I would like to continue
  using a broad spectrum of methods in my research, and put my scripting
  experience (Python, R, Julia, MATLAB, SPM, FSL) to good use in the
  analysis of complex data sets.
I am very motivated by research into mood disorders and genetics; and
  I would also like to augment my methods spectrum with
  psychopharmacology and NIBS over the following years. I find the
  addition of these methods particularly important because in my opinion
  they present the most solid ways of testing causality in correlations
  between human brain activation and behaviour (as observed via fMRI or
  PET).
I have browsed your list of publications and I found your
  neurogenetics work most motivating. I would like to ask you whether
  you would be able to offer me a PhD position in which I could
  integrate the genetic focus of your group with brain imaging and brain
  stimulation (perhaps to elucidate brain area function or
  psychopharmacological treatment possibilities resolved for
  endophenotypes). I would also be grateful for the opportunity to
  discuss further project ideas with you.
Best Regards,
Christian

I generally just write one email, and follow up 7-14 days later with a second one if there is no reply within the first week. Of the PIs that do not respond to the first email less than 25% respond to the second.
With this email structure (and what I believe is a strong background) I get a reply rate of ~50%, of which all replies specify that the PI would like to take me on - in principle. Actual invitations for interviews, however, are at about 5%. I am thinking this could be a lot better.
Do you have any (different) email structure which you have found optimal? Are there any other details - such as tone and style - which you think are very important to note in such a context?

I would say you are waiting too long to explain why you are interested in the research group. Your motivation for writing and taking up the faculty members' time should come much earlier in the message—I'd recommend no later than the second paragraph.
I'd also suggest that you might also want to consider sending the message to the Oberingenieur or Akademischer Rat of the faculty members' group; he or she may have a better idea of what vacancies are currently available.
Finally, "cold calling" does not get a high response rate; if there isn't an active opening, most potential advisors won't really respond unless they have to.

how would you recommend I specify my precise motivation earlier? In the first paragraph? Would you recommend I just move that one sentence from one paragraph to the other, or just drop some other paragraphs entirely? Akademischer Rat is a legal description of the position and it's possible for all, some, or none of the members of a group to have that attribute. Also, in my field, this is very rarely advertised on a group's website.

I would move the sentence, but go beyond just simply saying "neurogenetics." You could make specific references to the research topics actually covered by the group, rather than just citing the overall theme. (They want to know you've taken the time to find out more about their group!) As for the citing of underlings, obviously this won't work if your field doesn't provide that information—but for others, this might be helpful advice.

As aeismail said, if there isn't any specific opening, it's better to get in contact with the Studentenberater(in), whose job description includes giving advice to people in your position. If you want to contact a PI directly, it might be better to have your current advisor initiate the contact, assuming that he/she is in good terms with the PI in question. That will get you a better chance of getting the PIs attention than an email directly from you.

I find that advice strange, as most groups in my field - afaik in all fields - do not have dedicated liaison people for students to interact with. The more successful PIs tend to have their own secretary, but secretaries are seldom privy to openings which could be arranged, and unenthusiastic about mediating with students. I for one have never received any sort of reply when contacting a PI through his secretary. Studentenberater is a position held at the faculty, and they are usually better informed on issues of education rather than research.


text:
Should teachers announce the grade breakdown during first class?
I noticed that some teachers announce the grade breakdown in the first class or in the syllabus, while some don't. What's the best practice? If giving the grade breakdown at the beginning is preferable, is it better to use an absolute or relative breakdown?
Example of grade breakdown announced in the syllabus (absolute breakdown):

Letter grades are determined at the end of the semester. The default
  cutoffs are: a final average of 90 and above is an A, 80 and above is
  a B, 70 and above is a C. These boundaries may be adjusted downwards
  if necessary because of the difficulty of the assignments or quizzes,
  but the boundaries will never be adjusted upwards, so a final average
  of 90 is guaranteed to be an A. The boundary adjustment is done
  heuristically, and there are no grade quotas, no grade targets, and no
  centering of the class on a particular grade boundary.

Example of grade breakdown announced during the first class (relative breakdown):

The first half get A, the second half get B (except in case of failure to try to do the homework or show up at the exams).

I am especially interested in computer science education in the US.

The only reason not to announce it, I think, is if you intend to grade on a curve -- which I consider a lazy alternative to actually getting the tests and homework calibrated to the proper level of complexity.

My undergrad university had a fixed grade scale for all courses. It was up to the lecturers to make sure the difficulty of the work got a good distribution of marks, very occasionally scaling upwards if the course was difficult. I think it's important for the students to get a good idea of what sort of marks they need to get in the remaining items of assessment in order to get the grade they want.

There will surely be a strong correlation if the decision to be ambiguous on Day 1 about what precise performance will result in an A (sort of an "I'll know it when I see it" nod) is compared to the number of student grade appeals at the finale.
I have taught in arguably the most quantitative of departments at a number of schools, and the policies have always revolved around a fixed basket of accrued points to be earned.  Want an A? Then get an A level of points on the assignments throughout this semester.
Few students protest their grade when they come up short. Fewer still try for a formal appeal. None have come close to winning it.

I think it depends on the situation (assuming there is no official department or university policy on the matter).
For example, I am a young (math) teacher teaching a single course that has 25 students in it, at a college that I have never taught at before. I figured it was unlikely that I would be able to write exams that effectively separated the A's from the (A-)'s (say) based on some numerical scale that I set ahead of time. So I chose to not put a grade breakdown on the syllabus.
After each exam, I look at the performance of the students, and I give them an individual grade update containing what I call "a good estimate" of their letter grade thus far in the course. This prevents them from just remaining in the dark all term long with regards to their grade.
I have taught sections of courses at bigger schools where the grade scale is set ahead of time and is the same for all 800 or so students enrolled in the course. This makes sense, as the content of the courses is the same year after year, the exams are similar every year, and in general everything involving the course is somehow standardized.
I would say that, in general, it's fine to not announce a grade scale ahead of time if you don't have to. Just be prepared to have something to say about grades, because students will likely want to know. Sometimes I give myself some wiggle room on the syllabus by saying "your grade will not be lower than the following...", so they know that a 90 (or whatever) will guarantee them an A, but they might also earn an A with a score of less than a 90.

authors: كاهدوهاكان الشمال


text:
How to request that collaborators add my supervisor's name to a manuscript
I am collaborating with a foreign author. As I am still pursuing my degree, I have to add my supervisor's name in that paper, even though my supervisor has  not contributed to the preparation of this manuscript.
How should I ask my collaborator (foreign author) to include my supervisor's name as a third author? I need some help in this.
Edited: As my supervisor has told me to add his name, I am obliged to add. I have no other options left. I am asking how should I write and request to my collaborator to include my supervisor name in the manuscript. Also, I am afraid whether my collaborator will feel odd or bad if I request him to do that.
Please help me: what should I say to my collaborator so that he may give third authorship to my supervisor?

Is your co-author also a phd student or is he more senior than you?

As my supervisor has told me to add his name, I am bound to add. No, he is your supervisor, not your overlord. You can discuss it, and iff after that he insists on his name appearing, you may be reducing your options. There are other ways, like an escalation, but riskier.

I disagree on the duplicate. That discussion was about when should the supervisor be an author; this is a supervisor (possibly) wanting to force his way in.

@Davidmh I yet have to see a situation where PhD advisor insisted on adding a name, but the student resisted (and, ultimately, defended thesis). The imbalance of power is huge, so it this sense, yes advisor is one's overlord (unlike boss, which can be changes with much smaller consequences).

If you are on sufficiently good terms with your collaborator (which is unlikely though, as you probably wouldn’t be asking this question in this case), you may consider putting all the blame for not including your supervisor on your co-author – if he approves to this. This way, you may be spared from repercussions from your supervisor and avoid acting unethically. (Beware that whether this is actually a good idea depends on many variables, such as your supervisor’s temper, which only you can estimates.)

@Wrzlprmft This should be an answer. (And I like the idea... but if done inappropriately or things go wrong, it may mean problems with both one's supervisor and collaborator.)

@PiotrMigdal: It does not really answer the actual question as asked. And what you describe is one of the reasons I added the warning.

As I am still pursuing my degree, I have to add my supervisor's name in that paper, even though my supervisor has not contributed to the preparation of this manuscript. You only "have to" in the sense that failing this, you may face bad repercussions. You absolutely do not "have to" in the sense of being justly obliged -- in fact, if you were not in a vulnerable position, your obligation would be to reject such a gift authorship.

Why is the supervisor telling you to add his name, instead of writing the entire set of authors himself?

You're in a difficult position and there aren't a lot of good options here. Your adivsor is wrong to have put you in this situation. From an ethical perspective, I think it would be wrong to have your supervisor as an author on this paper. On the other hand, you also clearly feel that you have no choice in the matter and feel that standing up to your advisor on this issue is not worth the trouble it would cause. Ultimately, that is your decision to make.
The best course at this point is to set up an honest conversation with your collaborator. I would do it over the phone or video chat. Explain the situation clearly and completely (just as you have here) and explain that you feel like you've been put into a difficult situation.
If your collaborator is also uncomfortable and is willing to be the "bad guy" by going on record as putting their foot down on the ethical issue of authorship (even if they are more open to the possibility than that), you might have a solution.
In that case, you can go back to your advisor and say that you asked your collaborator to put their name on the paper and that your collaborator pointed out that according to their university's and/or funder's rules and/or their own personal convictions, they felt that it would be wrong. The policies and rules bit is almost always true because basically all rules on these subjects say that co-authorship in these situations is wrong. Tell your advisor that you did your best but you could not get your collaborator to budge on the issue. Your advisor may be mad, but they won't be mad at you.
If your collaborator is not willing to potentially annoy your advisor, an in-person conversation will at least allow you to make it clear that you're not comfortable with the situation either. At that point, the two of you will have to decide what to do.
I'm sorry you've been put into a such a tricky place.

Downvoted. You are asking the student to be a messenger between their advisor and their other coauthors, and in particular to mediate any disputes over coauthorship.  This is an incredibly unfair position to put the student in. The other parties are adults; they are perfectly capable of communicating directly with each other.  Better advice: Introduce your advisor to the other coauthors, and then get out of the way.

@JeffE, have you had experience that that approach worked? My friend experienced this once, and at that point the two professors actually know each other, since we all are in the same institution. Yet, the student is still made the messenger, we felt at that time that asking the professor to discuss with the other professor will definitely be seen as rejecting the professor (otherwise you would just include his/her name), so we gave in. It is tricky situation indeed.

Yes, I have seen successful adult discussions about co-authorship, with multiple senior people involved. All co-authors were CC'd on all emails and were invited to all meetings. No students were forced to intermediate or were blamed for the outcome.  You aren't asking the professor to discuss with the other professor; you are inviting the professor to convince the existing authors that they should join the paper.  After all, you can't "just include his/her name" without everyone's agreement!

While conventions vary greatly from field to field, if your supervisor has made literally no contribution, he or she should not be listed as an author. There is been plenty of discussion here of this issue; see e.g.

Co-authorship for not very involved supervisor
When should a supervisor be an author?
What are the minimum contributions required for co-authorship

While I agree with your answer, it is not to the question asked by the OP (it was not if one's advisor should be author, but how to tackle this issue with collaborators when he insists to be an author).

While in theory you are right, in some fields the norm is to list your supervisor regardless of contribution, especially if you are a grad student.

Like many questions from graduate students, I believe a possible answer to "How should I write and request to my collaborator to include my supervisor's name in the manuscript?" is "Ask your supervisor.".
The question to ask is something like this: "I'm about to write to Foreign Author to get your name added to the paper. What should I list as your main contributions to it?"
If the collaborator finds the result reasonably convincing, the supervisor's name gets added. If not, it is not your fault.

If your supervisor has made no contribution, and there was no discussion with your collaborator about your supervisor, and especially if the work is already done, you should have another conversation with your supervisor as they should not be on the paper.
The only way I could see you asking the collaborator is by saying something along the lines of, as long as it is true:

My time dedicated to our collaboration, and the knowledge I brought to
  the project was only possible by the advice of my advisor and the
  funding I have been paid with.  Would you feel comfortable with adding
  my supervisor on the paper?

You may just be in a difficult situation in which there is not win.  If you do try to force your supervisors name, you may ruin any relationship with your collaborator.  If they have any position in the academic field, you may be making a bad name for yourself.  You may also burn bridges with your advisor, but the story would sound bad if your advisor said he could not force you to unethically add his name to your collaborators paper.

If I were your collaborator on this paper, I would refuse to add the supervisor's name no matter how you asked. The only reason I would consider adding it is if the supervisor had actually made a contribution commensurate with authorship (if that were the case, you should have mentioned this to your collaborator a lot earlier, rather than pretending that you had done the work).
One way of cutting the Gordian knot is to have your supervisor do some significant work on rewriting or expanding the paper. But, if I were your collaborator, I would need to be convinced that such rewriting/expanding would make the paper better.
And, by the way, your claim that your supervisor must be a co-author on every paper you write is utter nonsense. Any supervisor claiming this to be the case is acting unprofessionally and unethically.

While I may agree with your sentiment, you should note that in some scientific fields, the action being requested is perfectly natural. The supervisor is always included and you may suffer if you don't include them. One of the reasons is that the supervisor may have provided all of the materials (lab, assistants, ...) that makes it even possible to begin your work. Without that assistance you have nothing at all. It is different in the humanities, and even in mathematics where this would be an unusual request. It isn't necessarily right, but it is the norm in those fields.

You may be right, but this is how things work in many groups and OP is the junior person who will lose this fight to his or her considerable detriment.

It sounds like your colleague is the "corresponding author" on the paper, and therefore is the one who has the ability to say who should or should not be a co-author on the paper.
Consequently, depending on your co-author's seniority (relative to your advisor), he may have the ability to decline your advisor's demands on the grounds that he has not participated in the preparation of the manuscript. While your advisor can force you to list him, he can't force someone else to include him as a co-author.

A corresponding author is merely the person who communicates with the journal. They have no special powers or responsibilities in determining authorship - I totally disagree that any one person has the ability to unilaterally say who should or should not be a co-author. All authors should approve the contents of the final manuscript, including the authorship list. Authorship is not granted at the sole discretion of the corresponding author.

After you have asserted that your supervisor really merits coauthorship, you could simply write to your collaborator:
"dear collaborator, could you please add [supervisor name] as coauthor? [supervisor name] has contributed to the research in this and this way. Thanks!"

I suggest a wording like "My supervisor has requested to be added as coauthor". In this way, it is clear who this request comes from. And if someone looks odd and unprofessional, that's not OP.

@FedericoPoloni: if there was a fair contribution by the supervisor, then such a formulation would not be necessary. If there is no fair contribution, then the supervisor should not be a coauthor.


text:
Apply for PhD before finishing my Master's degree
I am now in the middle of my master's degree and I plan to graduate in August 2015. I currently study in Germany and for most engineering students here it is common to finish the five-year program (3 or 3.5 years for the bachelor's degree and 1.5 to 2 years for the master's). I'm thinking about applying for robotics PhD programs at different US universities but I noticed that most of them have a deadline in December for programs starting 9 months later. I don't have any publications in any international journals because in Germany this is mostly done by PhD students. But I have worked a lot during my studies (1 year internship, part-time research in university).
I don't want to lose one year waiting to start my PhD but in the same time I think that my master thesis will be a great asset while applying for such a program, especially when I will be willing to continue my research and PhD thesis in the same field as my master thesis. Do you think I should take the GRE and apply for next December or wait until getting my master's degree? And how this would influence the selection process.

This is only my opinion based on my personal experience. Finish your master's degree before you join a PhD program. I went from bachelors to PhD program and failed so miserably that it almost ended my career after 5 years in a PhD program. Again.. this is only from MY personal experience that I say that a Master's degree is like a parachute in case things don't work out. Not saying, they won't work out!

Thanks for your advice, but I didn't intend to quit my Master studies. I just wanted to apply in a way that I can start my PhD immediate after graduating.

It's not a big deal for you not to have publications—remember, many of your peers also will not have published anything, either!
Moreover, it's important to note that in the US, most of the applicants for graduate school do so in the fall of their fourth year of studies—which would, contentwise, typically line up with the third year (or sometimes even second year!) of study in a German program. So, in many ways, you're already much more experienced than your counterparts.
If you're interested in doing this, I would recommend that you just go ahead and apply. The worst that can possibly happen is that you're not accepted, in which case you find another means of achieving your goals.

Having no publications will decrease the chance of the PhD applicant in finding scholarships or funding and I think it is a big deal.

@EnthusiasticStudent: That is highly dependent on field and department.

In the engineering majors I think that the students with more publications have more chances in finding scholarships.

In the US in many fields, it is common to go directly for the PhD. So by all means hurry up! The fact you are in a master is a plus. The only potentially negative thing I can imagine is if your current supervisor or the other professors might feel afraid you will not complete the masters or will not put as much effort after being accepted into a PhD and as a result they may not write enthusiastic letters of recommendation. Side comment: Europeans tend to write lukewarm recommendation letters (probably more realistic), they don't understand that can hurt the applicant a lot.


text:
"If multiple papers are accepted for presentation, each paper requires a separate registration fee." -> Why?
I have seen several conferences that specify:

If multiple papers are accepted for presentation, each paper requires a separate registration fee.

Why? Is that purely financially motivated (e.g. an author with 2 submissions may cause another potential attendee not to come, or cost of submitting the paper to the publisher), or does it aim to reduce multiple submissions from the same author? Are there other reasons?

Because they can?

What do you suppose the registration fee pays for?  Perhaps there are separate expenses for each paper.

Also relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law

Since the answer is obvious, can you tell me what percentage of the registration fee typically goes to paper-related expenses?

For most conferences, the primary costs are:

Venue
Catering
Society fees
Program and proceedings
Keynote / scholarship travel sponsorship

The price of these is wildly variable depending on the arrangements that have been made.  At the low end, consider a conference using university meeting rooms, asking people to go out for lunch on their own, using volunteer labor and keeping program and proceedings electronic.  This can be extremely cheap, on the order of a couple of dollars per attendee, even for a rather large meeting.
When a conference meets in a hotel, the expenses go up like crazy.  For a week-long conference in a major city hotel, the venue and catering expenses can easily run as high as $500/person.  These are often required to be booked far in advance, based on the number of people expected to register for the conference, and there may be limited flexibility to change these numbers if attendance falls short.
Hotels also frequently ask a conference to have attendees book in the hotel, and will ask for "insurance" from a conference in the form of a commitment to get at least a certain number of rooms booked and to pay for unbooked rooms if the conference falls short of that commitment.  This can add thousands of dollars of expenses.  These factors can operate at universities too, which sometimes demand high venue and catering fees even when their own professors are organizing.
With an expensive venue, then, a conference's organizers can thus get very nervous about whether they will have enough money to cover their anticipated expenses, if registrations are less than anticipated.  This is especially the case if the conference has had difficulty meeting its expenses in the past, and may be in trouble with its sponsoring society as a result.
Forcing people to register per paper is one response to trying to avoid this type of shortfall.  Not only is there the fee, but if you're registering a second time, you're more likely to send a second person from the group, who will likely have their own hotel room.  For a conference that may be facing a shortfall in its hotel commitments, a single registration easily can be worth $2000 in increased income and decreased hotel penalty.
Personally, I still don't approve: I think that a conference operating at such a razor's edge would do better to take other approaches to trying to make up its budget shortfall.  I can understand, however, why the organizers of respectable conferences sometimes choose to do it: it's not that they are getting rich, but that they are trying to keep from going bankrupt while they make their venue rich.

Why... The conference organizers make money on attendees. Do you really need such a conference?
(Never seen this business in my professional field; up to 2-3 presentations per author are free of additional charges)

Apart from @jakebeal's answer, I believe the charges per paper are imposed as publication charges. It is true that the factors like venue, catering and travel sponsorship are the same regardless of multiple publications in the same conference, the article itself is considered doesn't.
This is because some conferences may have a hard limit on the number of articles to be published and the accommodation charges (like those constant factors) are arranged on that basis. Although you don't consume the resources allocated for that conference more than for what is provided for a single person, they are allocated for you nonetheless. Of course in other conferences, such expenses can be dynamic as the allocation of resources can be done after the total members (not total papers) are confirmed.
IMHO, I don't really think it would be advisable to publish more than one paper in the same conference as far as the corresponding author is concerned. You would be able to get a diverse feedback when publishing in separate conferences.

Actual cost per paper in actual society publication charges is typically very low compared to registration costs---what I've seen is on the order of $50 or less.

@jakebeal: True, the rest comes along with the preallocated resources per author based on the number of manuscripts with the assumption that most authors would publish only one paper in the conference.

most of publishers do not charge for publishing papers. Quite the contrary, top publishers like Springer/IEEE/ACM would pay the organizers for publishing papers (or give free proceedings copies/access). Proceedings are normally sold, though, thus, if conference organizers want to distribute them to participants - it is an extra cost

@al_b Your assertion is incorrect, at least as far as IEEE is concerned.  The costs are low, but they most certainly do charge.

@jakebeal, well, now I learnt that ACM and IEEE do charge sometimes. My experience previously was with a society which was working with ACM and IEEE and Springer and the publishers only paid to the society. Still, I can assure that Springer does not charge the organizers for publication.


text:
Is it possible for me to apply for a student and working visa to obtain a post-graduate degree?
I am an HND degree holder and I want to know the chances I have to fund my tuition and my expenses if I apply for a student/working visa from Nigeria and what is the duration?

I don't think a higher national diploma (HND) degree is recognized as the equivalent of the bachelor's degree from a regular university. Consequently, it is unlikely you would be able to use it to gain entry to a master's program in either the US or Canada.
I can't guarantee this is the way it works in Canada, but at least in the US, most students on visas have limited ability to work outside of the university, and certainly are unlikely to earn enough money to cover tuition as well as living expenses—the wages for typical student employment is on the order of $10/hour, and few students work more than about 20 hours per week. (That's approximately $10,000 per year.)


text:
After 3 Years of PhD - problems with University registration - Fight or apply for another PhD
The Main problem is university registration as the process is vital to enroll as a PhD student, so that I can submit my thesis and defend it. Administrative issues here in Germany have prevented me from completing the registration process because I am an overseas student and some issues to do with deadlines.
Some good news are have published three papers as first author in leading journals and written the thesis work as well.
Is it a good idea to dump this registration process and take another PhD or should I apply for industry jobs? Note that I am not committed to staying in academia.

Your question confuses me. Are you asking whether you should give up on your half-written thesis based on what sounds like a formality? If so, the answer is no, but then I am also not sure why you are even asking.

I am still not a student in the University (because of registration issues) after 3 years of PhD program. So can i give up the process and get a job in industry section (without the PhD). Thanks for your help

So you are saying you did not manage to get the registration process done in three years? That does sound serious, but the we will certainly need more information about what the actual problem is (immigration issues, legal issues, lacking support from faculty, etc.) to give advice. Please edit your question accordingly.

What are the administrative issues that prevent you from enrolling as a student?

I don't think this question can be answered without more information.  What has been happening over the last three years (regarding interaction with faculty, having an advisor, status as a student, funding, use of university facilities, etc.) and why?  What do faculty members and administrators at the university say about the prospects of getting a Ph.D.?  Without understanding what's going on here, it's hard to say anything constructive.

I deleted my comments because I'm lost here. OP is in a 'PhD program' but does not have an advisor and is not a registered student, he's not a freelance researcher neither. I have never heard of such a situation although it's apparently not surprising to some.

@Jigg: Being a grad student and being a researcher in Germany are parallel processes; see my response below.

I suppose the OP has posted a confusing message due to not being proficient in English, but he's not aware of it. I vote for close, in this form.

@QuoraFeans: For someone in the German system, the situation can be exactly as described. There's no need to close.

@aeismail: "Administrative issues", "prevented me from completing the registration process", and " some issues to do with deadlines" is not terribly specific. We could imagine many things here. Was he caught plagiarizing from the Internet (like many other German PhD?), has he missed a deadline by several months? This is not a concrete problem the OP is facing, or, at least, he is not explaining his concrete problem.

@QuoraFeans: Administrative procedures in Germany academia are arcane and byzantine, particularly where foreign degrees are involved. More likely than not, some forms weren't submitted on time, and now the department or university is giving him grief about it.

@aeismail: I have no doubt you could be right, but since we don't know exactly what happened, nor whether there is a problem that can be corrected, the question remains meaningless. A future user of the site won't be able to know whether this question applies to his situation. Equally, the advice that you gave, (talking to his advisor) might or might not be the most appropriate. Maybe the relationship with him is already strained, maybe it's not his business, or it's not within his power to solve the problem.

For the benefit of the wider audience, a little background into the German PhD system is in order.

Researchers after the master's level are hired as Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter (researchers, literally "academic personnel"), and work for the individual research groups as half- or full-time employees, with the commensurate salary and benefits.
In parallel, students are expected to register as doctoral students (Zulassung). Such a process will typically involve some classwork for international students, particularly those studying in engineering fields (and those with degrees other than the area they're now studying). One of the forms to be filled out in this process is the Betreuungsbestätigung, which is a commitment by the signer to be the candidate's advisor.

Normally, deadlines are deadlines; however, if there are mitigating circumstances, many departments will allow the advisor to petition for exceptions to be made. Given that you've made good research progress, it would seem reasonable that your advisor would want to ensure that you get your PhD. So, before doing anything else, talk to your advisor.

Your answer makes the question clearer. The first category seems to be some sort of post-master research staff. The second category seems to be a PhD program. In the case of the 1st category, I assume the OP has a supervisor (or similar role). Does he have an advisor in that case? Your answer seems to suggest that he does have an advisor. Would you clarify?

That's done in the second step. See above revision.

If possible try to stick with finishing the PhD. You are almost there.
Try to find some legal advisor to help you with the issues. Some universities may even offer free legal help and have persons acting as ombudsman.
Finding good job opportunities will not be an issue in any case.

The OP is not officially in the student list. I am not sure what finishing the PhD means. If the university does not recognise the OP as a student, how and why would they offer free legal help?

Finishing means writing and defending PhD thesis. At some universities the Law cathedra, in order to give practical work for their students, offers some kind of services to public. This is for free and just to give advices&options that persons in need may pursue further.

@qoobit But it's not clear that OP has actually even started a PhD.  Yeah, he's done some research and published some papers, but that doesn't make him a PhD student.

@JeffE: The OP has clearly been trying to become a PhD student, but somehow the process hasn't gone the way it's supposed to.

'Finding good job opportunities will not be an issue in any case' on what basis can you say this?

I admit, I have no scientific proof but more of personal experience with some of PhD students I know. Positive thinking should help anyway.


text:
How do I compare my thesis research work to commercial products that I can't obtain?
My MSc thesis work in Computer Science involves developing a software solution for a particular problem for which already exist several solutions, in particular commercial software. I know I can't ignore them in my work and have to cite them, but I have no access to them, so I can't perform any comparisons to prove that my work will actually contribute to research in this field, rather than simply being another software program trying to deal with the problem.
What's the best approach in this case?

What does your advisor say about your dilemma?

Some software companies have trial licenses or inexpensive/free licenses for universities. A company might also provide a copy (perhaps for a limited time) for research purposes.

Is it that the commercial software is prohibitively expensive ? If it's relatively cheap you could always ask your advisor to buy a license.

The research domain is delicate (forensics) so it's not so straightforward to obtain a license for this kind of software, furthermore do you really think that they would let a potential "concurrent" to prove that their work can be improved?

Well if it's a commercial product then I assumed it was being sold.

You can try to find collaborators that have the software and could run them for you. You can offer them authorship in exchange to sweeten the deal.

It's my experience that software companies attempt to secure intellectual property rights for their codes in the form of patents. This is especially true in the United States. You could attempt to find information about the subject matter that you are interested in using the publicly available US Patent and Trademark Office portal, PAIR.
A search on a company name - as applicant, or keywords in the title or abstract might get you somewhere. If you are successful, you will not - necessarily - find code. What you might get is an outline of how the patent's subject matter fits into the existing state-of-the-art. In this way, you can map out what these commercial vendors' software does and if your work will extend the subject.

@Guido: if you can show that any given patent does not give full and complete disclosure on how to work the subject matter of the invention, then you can apply to have the patent declared invalid on grounds of insufficiency. See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure
Therefore, by law a patent must provide sufficient information to work the invention, or the patent is invalid. It's the deal an inventor strikes with the state: show the state your clever idea, so that any skilled in the art can replicate it, and you can have 20 years monopoly to work your invention

@GuidoJorg: Thanks for the +1, and I hope we don't tire our readers with these long comments!
Regarding your example of machining parts with low tolerances - if a skilled person would not have considered this a requirement, and the patent didn't clearly indicate this requirement, then the patent could be considered insufficient. The experience doesn't have to be disclosed, you are right. Hence the perennial difficulties of courts to establish "the skilled person" to whom the patent is written.
Another issue is that, in the US at least, if the patent applicant knows of a better way of ...

...working the invention than that disclosed in the patent, then there is a chance the patent will be invalid. There is an obligation in the US to disclose the best mode/practice/evolution of the invention in the patent application. Leaving information out can leave the patent vulnerable.
The "skilled reader" is a legal construct. It isn't a single person, nor can the skilled person be expected necessarily to exist. The skilled reader could be a team, for instance. It's a tricky business, working out sufficiency.

This is the first good consequence of the software patents I have seen.

If you want to shoot high, read their advertisement. If they want people to buy their stuff, they probably say something like Recovered 78% of the data after feeding the hard drive to a white shark. Note that this benchmark will be done in the best possible conditions for their specific algorithms, but will give you a nice high target. If you get anywhere close, awesome! If you beat them, tell them to hire you!
If this is not available, you may email the company and ask them for a benchmark or some sort of quality assurance.
Lastly, to state the obvious: have you tried to search for "[name of the program] benchmark"? Maybe someone with a licence has done it and posted it online or on a research paper.