text:
Where can I find a paper that has been cited multiple times but only ever appears as a citation?
I'm doing an assignment on early warning score (EWS) systems as part of a postgraduate diploma in Medical Technologies.
The progenitor of the system is cited in several papers as Morgan et al.
Morgan, R.J.M., Williams, F. and Wright, M.M., 1997. An early warning scoring system for detecting developing critical illness. Clin Intensive Care, 8(2), p.100.
However, it appears everywhere I look there is no abstract let alone a full text. For example; https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=28251d22-8476-40a6-916d-1a34796816e4
Clin, Intensive Care does not seem to show the contents:
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/icic20/8/2?nav=tocList
My university offers some access to tandf but does not seem to give access to the issue of this journal.
Does anyone know where I can find awkward papers such as the above?

From the title, this sounds like it's asking about "apocryphal papers".  I know at least a few preprints that were regularly cited but never appeared.

You won't be able to find the full text of this particular article because it doesn't exist!
The work was actually a poster presentation at the Intensive Care Society's Spring 1997 meeting. The journal merely reprinted the program and abstracts of the presentation. If you follow the OP's link above to Volume 8, Issue 2 of Clinical Intensive Care, the last entry in the Table of Contents is "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997." That "article" has its own table of contents, one of which was the abstract.
In fact, the journal has a (very small) reproduction of the poster on p. 100.  This one is mostly text, but I imagine that poster reprints weren't slated for digitization since they'd be harder to put into a standard format.

The full table of contents may not show up if your institution doesn't subscribe the journal. However, @SeanJ reports that you can find a link to it under "Related Research -> People also read."

brilliant!  Any chance you could list the methodology as to how you discovered the poster so that I can accept your answer?

Please clarify "slated for digitization".

It's actually right at OP's link. The last entry in the Table of Contents is "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997." That "article" has its own table of contents, one of which was the abstract.

For something as popular as this seems to have been, I would think the author would have fleshed it out for the peer reviewed literature.  I found author RJ Morgan here In defence of early warning scores but on referring to his work he cites the same poster!  I guess they never did write it up.

@RosieF From the era, this was (probably) printed first and digitized later. Consequently, the journal hasn't bothered to make individual abstracts/posters searchable: posters are tricky to OCR and the list of oral presentations isn't that useful a quarter-century later.

@Matt I understand that, but please could you clarify in your answer what you meant by your phrase "slated for digitization".

@Willk - indeed, they haven't written it up, but do show a propensity to write commentary and letters to the editor pointing out that their work should be cited. Pretty lame of them, frankly...

@RosieF slate verb 2: to designate (someone or something) for a specified purpose or action occurring especially at a fixed time

Sorry, @RosieF--I didn't realize you meant the actual word: I meant it in the sense hobbs wrote: picked, chosen, selected, etc.

Ask your librarian. They are really (really) good at finding these articles.
That said, the article you're looking for isn't actually an article. This link indicates it's actually a poster at the Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, 1997. Your best bet might be to check for that conference's proceedings, if there is one, which again is something your librarian will be very able to help with.

Studying remotely but have sent them a request (no response).  Would be nice to know what they do as then I could do it without having to bother them all the time and have waiting delays.

@SeanJ Don't worry about bothering a librarian to do some research - it's their job and it seems that most who do it do it specifically because they love it.

@BryanKrause and others. The life of a librarian would be pretty dull if they never got a challenge. The research librarian at my former employer actually advertised her services to the department.

And one can do a search on the lead author, limiting the time to plus/minus a year or so to see if it got published in some journal eventually.

@Bryan Krause: because they love it --- Maybe I should have been a librarian? See this search and this other search. (Note: The various searches I describe were done without any paywall or library access capability.)

Maybe some librarians love it but so far, I've had no response from the university library.  I've heard good things about them but it doesn't help me if they don't answer my request.  Thanks for the link, really helpful!

@SeanJ if it's only been a few hours, give them some time, especially if you're in different timezones. They could e.g. be waiting for a response themselves (e.g. if they're requesting the document from another library via an interlibrary loan).

Interestingly, Web Of Science yields nothing until 2000,  ANAESTHESIA 55 (4) , pp.391-392, a note that also references the item you list, which is not available on-line through my library services. Quite an interesting situation... See also from 1997 BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA 99 (5) , pp.747-748 which is also a note to the editor again referencing the original item. Odd that they never seem to have written an actual journal article...

Librarians "are really (really) good" period! Librarians make the world go 'round, and reference librarians keep it in orbit around the Sun.

If it is a conference poster, chances are (depending on the conference) that it is not reprinted in the proceedings (although then how come people cite it..). Anyway: if the librarian cannot find a copy, dont hesitate to write to the author if they can send you a copy.

@Allure Fwiw, still no response from the library

In general, for journals that have not been digitized or at least are unavailable in the databases you have access to, you can try to track down a print copy of the journal. For instance, I would search Clinical Intensive Care in your university's library site. If that turns up nothing, run the same search on WorldCat, which will let you see which major libraries have copies of the journal, after which you could visit those libraries' sites to confirm the right volume and issue are accessible.
If you're in the US, your library may also participate in Interlibrary Loan, which would allow them to make a request for materials from another library. Commonly, short articles or excerpts can be scanned and delivered digitally, though actual practice may differ from library to library.
Contacting research librarians (as Allure mentions) is also a good step. No matter what you try, they may have another tool or bit of experience that can help you track a source down.

That is a good approach. I've sometimes found that research librarians at institutions that happen to have the print copy can be very responsive and helpful. And of course, other countries also have various systems in place for requesting materials from other libraries.

You could try to find the authors email, affiliation, ResearchGate, etc (although it may have changed since 1997) and try to email them directly for a copy of the poster (maybe not likely for a 1997 poster) or a copy of the original abstract submitted. Most authors are happy to share this information.
This approach might not work well for something 25 years old, but would be really useful for more recent, similar things that are conference presentations or posters.

This letter-to-the-editor in 2020 by one of the authors includes both email addresses.

docm at blueyonder.co.uk
https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/99/5/747/257789?login=false

This is a good general strategy, and you can also try emailing people who cited the work, if they discussed it in any depth.

Some libraries have a catalog that you can try.
For instance, the university libraries of Germany have a joint catalog, in which your journal can be found. They even have a reference to the electronic version, but they also show which university libraries have which issues on the shelves. Perhaps in Ireland, there is something similar.
If you follow the links, you get the information that page 100 of the issue that your paper is in seems to be part of the article "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997", which tells you why you don't find an abstract -- this is a collection of abstracts, so a single abstract for it would not make sense (or would just say in which context the presentations took place).
If you don't get access through your institution, ask a librarian of the library of your institution. Perhaps you can make a inter-library loan or something like that to obtain the paper.

"this is a collection of abstract(s), so a single abstract for it would not make sense" - The citation is not for the collection of abstracts, it's a citation for a single abstract in the collection. OP would be looking for the text of that abstract; probably the full presentation is not available if this was an abstract for a poster presentation or oral presentation given in person at the conference.

@BryanKrause Exactly, this is why he doesn't find an abstract for "Morgan, R.J.M., Williams, F. and Wright, M.M., 1997. An early warning scoring system for detecting developing critical illness. Clin Intensive Care, 8(2), p.100." - it's a citation to a part of the journal's item.

I suspect we're a bit talking around each other, but... OP doesn't want "an abstract for" "Abstracts – Intensive Care Society Spring Meeting, May 1997", OP wants the abstract "Morgan, R.J.M., Williams, F. and Wright, M.M., 1997. An early warning scoring system for detecting developing critical illness. Clin Intensive Care, 8(2), p.100." - it's still an abstract no matter how it is published.

Ask the authors directly. This letter in the BMJ has two of the authors email addresses. Will an intensivist have a copy of a 25 year old poster in their portfolio? Let us know if you find out!
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1501/rapid-responses


text:
What to do immediately after informing the journal's managing editor that you are withdrawing your paper submission in their journal?
After waiting for 7 months (and counting), I decided to withdraw my paper submission to a particular journal. The reasons are as follows:

The review decision for a particular paper is to be made within six months after they received the paper. However, in my case, it has been 7 months since they acknowledged that they received my paper.
A week before the 6 months of review period, I sent an e-mail to the journal's managing editor about the status of my submission. After 21 days, I did not receive any response. That is why
I sent another e-mail to the journal's managing editor about the status of my submission and I included in the e-mail that If I did not receive any reply for a period of 1 week, I will withdraw my submission.
After 9 days, I still did not receive any reply.

So, I decided to withdraw my paper submission via e-mail.
My questions are: (1) Is my decision correct? (2) What should I do after informing the journal's managing editor that I am withdrawing my paper submission? (3) Shall I wait for the managing editor to acknowledge that he/she received my withdrawal submission e-mail? (4) Shall I submit my paper to another journal?
Your answers Sirs/Mams will be highly appreciated.

What country are the people you're corresponding with from?  There are some big problems in the world right now.

Waiting for them seems like a lost cause. Unless you have signed some release or given them copyright, the paper is yours. You can submit it as you like.
But submitting it minutes after notifying them of a withdrawal might be hasty. A few days wait is suggested. But they don't seem to have a very good record of corresponding with authors.

Thanks Dr. @Buffy for the kind answer. Given that they do not have a very good record of corresponding with authors, about how many days shall I wait before submitting the paper in another journal?

I would think a week would be plenty.But note that these are not normal times. They may actually be totally shut down due to the pandemic.

Thanks again Dr. @Buffy. I will wait for another week. Will also consider the reality that this time is not a normal time.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I mistakenly chose the CC BY 4.0 license on arxiv. Can anyone take my paper and publish it in a journal or conference?
I recently submitted an under-review paper to arxiv. I mistakenly chose CC BY 4.0 as the license. I suddenly found out that I've done that mistake. Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference? Is there any way for changing the license? Would you please guide me on how bad is the situation for me? What are the consequences? I have worked hard on this paper and it is important to me.

Let the answers of Brian and Anyon guide you. Being under review is pretty much a safeguard just because of timing. But take more care in future. You can always apply a more permissive license in the future if you like, so be a bit conservative.

The CC BY 4.0 license exists for any copy which has already been distributed and applies to any future copies made from a copy already licensed. However, you could choose to stop distributing the original under that license. Anyone who already had a copy would still be able to distribute using that license and people getting a copy from those who can trace their possession to the original distribution would have a CC BY 4.0 licensed copy (and could further distribute), but people getting a new copy from you could be under a different license, if you choose to use a different license.

Just change the license if possible. Doesn't remedy the damage already done from a legal perspective, but don't forget that the number of people able to prove there was a cc4.0 license is probably rather small.

How did you choose the license “mistakenly”? Which license did you intend to choose, and why?

I recently released some semi-academic work under a CC-0 license. I have no expectations of publishing it, so it's somewhat different, but on one hand, anyone could probably legally rewrite it and depend on the idea-expression distinction to protect them from copyright claims, and on the other, academic rules are independent of copyright; proper citation is expected even if no literal copying is involved. And as always bad actors don't care about legal niceties anyway.

@Makyen They do not have to trace their distribution.The CC-BY-4.0 license grants everyone a license to the material, period (see section 2a1). That license applies to anyone who receives the material that the license applies to (see section 2a5A). There is no requirement that you prove some continuous stream -- if you received the material somehow, you receive the license.

@DavidSchwartz You're reading that too expansively. That is for "Downstream recipients". While that heading may, or may not, be legally binding, the intent is clear that the license only applies to copies made from content which validly has that license applied. If the author chooses to no longer distribute copies under a specific license, people don't get to just pick a prior license to apply to the new copies. OTOH, they can get a copy from someone who already has a valid copy.

If there really is concern, the author can change the content to make the new distribution a derivative work. I'd note that prior to distributing the work under a different license it would be desirable anyway to change the work in some way which is not that noticeable, but which is clearly identifiable, as that change will make it clear in the future when looking at copy as to which license applies. If the situation ever ends up in litigation, such a difference could be used to eliminate someone's false claim that they were distributing the CC BY 4.0 licensed version.

@Makyen "the intent is clear that the license only applies to copies made from content which validly has that license applied". That's correct, but means the opposite of what you think it means. If a license validly applies to some particular elements of creative expression that are protected by copyright, then every copy of those elements is a copy made from content which validly has that license applied. The license applies to the content, not the copy. It pretty much has to be this way because only the copyright holder can provide the license.

@DavidSchwartz For the same work, a copyright holder is perfectly capable of giving license A to one person/group and license C to another person/group. That license C says that those holding a copy licensed under C can also distribute copies to other people under license C doesn't magically make every single copy in existence be under license C. The only ones which are under license C are those that were originally distributed under license C or the downstream recipients. Someone holding a copy under license C must actually distribute it for there to be another copy licensed under license C.

@Makyen Nope, that's not true. Once you offer some protectable elements under a CC-BY-4.0 license, those elements are offered under that license forever for anyone to take advantage of. Once the license is applied to a protected element, it's irrevocably applied and nobody needs to prove that they have some special entitlement to the license. Works are licensed, not copies of works. And sure a person can distribute a copy and also give the holder of that copy some particular license. But that's not how open source licenses work under US law.

@DavidSchwartz That's not how licensing works, which is fundamentally a contract between the author the recipient of a copy. While we agree on some portions, your view on this is too expansive, and doesn't fit what's written in the license, nor fit how licensing works in general. We're not going to come to agreement within a short discussion. This is not the place to have a long discussion. However, prior to relying on the expansive view you have for anything which might cost you substantial money if you're wrong, I strongly recommend you consult a lawyer who specializes in this area of law.

@Makyen I consult IP attorneys regularly and deal with IP issues all the time. They've informed me that US law does not allow a third party to relicense something and that the licenses exclusively come from the copyright holder and legally provide a license to the protected elements themselves, not copies or works.

I suggest it very clearly is obvious why this was Posted in Academia, yet it would better off in SE Law…

Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference?

They'd need to attribute the paper to you.  Most journals will only accept papers written by the person who is submitting the paper.

Can a journal publish my paper on its own?

Yes.  You already gave permission to do so.  A legitimate journal probably won't do so.
Possibly a predatory journal might do so if they wanted to pad their journal.

Is there any way for changing the license?

Effectively, the answer is no.  The CC BY 4.0 license is irrevocable.  If you release the paper under a different license, people can just take the copy they received under CC BY 4.0 and distribute that.

What are the consequences?

Anyone can take your paper and publish it wherever they want, even if you don't provide individual permission.  However, they will have to cite you.  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ provides an overview of these permissions.

How bad is the situation for me?

It's not that bad for you.  CC BY 4.0 still requires attribution.  Unless you're trying to make money selling your paper, there's usually no reason to care if people freely distribute your paper.  Of course, many journals will refuse to publish a CC BY 4.0 paper (e.g., because they sell access to the paper or because they want an exclusive license).
Edit to add more details in reply to comments

Is it legal for someone to publish my paper without asking for explicit permission?

Yes.  Anyone is free to "redistribute the material in any medium or format." Mind you, they still have to attribute the work to you.

Can they do so without contacting me?

Yes.

Someone I dislike published my work.  Do I have any recourse?

Not usually.  Many licenses, including CC-BY 4.0 are specifically designed to prevent authors from having recourse, except if the license terms were violated.

Why would someone design a license that blocks authors from exercising control over how their work is used?

By disclaiming control over your work, licensees are protected from rogue licensors who later retract permission.  Similarly, licensees can spread the work without working with the licensee.  Licensors wishing to spread their work as widely as possible may wish to avoid placing any barriers on distribution of their work.

This answer led to an interesting conversation; let us continue in chat.

For the "Is there any way for changing the license?," the answer here only applies with respect to existing copies. You are certainly within your rights to switch to a different license for any further copies that you distribute. That won't affect the rights of people already in possession of the paper (nor of the people they directly or indirectly distribute to,) but it will affect the rights of anyone to whom you distribute in the future (and those to whom they distribute.)

@reirab: That has already been heavily discussed both in comments on the original question and in chat.

The license mainly affects legal rights, not academic ethics.  Codes and conventions of academic ethics provide (generally) clear guidelines on who can submit papers for publication, what authorship attribution is required, and so on.  Reputable journals have their own submission policies that confirm this; a typical policy might say that the submission must be made with consent of all authors.  A CC licence may give me the right to “remix” your paper and distribute a derivative work with (or even without) attribution — but if I want to submit it to that journal, you are still an author, and so the policy still requires your credit and consent.  All this would still hold even if you’d put your paper entirely in the public domain.
So within reputable academia, no, the license doesn’t allow anyone else to publish your paper, or do anything out of the ordinary.
The main effects are (as noted in other answers):

It reduces your legal protections against some kinds of plagiarism.  Anyone publishing your paper as their own is still committing severe academic misconduct (so if they’re at a reputable institution, or it’s a reputable journal, you can still report them for it), but it may not be the same legal violation it usually would be.

Some journals may not be willing to publish your paper, for several reasons: they expect to get certain exclusive rights (e.g. commercial distribution); and they need the legal rights to enforce these.

CC BY 4.0 does NOT give you the right to distribute a derivative work without attribution.  Nor does it give you the right to share the original work without attribution.

@Brian: I don’t mean to suggest it does!  My point is that even if the paper had been released under more permissive licences than CC-BY, it’s still subject to normal academic ethics and policies.

Anybody attempting to publish your paper under their name would be committing plagiarism and breaking the license agreement. Anybody submitting your paper under your name would be committing some sort of misconduct, and possibly worse if they sign paperwork. No serious journal or conference would want to deal with either scenario, so I wouldn't worry about what third-parties might do. More realistically, a publisher might (or might not) frown on this license choice, see this question as well as this one. The license (on that version of the preprint!) is irrevocable, but with open access or a publisher that's OK with that license it shouldn't matter.

I don't think it's academic misconduct to submit OP's paper under OP's name, so long as the submitter doesn't pretend to be OP.  Mind you, most journals only accept papers submitted by their authors.

@Anyon So you think I shouldn't be worried? Is there any way to change it?

@user137927 As far as I'm aware, there is no way to change the license. It is supposed to be irrevocable. Having picked this license shouldn't stop you from publishing - but may, at worst, limit the possible venues. No reasonable venue would publish your work without the involvement of (at least one of the) authors, so I wouldn't be particularly worried. Note that some preprint sites (e.g. Preprints.org) post all preprints under a CC-BY license, and I've yet to hear about that causing problems related to the license (besides potentially limiting the venues willing to publish the work).

@Anyon Thanks for your reply. Can I withdraw it and submit it again?

This must be some very special paper!

@user137927 I wouldn't recommend it, since it may look bad to your peers. Assuming your preprint has posted already, withdrawing wouldn't do much to alleviate your concerns anyway, since previous versions can still be retrieved. Besides, I suspect arXiv might consider license choice to be an inappropriate reason for withdrawal.

@Aruralreader What do you mean?

@Anyon Thanks for your reply and help

Regarding the revocability, there might be a chance if you have co-authors or already signed some copyright transfer to a journal and thus don't have full copyright. In that case the CC license might never have been valid as you would not be able to grant it without their consent. Keep in mind though, that arguing in this direction could open you up to legal trouble. E.g. if someone takes your paper and publishes it (because they think they have the license) and gets sued (because the license was invalid), then they might come after you for damages.

Good answer, but the advice in the second link is seriously outdated. Journals have come a long way since 2013 regarding the acceptance of preprints. This shouldn't be an issue for most reputable journals nowadays.

@user137927 What do you mean? the VAST majority of academic papers are read by a couple people and promptly forgotten about.

Can anyone publish my paper in a journal or conference?

As mentioned in the other answers, they could, with attribution.  But they probably will not because it is not profitable.

Is there any way for changing the license?

As mentioned in the other answers, no, the license cannot be revoked.

Would you please guide me on how bad is the situation for me?

This is a good situation.  You have made it easy for people to access and cite your paper.

What are the consequences?

Most likely the consequences will be exactly the same as if you had selected any of the other ArXiv licenses; a few people will download and read your work on ArXiv.  Probably nobody will use the extra rights granted by the license you selected.

I will not repeat the points raised in other answers (I especially find Brian's answer excellent), though I will summarize: you cannot revoke an irrevocable licence; but no legitimate journal would let anyone get away with plagiarizing your article.
However, there are at least two important points that were sometimes mentioned (e.g., by PLL), but deserve more focus.
First, some journals require an exclusive copyright assignment in order to publish your work with them. So, check the copyright assignment policy of the journal that is currently reviewing your work. (Just ask the editor in chief or editorial assistant for it.) If the journal requires exclusive copyright assignment, then this is incompatible with CC-BY. You would not be able to sign such a copyright assignment statement. That said, there are ways to explain the situation to the journal and get a custom copyright assignment statement that allows non-exclusive publishing, but that would be a little bit complicated.
Second, although no legitimate journal would let someone get away with plagiarizing your work, there are lots of illegitimate journals that might publish your work right away without asking you further (which is perfectly legal under CC-BY). Hopefully, that does not happen, but before eventual publication of your work, you should do a search on Google Scholar just to make sure. (One nice thing is that, as far as I know, Google Scholar does not index predatory journals, so even if someone does this, it should be invisible to the Web and so should not affect you negatively.)

Get in Touch with Your University's Legal Counsel
All of the other answers explain what would happen as a consequence of licensing a paper under a Creative Commons license, which is fair and certainly worth knowing. To me, though, this is a legal question, not an academic question. The question is, can you actually offer a work under a license unintentionally? Since this is work you intend to publish — and especially if it's grant-funded work, which may come with its own set of requirements — you (and your advisor if you're a grad student) should probably get in contact with your university's legal counsel.
Contracts
Up front: I am not a lawyer. This is just my understanding from a few years publishing in academia, and many more in the US software industry dealing with licenses.
In the US, at least, it's not exactly clear whether licenses probably considered contracts. I found an article from LWN about four other (software) licenses that were researched by an expert. Their conclusion was

In short, under US law, with the possible exception of the Fair License, all the licenses under consideration are likely to be regarded as contracts.
— https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/

In those cases, it was the fact that the licenses contained restrictions, requirements, and disclaimers that moved them beyond “bare licenses” into contracts. All Creative Commons licenses definitely contain restrictions and requirements (e.g., the requirement for attribution). The CC-BY-4.0 license itself contains language alluding to this possibility.

To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
— https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

This is important, because in the US it's difficult to “accidentally” enter into a contract. It requires a meeting of the minds — the intention and understanding of both parties. Only a legal expert can tell you whether this requirement was satisfied in this case.
Other Parties
Additionally, as I alluded to above, you may not even have the right to license your work under a Creative Commons license. If your work is funded by a grant, you may have already assigned some rights to another party. If you have co-authors, they have rights too, as might your university (who may be your employer depending on your situation).

Given that open access mandates are becoming increasingly common, I think it's very unlikely that a funding agency would restrict its grantees from publishing under the most common license for open access publications.

@Anyon I tried my best to be vague, because we don't know what requirements the OP may be under (if any). My point was more that these are all potential complications that must be considered, and which may affect the outcome.

It's not an answer to your question but an idea:
After review, you will likely make some corrections to your paper and publish version 2. Publish version 2 under a different license.
In that way, anyone who wants to make use of your paper will probably prefer to use the revised version 2 which will be licensed less permissively.

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


text:
Unethical procedure in methods
I am currently reviewing a paper for a journal and there's a section in the 'Methods' that may raise a questionable ethical concern on animal handling. The paper has a potential contribution to the field, however, there's this procedure that harms the animal in the study. I am thinking of rejecting the paper and raise a correspondence with the authors. Will the rejection decision a good decision for the paper?

It's animal collection/inventory research. I agree I should communicate with the editor with this concern.

Typically, there is an ethics votum. At least a reference to it is typically checked before the review. As far as I know, ethic committee votum is not sent out to the reviewers. But of course you can raise this concern to an editor in a separate field of the review that is not sent to the authors.

If there's no "ethic statement" in the article, it might not even be publishable (journals have standards concerning that)...Communicating with the editor is clearly the answer

If there is an ethics violation (which there may or may not be), the paper should not be published regardless of how useful the results might be.

Lots of research harms animals in some way but is still deemed to be ethical... from your question it is very unclear whether the researchers did something unethical from the perspective of the broader scientific community, or whether it is only you who would object for the purposes given. Can you please comment on whether their work was reviewed by an ethics committee?

You said, "MAY raise a questionable ethical concern". So, you might possibly misunderstand what they did, perhaps because they might have explained things poorly. I think that you should give the authors the benefit of doubt and let them defend themselves: recommend a major revision, acknowledging the potential value of their study, but make it clear that you insist that they document that they have followed ethical procedures in the method of concern. If they cannot provide satisfactory evidence of ethical methods, then you would be justified to reject the article for ethical problems.
And, as many other comments indicate, you should clearly explain your concerns to the editor.

The paper should indicate that the procedure was approved by the appropriate animal care committee (e.g. in the USA, an IACUC), Failure to include this information, in my opinion, is a major concern and grounds for strongly recommending rejection of the paper.
If the paper does indicate that an IACUC was involved, then it's reasonable to assume that the procedure was probably ethical, but it's fine to indicate concern and ask for an explanation for (1) why this procedure was chosen, and (2) what steps were taken to alleviate pain etc. That can still be a major concern, but on first pass I'd stop short of "strongly recommending rejection". If the authors didn't address my concerns then I would recommend rejection.
The key question is whether an animal care committee approved the procedure. If so, the likelihood is that it's considered acceptable by many people; of course, you don't have to agree and you can include that.  When I was a student, one of my mentors rejected a grant application because he felt the discomfort and stress the animals would feel (even though they were IACUC-approved) wasn't justified by the potential benefits of the study. I've always considered this a model for my own reviews; animal studies come with a very high responsibility for ethical use, and it's fine to make sure your values are heard.

I think peer reviewers should feel free to speak up if they think the ethics committee is wrong.

I'd like more details. I applaud a reviewer speaking up despite (assumed) IACUC approval but I've never heard of this before. Rejecting an otherwise meritorious paper based on animal care/use may be a hard sell.

I love this question because it's so hard to answer. So I'll give two contrasting points.
1) Assuming the authors had approval from their respective animal care and use committee (IACUC) and followed all protocol, I do not think you should reject the paper on ethical grounds. As a reviewer at this phase, you should judge the merit of the science only. The onus resides with governing bodies (e.g., USDA).
2) Regardless of IACUC approval, if you identify potential unnecessary harm/distress otherwise avoidable given the research aim, it is your duty to reject on ethical grounds, since IACUC need not be an unopposed body.
Both points have merit, but my opinion lies closer to #1. If the authors followed protocol, your beef is not with the authors necessarily but with the governing body approving it.

As a reviewer, your role is to give recommendations to the editor, and it is generally not appropriate to have a direct communication with the authors outside of that process (unless they consent to that through the editorial process).  However, I disagree with other answers here which preclude you from making your own decision on the ethics, and giving a recommendation on this basis.  Here are some further thoughts:

The onus is on the authors to show their ethics: In cases where an experiment has been performed that should require ethics approval, it is appropriate for the paper (or supporting materials) to disclose the required ethics clearance details so that you can review this.  If the authors have not done this, it is reasonable for you to proceed on the assumed basis that there has been no ethics clearance.  You should state in your review that you are proceeding on this basis.  Similarly, if the authors fail to give a clear enough explanation of the study to satisfy you, you should feel free to proceed with a negative recommendation as a result.  I do not agree with the other answer here that says you should "give them the benefit of the doubt".  The onus is on the authors to give all required information to satisfy the referees; it is not the job of the referees to guess what else might not have been supplied.
You need not defer to an ethics clearance: Even if an ethics clearance were to be supplied to you, I don't agree that you necessarily need to defer to this.  Obviously it is something you should read and consider as part of your review, but the point of the peer-review system is to allow the referees to exercise independent judgment on the work under submission.  If you form the conclusion that the experiment was unethical and the results should not be published, this is a recommendation you can legitimately make to the editor.
Don't depart from the review process: The editor will have the final decision on the matter; if your recommendation diverges from the findings of an ethics clearance, it is up to the editor to decide how to proceed.  At the end of the day, the reputational risk lies on the journal, so the editor needs to take your recommendation seriously.  I don't think it is appropriate for you to go further than this by contacting the authors.  If you recommend against publication, and it is published anyway (either in that journal or another) then you can always write a "letter to the editor" raising this complaint.
Get more information if you need it: If you feel that there is insufficient information on the ethics for you to recommend publication, but you would like to give an opportunity for the authors to supply more information, feel free to recommend a revise-and-resubmit asking for further details on the ethics, including more details on the experiment and clearance process.

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


text:
Dispute over co-authorship of paper and ownership of concepts and code
I am in a bit of a bind. With institutional background, I've managed to formalize a novel way of approaching a problem. It is not really a groundbreaking thing, but it works, and I've only seen it as a high-level idea in blogposts so far. I have spent a year on this, wrote the whole code, and wrote a technical paper of 6 pages on my own.
Recently an otherwise not-involved academia professional from another institution offered his help in this project. We have a formal relationship with one of his coworkers, and we were grateful for his advice and help. He made three significant contributions (other than brainstorming, talking issues through):

Uncovered a code error, which improved the results marginally, but was an objectively faulty line - my bad understanding of how a specific method worked.
Added a feature which I didn't do on my own, because it was recommended us at an open workshop and he simply was faster in pushing the commit.
He reformatted the code in a way which is more professional, but not better in any way and not useful at all for our purposes (notebook-like structure with markdown).

These took him probably 2-3 hours at the very most. No one asked him for these contributions, he did it on his own.
My boss decided that he will absolutely not be the second author, this is my work, at least 99.9%. Even before his inclusion the paper was in a publishable state. However I have no clear answer whether his contributions to the code are his intellectual properties. The only thing I can agree with is Item 1 from the list above, as I missed that completely when writing code. Item 2 is a thing I didn't have the option to work on as he was faster and I had other things to attend to. Item 3 is irrelevant, I will not use the code in that version and structure.
He is relaying to us that he will not "allow" (that doesn't mean a thing in real life) the publishing with his contributions. But the only clear contribution he made was Item 1. My questions to you:
Am I right in thinking he does not own concepts, especially ones which came from a 3rd party as a recommendation?
Should I leave out his correction, rewrite it to achieve the same in a different manner, or just leave it in and don't care?
What do you think about the whole situation?

How is your boss involved in this?

@Buffy he has the final word as head of the department.

'he will not "allow" (that doesn't mean a thing in real life) the publishing with his contributions.'   What exactly do you mean? He won't allow it to be published with his contributions included, regardless of whether or not he is listed as a co-author? It is not clear.

Your first two questions seem to be about points 1 and 2, but in reverse order. Could you make these two questions clearer, so we can see what part of his contributions they are referring to?

It seems to me that you could prepare a version of the paper that doesn't use contributions 2 and 3 from the other person, but you need to do something about 1; you shouldn't try to publish something that you know i wrong.  The question is then: how important is the correction in 1? If it's minor, you'd probably just give an acknowledgment, like "I thank X for pointing out an error in the original version of the code Y and suggesting a correction."  If it's major, then X would have to be a coauthor (and then you might as well include 2 and 3).

First, you don't "own" concepts or ideas. They aren't "property". You are due recognition for discovering them and you can copyright things you write based on them. You don't really "own" code, either, though it is normally subject to copyright, which is a limited right to prevent others from exploiting it by republishing it (or some things closely related to it).
Second, the "time" spent on a work is immaterial to the value of the contribution. A few minutes of conversation can break the dam holding back essential insights. The work might not have been possible without that insight.
You have two options, I think. One is to publish your own work, not including contributions of the other person. In some fields this might be possible or not, (insights, again). The other is to include the work of the other person and credit them appropriately, probably with authorship in this case. This is based on your first two points. The third is a more mechanical (less creative) task in most cases.
Your boss seems to have a "time in the saddle" view of the worth of things. It is hard to fight an adamant boss, so you may just be left with publishing the version you had before the other person got involved. Publishing their work, even as part of yours, is plagiarism.
Well, a third option is just to bury the work, but that isn't really necessary.

Note that copyright law is written in such a way as to encourage extensions to published material. Patent law does the same, but in a different way. Both give limited (time and scope) to creators, but work to prevent the inhibition of further creation.
One sort of IP is "trade secrets" and there are something like ownership rights in these. But it really only applies if they are "stolen" in some formal sense through industrial espionage. Independent development is still possible.


text:
Contacting Faculty While Applying For PhD programmes

Possible Duplicate:
Contacting professors for PhD vacancies

I will be applying for PhD programs (particularly TCS) for Fall, 2013. Should I personally try contact advisors for this purpose? At some universities, there are multiple faculties whom I want to work with. If I don't contact them then am I at a disadvantage? What should I write about if I should contact them? Any other advice is appreciable.
I am sorry if this sounds a stupid question or not a real question but since many of the users are here themselves faculty and PhD students, I thought it to be the best place to ask this question.

If you contact faculty, do so as a professional colleague, not as a prospective employee.

The answer to this question depends on local traditions. When applying for graduate schools, there is no need for contacting faculty. If, on the other hand, you apply in Germany for a more traditional doctorand position (those are employees) there is no way but contacting the respective faculty.

I am in the process of applying as well, and was wondering: if I intend to apply to 10 schools in the USA, and I email 2-3 profs at each school, won't I be emailing 20-30 people?!

@legendre - Yup.

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


text:
Finding a research group where I can work remotely?
I've not seen this question before, so I'll ask it after feedback I received on this question.
I've finished my MBA in the UK and was awarded distinction but would like to find a research group to work with. I'm no longer in the UK (or even Europe) and would like to find a research group with which I could work on a telecommuting / remote basis.
My goal here is not for income (though it's OK if it led to some). My goal is to build my research experience with the thought of pursuing a PhD (business / intercultural management / something in that general area). My MBA didn't result in a lot of research guidance  for me so I feel like there are so many things that I don't know and I want to 'fix' that.
Any ideas how someone can find a research group who would be interested in working with someone remotely for free (obviously there is a time and attention commitment from both sides, which is not exactly free)?

There are several online networks for research, perhaps you can find groups through them. For example Project Nudge and ResearchGate. Can't post more links or I will be mistaken for a spambot. But search the web for research networks.

Engage with researchers on G+, Twitter, and blogs. Ask for preprints and provide helpful comments.

If you haven't research experience, you might not fully know what's a helpful comment.

@SanderHeinsalu: have you found anything good on ResearchGate? Up to now, most active discussions I've seen are from people outside the research community (down, in the worst-case, to crackpots). I've never seen a good research proposal there.

It is actually of mutual interest, but really hard to find an opportunity. Although, you are offering your time for free, group leaders are reluctant to take this risk to leave their research somewhere that they do not have direct (everyday) control. Note that you should work on a research project currently funded at that research group. In other words, the group leader should complete that project in the corresponding timeframe. Thus, too conservative to put the project completion at risk in favor of having a researcher free of charge.
Sorry for this negative answer, but IMO (maybe others have better approaches), the only possibility is to directly contacting some research groups and negotiating about this possibility. Remember that the judgement will be merely based on your experience and potentials. Once again, IMO, the only chance is if the group leader can find your profession useful for a part of the project, which is not critically sensitive.
Conclusion: there is no system for this, you need to convince the group leader personally.
Note: Another solution can be finding an independent researcher like yourself for starting a personally funded research project, but I think this is not what you are looking for.

Are you referring to this answer on how to gain research experience after a masters? That changes things.
That answer suggests to do menial work for some research group. That's one of the few things where people might care less about you being remote, as long as you do the job — after all, they'd likely try to get students to do it. Especially if you can get (with some luck) to coauthor a publication, but that's often hard to discuss upfront.
But is that relevant? I'd disagree with the poster there. But you should ask a professor in your field — possibly one you'd want to apply for; a bit like this other answer suggested. If they think this experience might count, then go ahead.
If you don't have research experience, it's hard for you to know how to approach research. That's what you're supposed to learn in a PhD (or to a little extent in a research master).
If you're not followed often enough by a supervisor, I believe you're unlikely to learn enough research skills.
I'd probably recommend some book like "The Craft of Research" to get started; the problem is, there's tons of stuff you can only learn from a good supervisor.


text:
How to gain research experience after master program?
I just finished an MBA in the UK. It included a research dissertation (about 18,000 words) and a research methods module and adviser to go with it. However, my adviser made it clear during my research that it was my project and my responsibility and not his. It was clear that he was happy to mark my dissertation but didn't want to be bothered by actually helping me to learn much about research.
In the end, I did the research on my own and got distinction on the paper, which I was happy about. However, now I'm thinking more and more about pursuing a PhD, perhaps in intercultural management, and I feel like a highly respectable school would not consider me because I do not have much research experience.
So, my question is: What can I do  to gain research experience, now that I've finished my MBA, with an eye towards getting into a good school for a PhD?
As I have read, publications will help a lot but I feel like I don't have the experience to do the kind of research to get into a good publications. I really think I need to build my research skills...and would like to know how to do that.
Another related problems is when doing business research (I get the feeling most people here are from the science/math side of academia) is gaining access to companies (to gather data) and I'm not sure how to do that without an adviser.
I have read this, this, and this question but I think my question is different from each of them.

I am only familiar with the UK system, but here are some points about getting research experience in the UK.
1) Find a supervisor for your PhD.
A lot of UK departments prefer to admit PhD students who has found a faculty member who is willing to supervise and has a research proposal written together with that member. If doing a PhD in the UK is part of your goal, you could start by looking at departments/people you want to work with and contact them as a prospective student.
Some patience is required as they might not be looking to supervise a student at the moment. But I have found that most are willing to give prospective students a research project to work on before admissions or while working on the proposal. In fact, all those who were willing to supervise me ended up offering me a research project.
2) "Cold calling" for projects.
You might find that some professors, lecturers, postdocs or research fellows etc are very happy to have students with the experience to work on their projects. You can try emailing people with a very short version of your academic CV, asking for research opportunities. I have successfully gotten projects this way too.
3) Official Internships/Studentships.
Some UK universities have official internships or studentships for someone to work on a research project for 3-6 months. These may not be advertised so you need to do point 1) and 2) or simply ask. I have successfully gotten these before and they were willing to at least help pay the rent (400-500 pounds I think) or given you a token sum. I cannot be more precise about the pay because I turned down the payment in order to keep my part time job. Do note that getting paid or being in an official position will come with the requirement/expectation that you report to work daily and stay in the office for some minimum number of hours.
4) General advice.
Academics are incredibly busy people, especially famous tenured professors. Also, they might have a steady stream of students to work with. I think I was quite lucky to get around 30-40% respond rate when emailing people asking for research experience. Most of them are because I am asking as a prospective student. So please do not be too disappointed that people don't get back to you. And don't spend all your time trying to get just 1-2 famous faculty to give you research opportunities.
You should be prepared to travel and meet them, paying for all the travel fees yourself. You should also not talk about reimbursement/payment first. In my humble opinion, you need to be prepared to work on a project for free, making it clear that you want the experience on your CV and a possible paper. Then, they might arrange for payment for you. It is your responsibility to show that you are serious and trustworthy and not a waste of their precious time.
I think it helps a lot (with regards to funding) if you are from the EU as funding in the UK is usually restricted to EU citizens.
I hope this helps.

+1 to Nr 1: The first thing you need is someone to take you under their wing, in order to begin "fixing" your lack of publishing/research experience (although, if you get a "distinction" in your presentation, you might not need that much of a fix, since they don't "give out" such achievements to everyone).

I would also like to add that generally, "going solo" and trying to do publishable work by yourself is not likely to succeed. Although it could be an interesting learning experience on why going solo is bad (I spent around 1 month trying, failed miserably, and learned a lot).

@Legendre Excellent. Thanks! I had considered going solo but I'm looking for a little guidance/mentoring/someone to bounce ideas off of, etc.

This is not an immediately short term solution and would require some time:
Try to get in touch with a professor who does what you like to do for your Phd. Like here clearly explain your situation. If you get a response continue the discussion, you might be offered to go and visit the lab or if after a couple of exchanges you feel it’s the right time offer to go and see them.
Try to see if you can do some work for them part-time. If they say day don’t have money etc. if you can offer a day or two of part-time unpaid if it works for you from home/weekend etc. If you get lucky they might offer you paid work if they get money later. From the beginning discuss publications and research experience and hopefully over time you can get a paper or two under your belt and get recommendation letter as well.
Who knows they might offer you a Phd position after some time as well if you work well together. We have done this before and in fact this happens a lot. Someone with a master does some paid or unpaid work and if we are happy with him or her and money comes in later we will get in touch and ask if they are interested. Now that I think about it is quite common with many of the PhD students we have.

When you try to get in touch with professors, do not mass email them - personalized emails specific to their research projects shows that you have done your homework and you indeed are interested in their research work.

@TheresaLiao thanks for highlighting that! That should always be assumed as a given... when I see generic emails alarms automatically go off!

Correctly personalized emails might make people care (addressing PhD students as professors in an otherwise non-personal email, not so much). Non-personalized ones are not as bad as random YouTube comments, but still won't get attention.

I feel like a highly respectable school would not consider me because
  I do not have much research experience

In terms of research experience, there is a big difference between much and none. Most grad schools I know of are wary of applicants with no research experience, but do not go so far as to require "much". Yes, more is generally better, but some is often enough. I would generally classify an MBA with a research dissertation as being enough to be considered, especially one awarded distinction.
The best way to get more experience is to volunteer in a research group. Most research groups need someone to do data entry/analysis and general lackey work. You need to be prepared to enter as low man on the totem pole and do some boring tasks to get access to better tasks. Even boring and menial tasks in a research group can be good experience.

Good point. Can you tell me how I could find a research group remotely? That is, if I am looking to join a group in country X but currently live in country Y, how could I do that?

@Sam that sounds like a new question (although you should check to see if it has been asked before).

Thanks for the idea. I've just posted it here.

If your MBA dissertation had some scientific method to validate the research results, then leverage that in your PhD application. Try to publish the results on your own in a peer-reviewed conference or workshop. To me, lack of that kind of culture is the big risk when taking on a non-research master's student for a PhD.
Research methodology courses are mandatory for research master's students at my university, and PhD supervisors can force PhD candidates to take this course if they didn't get it elsewhere. There are some decent textbooks on the subject. See if you could audit such a course someplace. However, to make up for the experience of a research master's, you will need to focus the methodology on a specific area of expertise (few textbooks do a good job explaining this, and it's where a supervisor is crucial in my opinion). From your original question, it almost sounds like you did this already, but with little guidance.


text:
Which kind of article could be "more suitable for a journal than for a conference"?
Which kind of article could be "more suitable for a journal than for a conference"?
I just received a very curious rejection from a conference in Computer Science, where the second referee argues that:

I remain not convinced that it is very suitable for a conference.  (...)
  I still believe it is solid work, suitable for a journal, but probably too specialized and too technical for a conference such as (...).

Beyond my own judgment (this article builds upon results published in general journals publishing the same types of results than this conference), the statement that the article is "too specialized and too technical" seems contradicted by the comments from the two other referees (who both judged the paper to be relevant to the conference):

Referee 1 find everything "certainly understandable" and "clearly written", which does not sound "specialized" nor "technical":

The work, while not spectacular, is very solid and worthy of presentation at STACS. The problems are certainly understandable to all, and the methods are interesting.
  The paper is clearly written and I have very few editorial comments.

Referee 3 finds the results "clearly described" to the point of potentially "incremental" (but still acceptable):

The paper is well organized, some algorithms are clearly described, and some proofs are given.
  I am far from an expert, but the result seems interesting. Maybe they could be considered incremental, but that is to be expected for such an longly studied topic.

I have seen many papers presented at conferences without ever passing the threshold to be published in a journal, and I read on Glencora Borradaile's blog (here) how she found easier sometimes to submit directly to a journal (which we will do for these results), but I had never heard of results deemed more appropriate for a journal than for a conference.

It sounds like the reviewer is trying to say "I don't think a conference audience would want to attend a talk on this paper." (Another reason why a paper might be deemed more suitable for journal publication, but probably not applicable in your case: if it needs more pages than the conference page limit allows in order to fully address everything that needs to be addressed.)

Is there any chance that in the statement "probably too specialized and too technical for a conference such as (...)", the key point is the part that you replaced with an ellipsis? In other words, that your particular article does not match the level of technical detail that is usual in that particular conference? Maybe the conference focuses on users aspects or (seeing that it seems to be a theory-oriented venue) mathematical proofs, while you (also) described implementation details at length? Or, as a related case, might it be that the reviewer thinks the implementation details should ...

... be complemented with a mathematical proof, but including both implementation and proof details would exceed the conference's page limit, whereas you typically have more space in a journal?

@O.R.Mapper: this is subjective of course, but I don't think so: I know well the conference (STACS, to be precise) and the results published in it (I studied and cited several in my past work), and the results on which this work is based has been published in journals (e.g. JDA, TCS) publishing results on similar problems and at similar levels of details.

Alternatively, of course, that phrasing might be a "polite" manner of saying the paper still needs to go through a number of revisions before it can be accepted (more revisions than would be possible for a conference, whereas a journal could keep the paper more or less indefinitely in a "conditionally accepted with medium revisions" state) ;)

@ff524 and O.R.Mapper: good point about the length of the paper. I did not think about it as I usually combine a submission to a conference with a publication on arxiv (or, before that, to a technical report), where the conference submission is the "pedagogical" version while the tecnical report is, as it's name implies, the "technical part", unlimited in lenght.

@O.R.Mapper: I doubt that Referee 2 could argue that the "paper" needs more revisions: the two other referees state that "The paper is clearly written and I have very few editorial comments." and that "The paper is well organized".

@Jeremy: Reviewers can have vastly different opinions about a paper. I have received sets of reviews where one reviewer opted for a strong acceptance, and another one for a strong rejection. That's one reason why more than one reviewer are assigned to each submission in conferences.

@O.R.Mapper: Yes, I have seen such gaps between reviewers opinion as a program committee member: we usually try to reduce the largest ones by scaling. Contradicting arguments are another issue, but I get what you mean.

In computer science, journals are sometimes seen as a venue for papers that are not interesting enough for a conference. I disagree, but many people take that view. It sounds like the reviewers think that way.

While both types of venues generally use the same assessment criteria for submissions -- novelty, technical soundness, technical depth, clarity of the description --, the weighting of these criteria  differs a bit between conferences and journals.
This is the case because conferences have three distinguishing features: (i) a page limit, (ii) a shorter (or at least more predictable) review cycle,  and (iii) immediate feedback through discussion with an informed audience. Each of these features contributes to an increased importance of the criterion "novelty" and a decreased importance of "technical depth".
The fact that Reviewers 1 and 3 have used the words "not spectacular" and "maybe incremental" indicates that the reviewers were not convinced of a sufficient level of novelty.


text:
Should I be truthful about graduate school rejections?
Suppose a student applies to a few good graduate programmes, but for some reasons, gains an admit in one great school and rejects in a couple of equally good ones. How necessary is it for the student to be truthful about his rejects? There are a couple of circumstances that arise here:

The student is invited to an interview at a school, where he is asked about his applications and decisions. Is it okay to lie that the results are pending? Or that he has been offered admits at a couple of places? It is likely that the student will face a dilemma if he feels the other decisions may affect this one as well.
Is it vital to be truthful at the graduate school you have joined? Is there any mutual communication between administrative sections of all top colleges, which may leave bluffing in bad taste?

What is the advantage in trying to bluff the school you are planning to join? As in what possible incentive do you have to lie to them?

Why lie?  It's perfectly acceptable to say "I'd rather not tell you."

As someone involved in graduate admissions decisions, I can say unequivocally that knowing a student has been denied admission at another program does not negatively influence my admissions decisions.  I have all of the application materials from the student, and (assuming the applicant is strong) the decision is sufficiently important that I will certainly look at and evaluate all those materials.  The decision of another school is not a useful indicator of whether I should admit you.
Indeed, if you tell me you have an offer from another top program, I might even be more cautious about offering you admission.  Why?  If I make all my initial offers to students who end up going to other schools, then I have to go back and dig through the applications and find the ones that didn't already accept an offer, which by that time will be lower quality applicants.  I know of one program where this happened last year and they resolved to make more strong offers to the second tier of (still quite strong) applicants this year.

I agree with this.  A program which is not at the very top of its field will, if anything, be more likely to admit a candidate that they feel is strong upon learning that they have been rejected by a top program.  Our goal is to get students who are just or nearly as good as those that go to top programs, and a student who gets admitted to a top program will probably go there.

On the other hand, if I am doing admissions at a very top program, then I am not looking around to see what the other programs are doing.  Harvard doesn't think twice about someone because they got rejected by Princeton; they have the utmost confidence in their own evaluations.

Personally, I make it a point not to ask about alternate schools and programs that a candidate might be applying to in addition to my group. In this way, there is no bias on my part. If the candidate freely offers that information, I will of course take it into consideration, but I have not solicited it, and therefore there should be no compulsion on the part of the candidate to admit to things, one way or the other.
That said, it's not in general a good idea to lie openly to academic institutions. As several other respondees have pointed out, it can be easily caught—particularly if you're in a small field. Moreover, there have been a number of high-profile cases in recent years of academics losing their jobs over misrepresentations of their credentials. So anything that even hints at dishonesty can get you into trouble. (Moreover, many schools do have an "ethics" clause in their admissions policies—and intentionally lying, either in the application or during interviews or a visit, can be construed in some cases as sufficient to lead to a retraction of an offer of admission!)

You should be truthful in all your professional endeavors.  Lying is unethical and unprofessional behavior which could be grounds for dismissal or worse.  I say this as a blanket statement and stand by it, but obviously ethical standards and practices vary across different careers and walks of life.  In academia, the feeling that lying is unethical bordering on repugnant is very strong.  One should avoid it at all costs.
The fact that you use the word "bluffing" is slightly distressing and shows that you may not yet have internalized the ethics of academia.  Bluffing is something you do in poker.  More generally, it is a game theoretic strategy designed to minimize information given to one's opponent.  Saying that you've been accepted by a program when you have not been -- or, especially, when you have been rejected there -- is not bluffing, it's lying.
People who feel strongly that lying is unethical also well understand that you are not obligated to give full information just because it is asked for.  In some social situations an innocuous lie is more acceptable than a refusal to answer a question, but academia is not one of them.  If someone asks you for information about your applications to other programs and you have any concerns that it may not be to your advantage to give out this information, simply say something like, "I'm sorry, but I'm really not comfortable discussing that right now."  As above, sometimes it feels impolite not to answer a question, so it is worth practicing a bit so as to be able to do it in a relatively graceful way.
As for the question of whether different academic programs communicate with each other enough to make it a realistic chance that someone lying in this way will be caught out: absolutely yes.  Academic circles are small, are populated by the same people for years and years on end, and almost invariably tend to contain at least a few people who are ridiculously -- almost preternaturally -- in the know about all kinds of personnel decisions.

One goes to graduate school to work in a field or with a certain researcher. That person, accordingly should have specific enough goals before applying that tweaking a scattershot approach shouldn't apply. In the extreme, you are trying to get into only one place and so the focus is more on developing a relationship with the "target" there.
That said, at least I have found my self in similar situations. As to bluffing. I think the best advice, if you feel the admissions officers are plumbing for advice is to say that you haven't found out yet. The advantage to bluffing is that it makes you look better inasmuch as one school will want another school's candidates.

I strongly disagree with your first paragraph.  In any given subfield, there are dozens of strong departments, and lots of successful PhD students change subfields after they start.  It's perfectly okay to not know what you want to do before you've even been deeply exposed to anything.

I agree with JeffE: the first paragraph is quite different from my experience, and those of many of my peers. I had absolutely no idea for whom I'd work as a grad student, beyond knowing that I wanted to do theory and simulation, not experiments. Many students are similar—it's unlikely that they know "the one" whom they want to work for before they even begin applying.

@JeffE, aeismail: Thanks for your comments and it does seem that we disagree. Perhaps we're talking about different aspects of the elephant. Like you two I had no idea where I'd wind up working. I think, if one can, it helps to have a directed approach perhaps building on an undergraduate experience. On the other hand, committing to a lab based on how it looks on paper can set up someone for a rude awakening.

Nobody's saying work based on just what's written on a web site or reputation alone. You should have a sense of what you're doing, and why you're going to work for someone (or go to a particular school). An undergrad experience could tell you that you like research, but not in a particular field. That's perfectly okay (and that's how I realized I wanted to go to grad school!)


text:
Are faculty salaries negotiable?
Are faculty salaries negotiable in general? Wherever they are negotiable, how could applicants gain insights about the statistics of offers or the extent of safe negotiation?

See: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28/academic-salaries-at-european-universities for some information about European salaries.

Here in Italy, everything is negotiable (in one way or another). That's another reason why we are where we are...

Almost everything is negotiable to some extent.  When I got a job offer, I decided that salary was my top priority in negotiating, because it was a recurring benefit, rather than a one-time benefit.  Startup money is nice, but when it's gone, it's gone, and that's it.  One key is how you ask.  I amassed statistics on why I thought I was worth more.  Then I never mentioned any of them.  I simply asked if it would be possible.  I think I asked for about 5% more than what they first offered me.  When they said yes, I wondered if I should have asked for more. :|

@Avio that is not my experience. Salaries for faculty positions in public universities are not negotiable at all in Italy. Are you referring to something else.

This entire answer is US-centric, since I have no clue how other countries work. This is not to say that I know the US system that well - but rather that it's the only system I know at all.
Public universities work differently from private universities. Public universities usually have pay scales and these are often public since professors are considered state employees (yes, my salary is public knowledge). So you can start digging around there. Usually there's a range within which you can hope to negotiate: moving out of that range is beyond even the power of the university to authorize.
Private universities usually have more flexibility and it might be harder to get the range of salaries. But if you get an offer you can ask around to get a sense of the ballpark.
As for what a reasonable range is, getting data is very discipline-specific. For CS, the CRA puts out stats fairly regularly and there's the Taulbee survey. For other disciplines, there might be something similar.
Salaries in academia at least at tenure-track level are less flexible in general. Probably the best way to get to the top of the permissible range is to have another offer. Other than that it's hard. Often, the things that are most easily negotiated are other parts of the startup package. Which is not to say that you shouldn't negotiate salary - but unlike in industry, it's less likely to be as beneficial.

Private universities usually have more flexibility and it might be harder to get the range of salaries — But you can mine comparable ranges from public institutions (like mine and Suresh's).  Salaries at public and private universities are not that different.  (In fact, when I was on the job market n years ago, salaries at public schools tended to be slightly higher.)

Also, I agree that public universities often have pay scales, but I'm not sure about usually.  Mine doesn't.

As Suresh pointed out it is easier to negotiate other parts of startup package. One of my professors (from Princeton) pointed out that you can expect/ask for something like (to name a few) funding to support 2-3 graduate students for at least two years, funding to set up your lab, funding for initial research project, funding to attend international conferences/meetings with sponsors. Also some universities pay varies based on number of courses you teach.

This answer applies to Belgium, or perhaps just Flanders.
Academics are public servants, so the pay scales are fixed. The only thing that is flexible is where on the scale you start. This is then based on the number of years of relevant experience, which is often counted as the number of years after your masters. They will probably apply some tricks to bump it down a notch or two, while appearing generous. No room for negotiation, though.

Same system in France.

Basically the same in Germany, too.

I don't think we are public servants in the UK, but the union has negotiated a fixed scale so it is basically the same.

@Dave: Does the fixed pay scale vary across departments?

@DanielE.Shub: Same question: is this department specific? And is it area-specific? Surely the pay in a remote area of UK may be a pittance to a faculty member residing in London?

@Bravo: As far as I know this is at least fixed across all departments, but it could be across all of Flanders.

Same in Italy. What you can negotiate with the rest of the department are teaching loads (but you need to have a good reason to convince your colleagues to reduce it).

@aeismail I think in Germany this is not the same, not even basically. It is the same for everybody below faculty level, but for faculty level the only thing which is fixed is the base salary. But the base salary is really a base salary and it is not intended to be what most of the faculty really gets. Any faculty member who does a good job can and should negotiate about a bonus. Many universities even have a standard procedure to regularly negotiate salaries.

This answer applies to Australia.
Base pay rates are set by a Federal "Award" which fundamentally covers all academics working in Australia.  An employer and employee can privately negotiate an above award wage or condition, but this is never done (employer resistance).
Most academics are covered by a site specific Enterprise Bargaining Agreement negotiated by the union (NTEU) and the employer.  This sets graded minimums based on the career phase of the academic, and covers all kinds of academic labour from casual tutor through to professor (a terminal, demonstrated high research output position with field leadership responsibilities).  The persons not covered under this are management.  The employer is generally unwilling to negotiate variations except for professors and management.  Each pay rank has an internal series of steps (Lecturer step 1, step 2, step 3, etc.) representing increases in income based on years of service.
While academics of all disciplines are paid the same at the same grade, the Enterprise Bargaining Agreements vary from site to site, so academics at one University in Melbourne will be paid less than another in Canberra but more than another in Sydney.

Good answer. I'd add that the equivalent to negotiating a salary in Australia is negotiating a starting position/level  or negotiating promotions. So for example, if you get a job offer as a Senior Lecturer, it may be possible to negotiate starting at a higher increment or in other cases, there may be opportunity to negotiate to get support for the move from for example senior lecturer to associate professor.

Here is an answer for Germany.
In Germany there are three different types of professor salaries: W1, W2 and W3 (unfortunately there is no English Wikipedia site...).
For W2 and W3 the salary is negotiable. In fact, the base salaries have been lowered when the W-system has been introduced (some 10 year ago or so) but there is now the opportunity to have variable bonuses. These bonuses can be obtained by various means and the precise procedure varies from state to state and even from university to university. Basically, one needs to show that one is a high performer, for example in research (having big grants, a lot of publications,...) or in teaching. Moreover, there is a raise for extensive service (e.g. for being the dean). You can expect a raise for sure if you get an external offer for a position which is at least equally good. I think that there are statistics about the average bonus a W2 or W3 professor gets but I can't find one right now. I am not aware of an upper bound for the total bonus and I think the bonus can get higher than 50% of the base salary.
For W1 professors (junior professors) the situation is different. Basically there are no bonuses but there can be exceptions. One needs to show different things and especially that the position could not be filled otherwise. Moreover, the maximum bonus is at 10%.

In the UK/England, the scale is fixed. There is a "London allowance" which, again is fixed, that I believe is not counted as salary for tax and pension purposes. Your salary increases ~2.5% for each point on the scale you move up.
Each university sets the starting point at which they appoint lecturers (assistant prof equivalent) as well as the maximum point you can progress to without promotion. There is some variation in this range across universities, but within a university it is fixed. I think most universities/departments appoint new lecturers at a 2 points above the bottom of the scale. Sometimes you can negotiate to move up another point or two.

however, at least in some UK universities you can be awarded an additional increment on the scale (effectively a minor promotion), and there are "discretionary" points above the normal top of the scale.

@DikranMarsupial yes, however, I think the question is focused on the starting salary and not the negotiating an annual raise.

yes, I just thought it worth mentioning that the rate at which you move up the scale isn't fixed, which to an extent reduces the importance of negotiating at the start.

As I understand it in the UK lecturers, senior lecturers and readers are paid as you describe but professors get to negotiate their salary

@PeterGreen you are correct. I will try and edit that I'm when I get a chance.

"London allowance" is taxable, I don't know how the pension system works.

The Academic Careers Observatory may be a helpful resource, especially for the European countries.
For example, their information on the Finnish salary system is fairly accurate: there is a non-negotiable fixed base salary level that depends on your job title, but on top of that there is up to 46% extra that is determined based on your personal performance (i.e., there is a lot of room for negotiation, at least if you can show that you are actually doing your job exceptionally well).

This answer applies to Canada.
There is generally a fixed pay scale in Canada. But you can always try to negotiate and sometimes it works.  Especially, if someone moves from a faculty position to another university and the salary would be lower, then that person should negotiate to keep at least the same salary (the salary should not decrease). Besides, some top level professors may  negotiate to get application for a research chair or that the university also hire their husband/spouse at the same university. This has been done in some cases.   You can also negotiate to try to get a permanent position, etc.

First: Yes, salaries are negotiable.
The specifics of how much you can negotiate for will depend on a lot of things including flexibility on the institutions end and the amount of leverage you have in the negotiation (e.g., Do you have other offers? what else are you asking for? etc).
Ask around for details on other offers.  I've seen folks on the Academic Jobs Wiki sharing details about offers and startup packages to give folks an idea of what is possible to negotiate for. Professional organizations will often publish these statistics as well.
One useful data point: Many public schools, at least in the US, are subject to public record laws. I know of people who downloaded the full database of salaries from public universities they had offers from, created the subset all the people with the title of the job they were offered, and used those data as a way of getting a sense of the range they could negotiate for.
One piece of advice I got early on was useful: If you are never told "no," you didn't ask for enough. So don't be afraid to ask. Of course, always be deeply respectful in the process and keep in mind their own limits and abilities. Your negotiating partners are your future colleagues and a good working environment is worth more than whatever you hope to gain in a rough back and forth over a few thousand bucks.


text:
Is there a rule or style guide on use of gender-specific pronouns in academic papers?
Some authors use "her" whenever they employ a pronoun referring to a noun whose gender is immaterial to the discussion.
Is there any rule (university or journal or conference-specific) which dictates this? Is it good practice to stick to the same pronoun throughout a paper? Or is it better to get rid of the issue by using the gender-neutral 'one'?

Isn't it a question for http://english.stackexchange.com/?

It has indeed come up on english.SE, and is off-topic here. Universities typically include this sort of thing in their Style Guide.

No, I do think this is something specific to the academia, rather than to English in general. The question clearly asks if this is university or journal or conference-specific, and this can't be answered by people at english.SE.

The short answer is no.  Most authors would ignore such a prescription if someone tried to impose it.  (And I've never noticed that pattern among MIT authors; it must be a field-specific thing.)

@PiotrMigdal: If this were a question of what standard practice is in general written English, yes, it would be a question for English.SE. However, when it applies to academic writing, it becomes appropriate for Academia.SE.

I went to MIT and am doubt it has a style guide.  There was a sensitivity among many people to gender bias in computer science when I was there.  I agree with @aeismail's answer.

well here's one MIT style guide on gender-neutral language: http://web.mit.edu/comdor/editguide/style-matters/gender_neutral.html

The reason for using "her" more frequently nowadays is to correct an ongoing imbalance: in general, for a long time, "his" has been used, even where a more neutral pronoun ("one") should have been used instead.
Grammatically, however, any of the recipes you suggest would be appropriate: it is only the matter of the particular taste of the author. I would recommend, though, that when using both "he" and "she," that you use one consistently throughout a particular usage. Don't write "she/her" in one sentence, and then "he/his" in the one after. A few paragraphs later won't be a problem, though.
The reason "one" is not nearly as popular is that it is somewhat awkward-sounding; too many "one" and "one's" in the same sentence makes it feel too stiff and impersonal. (It's a bit of a catch-22, I know, but that's the way it is!)
One other option that you did not mention, though, may be the simplest route of all: simply use collective plural pronouns: use "they," "their," and "theirs." It gives you the benefit of including everybody, without having to contort your writing to do so.
(I would also comment that some books go out of their way to be gender-neutral, particularly through the use of "gender-neutral" names: Chris, Sam, Pat, Jean, and so on.)

I would add to your excellent answer that one reason for using feminine pronouns is not just a historical imbalance but that even now most papers that use a singular pronoun still use masculine pronouns.  Perhaps the question should have been why most papers use exclusively masculine pronouns, not why a few use exclusively feminine.

@espertus: Thanks for your comment. I've changed "historical" to "ongoing" to account for this.

Some authors alternate sexes between chapters or sections in an attempt to sound more gender balanced.
While "they" has historically been the correct pronoun to use when sex is unknown or irrelevant, some grammarians took offence to the usage of "they" as it is also a plural pronoun while he/she/it are singular.

Does "historically" mean that, at some time before 1960 or so, people usually (or at least frequently) used "they" as a singular pronoun of unspecified gender? If that's what you meant, I'd like to see a source for that information, as I hadn't heard it before.

@AndreasBlass Not specifically in academic writing, but singular 'they' has a long attested history: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100184652/if-someone-tells-you-singular-they-is-wrong-please-do-tell-them-to-get-stuffed/


text:
How to describe a program written by the author?
If we build a setup at the lab, we describe it as home-built when we write the paper. What is the correct word to describe a program written by the author? The program has not been published and there is no intention to do so.

Would home-built not also be suitable?

Alternatively, maybe custom?

Utilizing proprietary software we.....

@scrappedcola Proprietary typically describes the ownership of the IP. You could have non-proprietary software you developed yourself, and proprietary software which someone else developed.

prototype is the term I usually use for that

@FábioDias Prototype would imply that the software was in an early, potentially unfinished, form. Nothing the OP has said suggests this is the case. More importantly, prototype also says nothing about who wrote the software.

@Ian_Fin 'proprietary' seems very accurate in this regard, as "has not been published and there is no intention to do so" matches sole ownership of IP and not distributing it freely. Other than that, "in-house software" seems to be used more often than "home-built" which carries connotations of something developed outside the lab/company at your own home.

"in-house" program is the term I always use myself and see in other people's papers.
In the corporate context, Wikipedia defines it as

In-house software is a software that is produced by a corporate entity for purpose of using it within the organization.

Here's an example in an academic context

Energy minimization is done with yammp, an in-house molecular mechanics package.

Here's another example from academia

All analyses were done with a battery of in-house codes and external analytical tools.

I wouldn't say "in-house" strictly means "the source code is private". I have sometimes seen people use "in-house" to mean "code our own research group wrote and uses, but which we also make available as open-source code". But if I see a sentence in an article like "All analysis was performed using in-house code", and no reference, then I read it as "We used some code we wrote ourselves which we haven't published anywhere", which sounds like what you want.


text:
Does observational data need further proof?
Within fields like animal behavior, data is often collected through observation of the subjects, either in the wild or captivity.

Can a paper be published purely based on observational data, with no evidence in video or audio to support it?
If so, could one (in theory) generate an entirely fictional dataset of observations as basis for a publication? Or do other mechanisms exist to prevent this kind of fraud from happening?
Are there examples of publications, in animal behavior or other fields, being exposed for generating completely fictional datasets? If so, which?

Can a paper be published purely based on observational data, with no evidence in video or audio to support it? Maybe search the literature. If so, could one (in theory) generate an entirely fictional dataset of observations as basis for a publication? Yes, that follows immediately from your premise. Are there examples of publications, in animal behavior or other fields, being exposed for generating completely fictional datasets? Yes, such examples exist.

Even video/audio might not be sufficient proof. Assume that Observation X was made 10 times when Y was present. However, the author deleted the 90 cases where Observation X was NOT observed when Y was present.

You should take a research methods class. It will teach you how best to make observations so that they are scientifically valid. Such a class will also teach you what the standard is for publishing data, and what kind of corroboration is necessary.

Some of these comments are really answers.

Wikipedia has a (no doubt partial) list of scientific misconduct incidents.  Some of these are just plagiarism cases, but many involve falsification and/or selective presentation of data.

In many experimental fields, it is possible to "generate" a plausible amount of data and get away with it (i.e. publish the data and the conclusions in a peer reviewed journal).
Experiments need to be repeated independently. Otherwise, all sorts of things happen. Real fraud is probably the lowest number. Much more important are cases in which experiments are done without enough care or statistical methods are used in a questionable way.