text:
Can version control protect students against allegations of ChatGPT use?
There is a Guardian article about the dilemma when there has been possible use on generative AI to create student essays.  It presents it as a hard problem for students to prove they really authored a document, and for educators to decide who to punish.
Version control is ubiquitous in the software world and can be used to demonstrate authorship in academic writing.  I am most familiar with git, and a git repository of a document creation process, with commits on save and pushed to a university controlled server or github/bitbucket a few times would seem to provide ample evidence that the document was created by a human.  Other options may be less refined but I know google docs has much if not all of the required functionality and I would assume that the cloud based version of Microsoft Office has something similar.
Would a student ensuring they had such evidence available protect them against such allegations?  Would university rules or recommendations for students to do so help to combat cheating?

At my University (UK), while any final decision on plagiarism/academic dishonesty is made on a case-by-case basis after looking through all the facts and evidence, what you describe is usually the best form of evidence the students can provide.
(Typical cases in which this might help so far were when a student would work on a lab machine and leave their solutions open without logging out properly. Then, somebody else would come along and opportunistically copy their solution. Usually, this is about programming assignments, but it does not have to be).
A history of older file versions, with the timestamps, showing how your work was created, and especially if it doesn't otherwise contradict your narrative, would most likely be more than sufficient to disprove any academic offences allegations.
While I acknowledge the issue mentioned by Vladhagen, that ChatGPT could just as easily produce an early, 'draft' version, and several refined version, as it could the final submission, I would argue that this is more effort than most students attempting to use ChatGPT typically spend on their assessments. If all the five versions were updated at the same time (or with e.g. 30 mins between them), it would actually point to foul play: normally revising self-written text takes some time. So, to make it look realistic but still use ChatGPT, the person attempting to cheat would need to have substantial delays (1-2 days) between their repeated uploads.
While it's not perfect, and could be manipulated in many ways, again, I doubt many students who decided to use ChatGPT to cheat would actually put that much effort into the assignment (because, at that point, you might as well try to do the assignment instead). It probably won't be a trustworthy piece of evidence in e.g. a court of law, but it will likely go a long way to disprove allegations of academic dishonesty in the academic circles (in fact, academics seem to be considering it to disprove allegations of using ChatGPT in their 'essays', i.e. papers).

I do not see how VC helps student prove their authorship over the papers, at all.
Sure, it will dissuade people from pasting entire essays generated by GPT, but what is stopping people from incrementally writing essays from GPT? "Hey chatGPT, help me write an introduction for XYZ topic" is all it takes.
Furthermore, this is also unfair to people from a non software background, as VC is almost exclusively only used in software engineering. Git (and its variants) is not something that is very easy to understand, and can be messed up quite easily to someone that is inexperienced. It only takes a couple commands for someone to erase remote history. This is something that can happen even to seasoned engineers, imagine what would happen in the hands of a bunch of humanity majors that never touched a CLI terminal in their life.
Finally, and this is probably my biggest gripe with using VC as evidence of contribution, is the mere fact that sometime people just forget to make regular commit. For context, I am a professional Software Engineer with nearly a decade of experience, working with people that have 20+ years of experience, in a multi-billion dollar tech company. Almost all of us, when raising PRs, would have a huge "initial commit". Almost no one would actually have so called "incremental commits" because guess what, it provides next to no value and it is really annoying to have to type a minimum of 3 commands every 5 minutes. If we don't do it, then how can you expect a bunch of (presumably non tech) University students to maintain a pristine habit of having regular commits without fail?
Oh, and not to mention that git histories can be easily faked. this is a funny prank tool that demonstrates how unreliable git histories can be.
All in all I think forcing people to use Git just to write essays is a pretty horrible idea, and I guess just the concept in general is not really effective, for reasons I outlined. If you must use this approach, I highly recommend (for the sanity of your students) that you just stick with Google docs. It basically offers the subset of functionality that git offers which is relevant to you.

If ChatGPT could be used to complete a full essay, could it not also be used to complete a series of versions of the essay? This might take a bit more work I guess, but it still would be much easier to generate five gradually improving versions of my essay with ChatGPT. And, the reality is that students have been using the Internet and computers to make their work lighter for decades now.
Using version control platforms like GitHub to combat generative AI in student essays written using ChatGPT could be challenging and might not be the most effective approach for several definable reasons:

Dynamic and Adaptive Nature: ChatGPT's responses can be tailored to various prompts, making each essay unique. Unlike traditional text where direct copying can be detected, the dynamic nature of AI-generated text might make it harder to identify plagiarism using version control alone. Again, if ChatGPT can make one essay, it can write five progressive essays pretty much just as well. I do this myself, where I use ChatGPT to write me some boiler-plate code, then have ChatGPT progressively improve that code. (Which does at least require some human in the loop knowledge I guess).

Lack of Direct Copy-Paste: Students might not directly copy and paste responses from ChatGPT into their essays. Instead, they might use the generated content as inspiration or rephrase it in their own words, making it harder to detect through simple text comparison. This undermines the Turnitin type detectors.

Complexity of Content: GitHub and similar version control platforms are primarily designed for managing software development projects, not for analyzing the textual content of essays. Adapting these platforms to analyze and detect plagiarism in essays would require significant development effort and might not yield accurate results (e.g. like Turnitin). Moreover, making each student provide version controlled essays creates more work for the students not using ChatGPT, more work for those grading the work, and not much more work for those already relying on ChatGPT to do all the work.

Privacy Concerns: Students might have concerns about privacy and the security of their essays being stored on public platforms like GitHub. It could also raise issues regarding the ownership and sharing of their academic work.

Instead of relying solely on version control platforms, educational institutions should employ a combination of strategies to combat plagiarism and generative content, including:

Assignment Design: Designing assignments that require critical thinking, analysis, and personal interpretation, making it harder for students to rely solely on AI-generated content. This might look like giving students assignments to analyze content created by ChatGPT. Suppose we handed students a packet of 10 essays on the importance of Jane Austen. Ask them to critique each essay. Some of them might be generative AI text. That could be a curious assignment and it might be harder for ChatGPT to address that assignment without some work on the end of the student.
Individualized Assessments: Implementing assessments that require students to demonstrate their understanding and apply concepts in unique ways, reducing the likelihood of plagiarism.

I don't think point #4 is relevant. There's absolutely no requirement to involve GitHub or any other similar public service. Git does not equal GitHub, a Git repository is just a directory containing files. Any existing university system capable of storing files can store Git repositories. So instead of telling students to send/upload a PDF of their essay, you just ask them to send/upload a ZIP archive with the Git repo of their essay.

University professors should agree you are asking the wrong question.  Use of ChatGPT and the like is ubiquitous, and professors know its capabilities.  Additionally, there is really no way for students to prove their work is 100% original unless it is done completely and entirely in view of university staff [edit: there is no "commercially viable" way.  Professors will not watch hours-long screenshots of one student completing an assignment, at least not in traditional higher education; even this omits the possibility of cell phone use].  In fact, university staff might develop a policy in which students who go far out of their way to request authentication of their work must develop a fool-proof methodology which does so.
In any sense, version control might help students assess their writing and argument-creation process, but it does not offer hope of originality verification, like some other software try.

And videos can also be generated. So you'd have to be physically present or have a carefully-designed monitoring system.


text:
Most important factors when selecting grad program?
When selecting grad programs, is PI fit the most important factor?
I'm a prospective PhD student in the biological sciences and I need to choose between two programs. I'm struggling to prioritize the most important factors to guide the decision.
Program A has the best fit location both geographically and also in terms of the lab environment (new, clean, natural light). It also has the best fit as far as faculty, lab group size, and the vibe/values of the department. However the PI is a hot mess, and seems to be very disorganized. His students are jaded and they shared with me that he has dropped the ball on important things more than once. I am a very disciplined and organized person, and I struggle to work with others who don't have it together, especially when that person is my boss.
Program B has a very organized and on the ball PI who would be a great fit in terms of both mentorship and working style. However, the geographic location is an awful fit for me and the lab environment is grim (think leaky, isolated, dark, etc). There also aren't as many faculty who align with my research interests. This option does come with better access to resources and has slightly better funding, though.
Can a good mentor outweigh the rest? Or, conversely, can a great location and department outweigh the frustrations of working with a mentor who needs to be managed by their students?

Possible duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/66926/ive-been-admitted-to-multiple-phd-programs-how-should-i-choose-between-them

I think it's too dependent on your personal values to say which factors are most important or how exactly to weight them against each other, but I think that canonical question will help to gather some different things you should be considering.

Are their other potentially interesting (and interested) PIs at those schools? Or are you accepted into a specific group, not just a department?

There are more questions here complaining about bad advisors than about bad facilities. Beware.

@JonCuster program A has more faculty I could see myself happy working with if things fell through with the PI there, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, but in my field you are accepted to the lab rather than the program and your advisor is relatively fixed from the beginning.

@BryanKrause I hear what you're saying. Thanks for sharing the other thread to look at.

I agree this decision will be down to the particulars of your particular situation. But, I suspect the key factor will be exactly what kind of things the bad PI has dropped the ball on. If the PI is well-meaning and responds well to being repeatedly prodded, then a certain personality type may work well with him. Whereas if the PI is hostile and non-responsive, that's a different matter.

It is always a difficult choice as nothing is perfect.
I usually recommend to put priority on research topics and overall group atmosphere.
Sometimes people accept a bad or toxic atmosphere because of the standing of the group or the university, or the research topic. This is a personal choice, which I understand, but this is not for everybody. Some people will handle well, while some others will break down. You will also need to ask yourself if you would like a hands-on or a hands-off PI. This is important.
PI are not perfect, in general. I only met a handful of perfect PIs that would combine dedication, availability, reliability, helpfulness, and fairness, all together. If you can find someone that has two or three of those traits, then go for it. It will make your life much easier. A PhD is not easy, there is no need for more obstacle or difficulties.
In my opinion, geographical location should not be an obstacle. If you really like the PI and the research projects, then you should seriously consider this option. Of course, as you have not mentioned the location, it is difficult to say anything specific but it is also possible that the place really is a problem. Note also that a great location will not make your work PhD life easier. If you hate your work, you hate your work, regardless where you live.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can we upload an unfinished paper of theoretical nature to arXiv where the theory has been established, but illustrations are still to be added?
I'm writing a short (say around 7-10 page long) article on theoretical machine learning and I've established the main theoretical result with a complete mathematical proof. I've also written the other parts - the abstract, introduction, acknowledgements and bibliography. However, some computer simulations still need to be added.
I'm thinking of uploading the paper onto arXiv  for my ongoing academic application purposes, so that potential employers can study the paper. I know an obvious question for it, being a machine learning paper, will be "Where are some illustrations?" So for the moment, if I remark in my paper along the line of "Illustrations are still to be added" and then finally add it to arXiv, will it be academically/professionally harmful for me?
The reason I want to add this instead of finishing it all the way is that currently I'm working on a different project and I feel it'd take me a while to go back to the abovementioned one, yet I'd like for the new employer to notice the result therein.
Q2: same question where only part of the theory has been established (albeit for a different paper).
Thank you!

It certainly looks much more professional if all your papers on arXiv are finished (i.e. are in a state that you would submit to a journal).

‘ I know an obvious question for it, being a machine learning paper, will be “Where are some illustrations?” ’ — yeah that's a bit of an understatement! You might in fact say, ‘in the machine learning community, nobody gives a damn about theory / proofs that don't come with some example results on real data’.

How is that about Academia, rather than the technical details of ArXiV, please?

@RobbieGoodwin It's obviously about academia, it's not like arxiv will block a paper uploaded without images in it.

I suspect the relative merits of different approaches depends on discipline and maybe geography, but in my area (interdisciplinary with applied mathematics and business most prominent, North America), a preprint, on ArXiV or elsewhere, should be essentially complete within the scope the authors have chosen for it to have. So you could upload a preprint which just doesn't discuss those areas of your research you have not had time to complete, and which does not have all illustrations you might ideally want for the best possible exposition. A preprint may well end up significantly rewritten and expanded as part of a journal's peer review process, and it is only slightly disingenuous if you know fully well you're actually going to do that soon anyway.
However, importantly, your preprint should be complete enough you believe in good faith it could be publishable somewhere as-is, even if you are aiming for something better. We're not talking about a missing methododology or results section, or text that references still-nonexistent crucial figures or tables, in a way that can't be edited out without affecting the completeness of the paper.
If there are significant gaps which make this approach inappropriate, you have a work-in-progress draft, not a preprint yet. There is nothing precluding you from thoughtfully sharing that with colleagues, by email or even by say posting on your website, with all the pluses or minuses that entails. So if you want potential employers to have access, why not refer to it as work-in-progress or working draft and put a link to it stored on your research website for now?
Of course, in this case, you won't get credit for it as a "completed publication". But it is an option if it is unfinished but still interesting.

Such papers can certainly be accepted by the arXiv system (which does include some very minimal "refereeing" by volunteers, but only at the approve/disapprove level if not also for changing the listing for example from "general physics" to "chemical physics").
However it is frowned upon to submit incomplete work on arXiv. It is also terribly inconvenient for people who have printed and read your paper, only to find that it is significantly different from the final version of the paper.
Conlusion: You can do it, but it's better to be patient and submit a quality product that you're comfortable keeping up permanently (then make changes only in the hopefully rare event that you later spot a typo or error that needs to be corrected).
If you still want the material to be publicly available without the above problem, you can always post it in a GitHub repository, or Academia.edu or Mendeley, or ResearchGate, or elsewhere. This question from just 2 days ago is also related: Pre-print service like Arxiv but with private option, so I can correct my mistakes without publicly advertising my mistakes?.

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


text:
Post-tenure move: Reference letter from institution to which I'm applying
I'm a tenured faculty member and am applying for a lateral, mid-career move at University of X. Unlike a normal search that would be handled by a department, it is for a prestigious research position and the search is thus being handled by University X's Office of the Provost. They'll shortlist candidates and then the successful candidates will end up essentially as bonus positions for departments.
My question thus has to do with using a reference for a position at University of X from a professor at University of X.
I have been a long-time collaborator with a full professor at University of X. They often write me reference letters for fellowships, awards, nominations, etc. Normally, this colleague would write me a letter.
But, I am applying to work at his university! Given it is a lateral move, would it be weird to draw on a reference from this collaborator when applying to the University of X? On the one hand, it would be an opportunity to highlight the great fit I might bring to several faculties at this university. On the other hand, they might be seen as having a vested interest as a new line for their department would be, well, a new line.

Is this professor at X reasonably savvy?  If so, then I would expect that they would know how the local politics would play out better than strangers on the Internet.

Fair point, @AlexanderWoo - my sense with this question is that there are enough 'unwritten rules' out there, esp. in an interdisciplinary environment, that it's worth scoping these things out.

A letter written by someone the reader knows is likely to be more credible than a letter written by someone unknown.  So it makes sense to get a letter from someone at X when you know the reader will be at X.

they might be seen as having a vested interest

Most letter writers have an interest in the success of the person they are recommending.  A writer who works at X will have additional knowledge of the interests of the whole university, which could result in a more useful letter.

would it be weird to draw on a reference from this collaborator when applying to the University of X?

No.

Sorry, I don't see an issue for you. If you ask for a letter they might say no, of course, and they might want to game a new position (of course), but that is out of your hands. Letters from collaborators are a good thing, especially if they are also well respected academics.
Ask, and see what happens. If anyone thinks there are ethical or other issues, they aren't on you.
Or at least ask them for advice on whether a letter from them would be good or not.

Unlike a normal search that would be handled by a department, it is
for a prestigious research position and the search is thus being
handled by University X's Office of the Provost.

First of all, since your username is "Canadian Humanist" I thought I might point out that it's not unusual for a Canadian university to handle faculty applications through the Provost or VP Research Office, even for some entry-level assistant professor positions, for example University of Ottawa does this, but at University of Victoria, even Canada Research Chair positions are processed through the department.

They'll shortlist candidates and then the successful candidates will end up essentially
as bonus positions for departments.

Usually the departments are involved quite closely in the process, even for the most prestigious positions such as Canada 150 Research Chairs, which often involve several million dollars of start-up funding.

My question thus has to do with using a reference for a position at
University of X from a professor at University of X.
I have been a long-time collaborator with a full professor at
University of X. They often write me reference letters for
fellowships, awards, nominations, etc. Normally, this colleague would
write me a letter.
But, I am applying to work at his university!

It can be helpful if an inside-member with whom they're already familiar as a colleague, writes a strong endorsement for you, but people could also be trying to help their close friend/collaborator join their department by writing a strong letter, so you may wish to have arms length reference letters too. If you're applying for a Canada Research Chair position, then you will need to have at least one arms-length letter of reference (and not too long ago, you actually needed all three of the letters of reference to be from arms-length referees, meaning that your "long-time" collaborator would not have counted, no matter their university). In fact even the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships in Canada require arms-length referees, so if you're going for a prestigious position in Canada you may wish to keep this in mind.
You could use the fact that you have an "inside" letter of reference, to give a fourth letter of reference (if they're asking for only three). I know the advertisement for the position probably says that only three letters will be considered, but it will not hurt you if you were to write to the office of the provost saying that you wish to include four letters because one is "internal".

Oh, "You could use the fact that you have an "inside" letter of reference, to give a fourth letter of reference (if they're asking for only three)" is a great idea. Thanks! For way of context, it's an institution where applications would normally be handled through a dept, but this is a unique cluster hire opportunity being handled (abnormally) by the central admin.

I would discuss it with the letter writer e.g. ask the letter writer how they think it would appear in their institution. That person is going to know the culture and politics of their institution better than you do.  That person should probably put some thought into how they would address this in a letter.  I think it would be strange not to at least briefly add a preamble or postscript saying that they have been one of your writers before.


text:
Found a mistake in a published paper at IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
I discussed with my supervisors and all of them agreed that there is undoubtedly a mistake in part of the measurements of a recently published paper. The idea and the novelty of this paper is correct. However, part of the measurements is incorrect. A figure and a part of the comparison table should be modified.
The authors tried to compare the new technique with the old one. The false measured results are shifted up with the same amount of increase (new and old) so this mistake will not affect on the final conclusion. Actually, the mistake does not affect the abstract or the conclusion of the paper.
I think IEEE transactions do not accept corrections, right? So, this is the reason why authors can not correct it. Should I communicate with the editor or authors, or just ignore it?

All papers have errors.   Unless the authors have a personal web page where they post corrected version of their papers, then it's a waste of time.    Move on.

Is the paper also available on arXiv or some similar site?

Unfortunatelly Not

According to most of the suggestions, I think the best thing I just ignore it and move on.

Don't overcomplicate this. Just send a friendly e-mail to the author(s) pointing out a possible (typographical) error.

It might even be an opportunity to open a collaborative relationship.

And then, what should authors do after receiving my email?

@John, whatever they wish to do: maybe nothing, maybe thank you for reading their paper so thoroughly, maybe go into further discussion with you...

Some researchers post errata on their professional websites.

@john At least not repeat the mistake and no longer use the flawed figure.

Understood. Then what should I do if I want to compare these false measured results in the comparison table.

@John That really was something you should have included in the question.

According to most of the suggestions, I think the best thing I just ignore it and move on. Thanks.


text:
Having a really short time to accept a PhD offer
I got a PhD offer from a good university, and they told me that I should announce my final decision in less than four days. Many other universities have not started interviews yet, and I really want to consider all of my possible options. I do not want to lose this offer, too. The university is also part of the Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees, and Assistants.

which country? which faculty? is it a PhD offer with or without fundings?

The April 15 resolution is a US and Canada thing, so I am guessing this university is in one of those two countries? It is odd that they would set such a quick deadline if they are part of the resolution.....

You have a trial period for the PhD, as in any job offer.
Read the fine prints of the offer you received. The Resolution you mention states that:

If a student accepts an offer before April 15 and subsequently desires
to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit a written
resignation of the appointment at any time through April 15.
Applicants are not required to obtain a formal release from the
program whose offer they accepted, either before or after the April 15
deadline. Once applicants have informed the program that they are
withdrawing their acceptance of the offer, they then can accept any
other offers

but there are many exception to the Resolution, so I strongly suggest you to contact the admission office of the University to ask if a Phd in (whatever subject is your offer) is covered by the Resolution.

This is good advice - I find that law schools, medical schools, and some business schools are less likely to follow the resolution, even if the university is a signatory. See here: https://cgsnet.org/april-15-resolution-faq/

@Dawn Indeed, as explained in your link the resolution is specifically about offers for financial support, and professional degree programs offered by those sorts of schools are much less likely to involve financial support (e.g., via graduate assistantships). OP mentioned a PhD program, though, so that makes it quite a bit more unusual that their program would be exempt from the commitment.

Only giving you four days to respond is unprofessional.  Ask them to extend the deadline.  If they refuse, you should consider declining the offer, assuming you do not have a good reason to think they will stop behaving unprofessionally.


text:
How to create a grading rubric that properly incentivizes and challenges students
Since I haven't do much TA duty (only 1 semester so far, starting 2nd one), I have struggled to come up with a good way to grade homework. My last grading rubric ended up creating strange incentive pattern wherein people will do all the optional questions, while completely ignore the required questions (or just write some random nonsense to get some extra pity points); and since I posted my rubric publicly, I couldn't change it. Since I am about to grade the first assignment of this semester, I need to come up with a new grading rubric, so I need help with the following optimization problem.
The situation is as follow. Every assignment will contains around 5 required questions, and 1-3 optional questions. Required questions would be very simple and can be solved by understanding the material, while optional questions would usually require new ideas. I have freedom in choosing any 3 required questions to grade (and they have to be the same questions for all students), and anyone optional question to grade (could be different question for each student). I might award completion points questions I do not grade, but since I am not supposed to grade them, I cannot discern whether the problem is actually solved (and given the amount of grading I have to do, I can't really afford to look into more than 4 questions per student).
I want to have a grading rubric that create the incentive such that students are most likely to do all the required questions and at least 1 optional question, subject to the following constraints:

Doing something extra never hurt the grade (even if "something extra" is a drawing of an goat).
Solving harder questions get higher score than solving easier question (note: I get to pick the maximum score for each question).
Maximum possible score can be obtained from solving all required questions only.
When it comes to required questions, partial credits must be awarded for answers that get certain part of a correct answer.
For questions with explicitly multiple parts, every part must get the same maximum score, and any solved part must be awarded scores (note that in a multiple parts question, it is very common for part (a) to be much easier than part (f)).
Anyone who attempted all questions (both required and optional) get at least 50% of the maximum.

Anyone can help me with a good grading rubric?
EDIT: since I can't make comments, I will clarify some of the answers/comments below.
First, about grading randomly comment. That was exactly what I did last semester. Grade random required questions, grade all optional questions (since you know, they are not required, so it would be unfair if some get points and some don't for the same work), and give optional questions much higher maximum points (since they are much tougher). Result: people only do optional questions, since these are the only one with guaranteed points, and give a lot more points.
Second, point #3 makes perfect sense, and I don't see how it is restrictive. After all, other questions are known as optional for a reason: people don't need to do it to get full score. And #6 is what the professor requires of me: the class is supposedly a hard class that is optional for the major and is also regularly attended by people who are not in the major that are simply interested, so he doesn't want to fail anyone who put in "honest effort" (that's the word he used, so I guess 6 goats and 1 turtle won't count, but a bunch of gibberish equations would).
As for the answer below. I won't make the mistake of making the rubric public anymore, the students would have to ask for that in which case I can explain to them. Grading the best looking optional problem will violate constraint #1 here. This is because it is really hard to see which answer are better without and detailed look, since optional problems have lots of intricacies, are long, and tend to have fewer parts. And if I judge wrong, it means someone who attempt 2 problems might end up with a low score because I picked the bad one, compared to someone who only do 1.

I am just an undergrad, so I wouldnt be much help. But if you wanted your students to do all problems, why not just choose random questions from their problem set?

The third and sixth bullets seem excessively limiting. For example, would drawing 7 goats and a turtle count as an attempt at every problem (and thus yield 50% of the maximum)? If not, would writing some severely misguided or gibberish equations? If yes, is there any real difference?

Please create a registered account, then follow the instructions here to merge your accounts so that you can comment on and edit this post.

Related: Should students be shown the grading rubric?.

(Poorly received Answer voluntarily converted to Comment):
You need to find an experienced TA in your department to mentor you. Suppose you are grading weekly homeworks for Course 210 and your buddy/mentor is grading weekly homeworks for Course 225. Hopefully you are comfortable with the material in 225. If you offer to help your buddy grade the 225 homeworks, you can ask him to show you how he would approach grading 210.  I once was a grader for a class with 100 students. There were two other graders. I learned a lot from them.

In general, I would recommend keeping your grading rubric simple -- complicated rubrics have a way of causing confusion and sometimes resentment when they're misunderstood.
In the situation you describe, I would choose to compute the score as the average of that on the three required problems, weighted equally. If the student solved any of the optional problems, choose whichever looks the best and substitute this score for the lowest of the three required scores, but only if it improves the student's grade.

One suggestion is to do what is common practice at my school (I am a student):

There is a sheet of required questions, worth (for example) 100 marks, and a sheet of optional questions, worth 50 marks (there are only a few optional questions, but they have high marks for each question

If the student performed better in the required questions than in the optional questions (eg. 80/100 in required and 30/50 in optional), then the final score is the score for the required questions only (in this case, 80%)

If the student performed better in the optional questions than in the required questions, then the 2 scores are added together (for example, 60/100 on the required questions and 40/50 on the optional questions, then the final score is 100/150 or 67%).

Do you not have some inconsistency between 'Maximum possible score can be obtained from solving all required questions only.' and that you don't have enough time to actually look at all their answers to required questions?
It seems to me the simplest way to meet most of your points without introducing weird incentives is a two phase approach:
1/ Equal points between the required questions (so 20 points each if 5 questions and going for a total of 100). For these, you actually check 3 each week and give completion points (ie assume correct) the remainder.
This means that someone who answer the three questions you look at correctly and provides something sensible looking for any others can achieve the max points only from required questions.
2/ Optional questions are to recover points lost through a poor answer to a required question and each optional question can recover enough lost points from two required answers. Students give what they think is their best answer first and then the others. You always mark the first optional answer if provided (whichever question it happens to be for that student). If the student has not yet got to full marks, you go through the other optional answers for that student.
Note that (2) runs the risk of answering more than 4 questions per student, but it is likely that some students won't answer any optional and/or the student's pick of best answer will be good enough.

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


text:
Where to draw the line between support, plagiarism and academic dishonesty?
I received some help during my thesis under the following circumstances:

Took "neutral" classes for coding from a online tutor
The tutor helped me in sharpening my coding skills
I took his help (held discussions) in understanding a solution (how to code, which library to use)
The Tutor helped debugging at times when I got stuck

I wrote everything by my own but this person helped by "tutoring", "discussions", and "debugging".
Am I fine here?

I think you'd have to elaborate on (4) a bit.  Someone debugging your code seems like bordering on (if not precisely) academic dishonesty.  Discussions of coding / which libraries to use sounds fine, though.

Please specify in, which field of research you are working. If programming is a tool but not the major target of your research, I won't see any problem. If the programming work is a relevant part of our work I would agree with @user68375 comment.

Whether any of the coding help is, or could be considered as, any form of academic dishonesty depends entirely on what the help was, and what the coding was for. This is currently unclear/too broad as written, but sufficient detail will necessarily make it almost inapplicable to anybody else, therefore personal recommendation. VTC either way.

How are you acknowledging this help in your work?

@user68375 - This was like random issue , sometime the file was too big , program got heavy (he resolved) , encoding and format issues for particular coding standards ( particular framework need to be encoded and then in some other format )

@Nij - I like the too broad thing . I am unable to understand academia and honesty thing

@innisfree - will mention what all he did , probably tutoring

Activities 1-3 are perfectly fine, and fall within the category of teaching and learning.  There is no more issue with these activities than if you undertake approved university courses during your program.  Activity 4 is the only one that could potentially raise issues, depending on your field of study and the extent of the assistance.  If you are undertaking a thesis where the primary activity is coding and debugging, where you are expected to do these activities yourself, then it might not be okay to have assistance on this task.  If you are outside of that field then debugging assistance in your coding is probably analogous to copy-editing services for the textual elements of the thesis, and in that case you should seek guidance from relevant standards applicable to your university (here is an example of applicable standards for copy-editing of theses in Australian universities).
In any case, you should raise this matter with your thesis supervisor, disclose the details of the assistance you got, and make sure you give an appropriate acknowledgement in your thesis, so that the reviewers are aware of the matter.  Your supervisor will be able to point you to relevant policies that apply at your university, and will be in a good position to assess whether the help you have sought raises any issues.  Unless your thesis is specifically about programming/debugging tasks, there is probably reasonably wide scope for basic debugging services (analogous to light copy-editing services) and so it will probably not be an issue.

Under certain circumstances, unfortunately not stated in the question, even point 4 would be ok. This is work at the graduate level, and even there, not every student is a great programmer. Moreover, there is a lot to CS that isn't really about programming, even when it depends on programming at some level.
My question, rather, would be, who designed the program and the work that it contributes to. If it was the OP, then I see no issue at all in having someone help debug the program(s). The line would come when debugging moves over to design of the code. But even then, there might be more to the research than the code. If the OP has designed the research and knows enough to come to appropriate conclusions, I see no problem. (Old and retired CS professor).
The first three points in the question raise no issues for me at all. But the person giving help should be acknowledged, of course.

If I can draw a parallel with work in other scientific fields, it isn't necessary that the lead author of a work have personally performed all of the experiments on which the work is based. It is enough that he/she had a key role in design and giving direction to the work.

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


text:
Sharing an unpublished paper but retrieved from a third-party site?
Ten years ago my colleagues in a grad program (at a US university) produced a paper but it was never published (in a formal journal or website).  It was only distributed by email to the department and friends at other universities.  Last week a professor contacts a member of our group requesting for a copy of the paper, but it turns out none of us have the final version (but we're all in agreement to share it).  After some googling we find it's hosted on Scribd.  I sign up for a free account (with ccard info), use the free trial to download the paper, then delete my account before my ccard is charged.  I believe this professor wants the paper only as a survey reference and maybe to use for teaching, but I'm worried about a worst case scenario that my downloaded copy gets uploaded to another repo service.
Questions:
1) It was never published, so are there any copyright issues and our group can share as we please (as the original authors)?
2) Does Scribd have any domain over the particular copy since they provided  access as paid service?  (Would they embed some unique token that could track to me, or does #1 override this?)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, just educational information.

As the owners of the copyright, you face no restrictions over what you can do with your own material, even if it was downloaded from a third-party site. Frankly, there would be grounds for you to have the material removed from Scribd, since they never got permission to use it! (On the other hand, academic information should generally be shared as widely as possible... and there's always the possibility that you lose your copy again!)
Whether or not Scribd has embedded a tracker of some kind is largely irrelevant, since they have no legal interest in the material. The worst they could do is close your account. Of course, there are plenty of ways to scrub out any such watermark; I'd ask in the Information Security stack exchange for that.
As an amusing anecdote tangentially related to your situation, several years ago Nintendo released their "Virtual Console" for the Wii. This was an emulator that allowed people to play selected old SNES games on the Wii. Of course, in order to sell their old games in this form, they needed copies of them... and it seems they didn't have them. Disassembly of the Virtual Console app shows that the included version of Super Mario Bros. was downloaded from a pirate site!
This is interesting and amusing, but there's no copyright problem here. In order for there to be one, they would have to bring suit against themselves, and they would lose that suit because they have full rights to use their own game.

Actually, video games companies re-releasing their old video games using pirated versions (either because their old copy-protection scheme was breaking the game and they didn't have their source code anymore, or because the pirated versions were just the easiest ones to find) is commonplace. It causes a lot of amusement among pirates but there is nothing illegal about it. That said, please try not to imitate these companies -- don't count on the internet to somehow preserve your old work!

You own the copyright, so you are within your rights to decide whether or not to share the article.
If you are worried about the article -- in the final form, or any other -- being shared without your knowledge, then the easiest way out is to preempt the problem by uploading it yourself to a site that is widely used. An example would be arXiv.org. This way, you have control over the form that gets shared, and since you uploaded it to the most widely visible place, most search engines will link there, rather than any sites where someone else may upload things without your knowledge. You also preempt the situation where someone else claims the material as theirs, because you clearly have uploaded the material before they did, as evidenced by the arXiv time stamp.


text:
Undergraduate visiting student advantages
I have been recruited by a professor on a well-known university in the US east coast for a visiting student program during the summer (it's an only-research program). Since this program isn't an all-costs paid one, I'm deciding if I should go.
Which are the advantages of being a visiting student? How can this help to have a better graduate application even if I apply to a different department (from this program's department) but at the same university? How does the impact differs from a REU?
I've read this Quora reference, but I want to have an insight from this particular forum. Thanks in advance.
Btw, I'm a foreign student.

I don't see any difference in the impact, and if you're interested in the project, and can afford this, financially, it could be a good experience, and research experience can really enhance a grad school application.

The main difference from being an invited, visiting student, an REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates), and a summer research program is usually related to funding issues. REU is what the National Science Foundation (NSF) calls it's program, and the funding provided usually only supports "U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or permanent residents of the United States". Students who are part of the program usually get a stipend as part of the package. Some programs who are advertising an REU still accept international students, it's just that the funding for those students are not provided by the NSF - read 'terms and conditions' if there is a formal program for more details.
Being a visiting student or being in a summer research program is similar, but generally supported by institutional resources (which may just be administrative, with no funding).
However, the meat of the issue is what you get to do while you are there. If you are interested in graduate school, then ideally you would work with a professor in a group on a real research project. Ideally it could potentially lead to a publication down the road, but this is neither necessary nor guaranteed - but it's good to work with that as a long-term goal to help guide and motivate the work.
I was part of an NSF REU on the east coast as well, but based on my conversations with other students the benefits I'll mention below still can apply.
So the main advantages possible are:

working hard and doing good work that could be the grounds for a very supportive letter of recommendation, ideally from someone who is well known (and from a well known University is good as well)
networking, which is to say expanding your social circle and developing contacts with people with similar interests and direction (very hard to do without physical presence for an extended period of time)
building your confidence and making you more comfortable in your statements and future work
learning more about different aspects of the research process, which you may not have seen in this particular way before
living in a place you've never been to before, which is not only valuable as a maturing and learning experience in its own right, but can help you decide if you might really be OK with moving to such a place for multiple years away from everything and everyone you know
if you work hard at networking and socializing (while still doing great work), you can potentially meet a future advisor, or even just someone who will help you with your application materials, statements, give you an introduction to someone else, etc.
it can be a great way to see behind the curtain and experience both lots of good things, and even more importantly, lots of unpleasant and bad things. Academia is no utopia, and I don't think it does anyone any good to go into a graduate program thinking there aren't all kinds of messes and complexities. This could be a chance to see more of that first hand, to help you be more realistic.
beyond just getting into a graduate program, the networking and experience can aid you in doing well in research, knowing people at conferences, etc.

While I personally strongly encourage everyone to seek out such opportunities, it is up to you to consider the costs and decide what is right for you. On the downside:

it is often expensive. Even though I was funded quite reasonably, I would have had lower expenses and had higher income if I had stayed home and worked for the summer.
it can be hard emotionally. You are in a new place with people you don't know, away from family, friends, food you are used to eating, the comforts of home, and more. It can be so great to meet new people and form new friendships, but that doesn't erase the hard parts.
it is very time-limited, which means everything is compressed. It's enough time to start to get comfortable before you have to leave, while also being long-enough to develop homesickness.
you are a short-timer, and just because you are there does not mean you are automatically an insider or in-group member. Some people will be accommodating and friendly, and other people may ignore you because they know you will be gone soon anyway. Some people will take time out to meet with you and give you advice, some won't give you the time of day.
there is no guarantee of anything. You may find people you thought you would work with become unavailable, the project disappears (one person I know at a different place found the 'project' was unavailable, and they ended up having to make their own project by talking another faculty member into letting them work on their stuff instead).
if you are doing things in the academic off-season (like summer in the US), many people will be gone regularly, lots of vacation and conferences, most students won't be around, many food places on campus might be closed, etc. It's just different.

I'm very glad I chose to do a summer REU, and things worked out nicely for me - I'm very happy with the results. I can't tell you the future of how things would go for you - but if you are excited (if not nervous) for the potential positives, willing to work hard and get way outside of your normal comfort zone, and are ok with the potential negatives and willing to roll with whatever difficulties you find, I think you would be a great candidate. Budget out the costs and make sure this expense won't prevent you from having the funds to apply to grad school (it's expensive, especially in the US), travel for potential campus visits if you get accepted, have your own personal living security, etc.
Whatever you choose, good luck!


text:
Pay for journal cover image?
Wiley journals request payment from authors who want an image to appear on the journal cover.  Is this a common practice followed by many publishers?  Why do authors pay the fee?

They pay because they want an image on the cover.

This is not unheard of, and is field-dependent. A friend of mine, working in chemistry, was given that same offer (and was asked to actually produce the high-quality image herself).

It's not that uncommon. Authors pay this charge mostly because they think having a cover image increases their reputation and/or impact. I don't know any study proving this assumption. Please let me know, if there are any.
Nevertheless, if an author wants to have a cover image, I always suggest to negotiate because this significantly decreases the amount of money the author has to pay, see e.g.

Similar story: Journal (a respected one) offered to use one of our images for their cover page. They wanted $1800. I said I don't have the money. They offered to do it for $900. I said no. In the end they put it on the cover for "free".

Source: Tweet be @rauscherMRI

In my experience, it's not common. Much more often the front page of the journal is a rather drab-looking, standard page that the journal uses again and again with minor changes. If the front page does vary, it's decided by the editors, who also choose the image to feature.
As for why authors might pay the fee, this is a form of advertising: by having an image of their research in a more visible venue, it might make people read their paper. The page you linked gives some examples. The front page is used in marketing materials, on the journal's webpage, etc., and is likely to be seen by more people as a result.

This is quite field-dependent. Mathematic journals have most often no cover image or a fixed one, while cover images corresponding to a particular article see more common in chemistry.

I was told by a Wiley journal that my article image was being considered for the front cover.  They 'asked' for a contribution of US$1400 to the publishing cost of this, but when I refused because our funding for that project is now concluded, I didn't hear back from them.  So there appears to be no 'unbiased' selection process, rather this appears a quick money-grab from the publishers.
This is pretty shameful behavior, especially as to be 'selected' required time and energy to prepare the image for their requirements.  Not impressed.

They made an offer. You refused it. What is the problem? This is just a rant.

@Buffy: asking an author to pay for and produce the cover image is not a plain offer, it is an outrageous one.

@BenoîtKloeckner, I guess I don't understand the vilification of publishers over this. They are a business, not a charity. Like any business, they need to make a profit for shareholders and set prices as they see fit. If you don't like the product/service or think it is overpriced, then don't buy it. If you want to rage over something, look at big pharma raising prices on essential drugs by 1000% when  often much of the research was publicly funded in the first place.

@Buffy: there are worse problem (as always). Publishers are not just a regular business, because their clients are tied up by the prestige game their career and employment depend on; because they own titles of journal and copyright of articles that where produced through public money. Where they mere service providers, I would have no issue with bad practice: they would simply lead to the provider being dumped. That said, this is probably not the place to have this debate, so whether you answer or not I will not add another response.


text:
ORCID and its QR-code on business card back cover as a researcher?
I am thinking to include my ORCID on my business card back cover as a researcher.
I wanna know if this is necessary or too much.

Between necessary and too much there is unnecessary. You can answer for yourself if you are someone who likes to have a gadget on their business card.

@henning What do you think about QR code of vCard?

I personally like the idea but never thought of it.

It is not necessary.
It is not too much.
Note that the back of your business card might be occupied, though:

Multilingual business cards sometimes feature another language on either side. (Although this approach is obviously limited as soon as you want to include more than two languages.)
Business cards sometimes feature a QR code with all the business card information in vCard format on their back side. (IMHO, all business cards should have this. There is no real excuse not to.) If that is the case, it depends on your stylistic preferences whether or not to add one or more smaller QR codes next to the vCard one.

Is it enough to include thihs vCard information as QR code? - - If you include it, I think then it is not necessary to include QR code link to my ORCID.

@LéoLéopoldHertz준영: Enough for what purpose? For someone who doesn't use a QR code scanner, the information without the QR code will be "enough". In any case, the vCard and the ORCID ID serve two quite different purposes (although it may even be possible to integrate the ORCID ID as a custom field in the vCard).

What do you think have the QR-code on the frontside of the card? I already show my phone QR-code many times nowadays, instead giving my business card, because it is so much easier for the receiver too. You can integrate some piece of your business logo/art/... etc with the QR code.


text:
IEEE conference not allowing presentation by a non-author: how can I get the organizers to reconsider?
I have a paper accepted at a reputed IEEE conference. Since my visa arrived late, I may not be able to attend the conference personally (need to apply for a transit visa). I contacted the organizers if a friend of mine who is attending the conference may present on my behalf. The have replied that they can't allow a friend to present my poster and would rather withdraw my paper from the proceedings as per IEEE policy.
I am rather disturbed now since booking tickets via a non-transit visa country at the last moment would be exorbitantly expensive and rather impractical for me due to financial constraints.
I have read here at ASE and heard from many people that such things are very common, but I was surprised by this kind of reply. How can I convince the organizers to allow someone else to present my paper.

Have you registered for the conference? Usually CS conferences need one registration per paper. This is how they make money. If you register (or some of your co-authors), then they will have no problem by who actually presents the paper.

yes, I have registered for the conference.

Have you told them that, when you said that a friend will present the paper instead of you?

No, but they have told that it is IEEE policy that the paper must be presented by an author.

IEEE policy says no such thing. It says: "IEEE recommends that conferences exclude or limit the distribution of any paper that was not presented at the conference. This policy is not mandatory and only applies to conference proceedings where IEEE is the copyright holder. If authors are unable to attend the conference and present their papers, they should contact the program chair as soon as possible so that substitute arrangements can be made."

My impression is that how strictly the policy of "paper needs to be presented in-person by an author" is interpreted really depends on the quality of the conference. Third-grade IEEE conferences often accept no presentation at all (as long as the registration is being paid), second-grade conferences often require some sort of presentation, but make due with some "hacks" (let a friend present the paper, play a recorded presentation, allow a Skype presentation). All of those are marginally better than no presentation at all, but they actually go against the spirit of having a conference in the first place (as a conference is mainly meant as a meeting and discussion place for like-minded researchers). Hence, top conferences (which are in no shortage of good submissions) usually do not allow for any compromises and just retract papers where none of the authors can show up.
Hence, I would not say that it is uncommon for a strong conference to be relatively inflexible about this rule, and it is probably not extremely likely that you will be able to make them re-consider. Of course, there is no danger in asking, but be prepared that the answer may simply be "no". The organisers understand that this policy will lead to individual hardships, but they have to be primarily concerned about the quality of the conference - and, as everybody who has ever seen a presentation by a non-author can confirm, being lenient about this is often really detrimental to the scientific quality of the programme.

I don't have the impression that top conferences don't allow non-authors to present. The top IEEE conference in my field explicitly says that the TPC may allow capable non-author presenters: "the paper must be presented by an author of that paper at the conference unless the TPC Chair grants permission for a substitute presenter arranged in advance of the event who is qualified both to present and answer questions."

@ff524 Fair enough. For the top IEEE conferences I was thinking about, the policy has (after some bad experiences) consistently been "no non-autor presentations".

The top IEEE conference in my field (FOCS) also allows non-author presentations.  The minimal protocol is the non-author shows up and introduces themselves to the session chair as the substitute speaker, but an email to the PC chair is also strongly encouraged.


text:
How professional it is to ask for rebate in conference registration fees?
I got two papers accepted in a decent IEEE conference. My current organisation (an industrial R&D lab) says that the conference fees are way too high and they would consider approval of funds only if we get a rebate for publication.
I have two questions:

Is it normal across the globe to ask for rebate?
Even if I do so, would it be considered professional? (The conference already has a discounted price for the second paper since authors are common in both.)

I am afraid it is quite unusual (at least in my field) to ask for, or get granted, a rebate.

Usually (for ACM that I know but probably for IEEE as well) being a member offers registration discounts. And usually membership (1 or 0.5 years) + discounted conference registration < full conference registration

It seems pretty unlikely. While I am in a completely different field, conferences generally support / financially flexible graduate students or researchers from poor country, not industrial R&D labs... Frankly speaking, you are supposed to be the one with the deepest pocket to visit conferences.

As an illustration of how unusual this is, I can't even work out what you mean by "a rebate for publication".

@Greg, "you are supposed to be the one with the deepest pocket to visit conferences": I wish, I wish that were true. See my comment below.

@StephanKolassa Industry is for profit, academia is nonprofit. Generally for profits support nonprofits, and not the other way. Like it or not, attending conferences, writing papers is essential and central element of academic science. If it is not central or essential for your job, you may not attend or should look for other resources.

The second part of the question is too opinion-based and out-of-scope IMHO. The first part has been answered.

It is unusual and it is likely that the organizers would see it as unprofessional, especially if such request is coming from the industry.
How valuable are these publication for your employer? You could try to speak with someone at a higher level and persuade them to pay the conference fees. Alternatively they can advise submitting the papers to another conference with fees they are willing to pay. Or if publishing benefits you more that the employer, you can perhaps cover the difference yourself.

I wonder what you mean by "especially if such request is coming from the industry". I work in industry. Every time I want to attend a conference, I have to fight tooth and nail for the time and budget. Universities may have less money overall, but going to conferences is an acceptable use of your budget. In industry, far less so. Contrary to what academic researchers may believe, "industry" does not have bottomless pockets for research.

@StephanKolassa, the organizers are more likely to see it from academic researchers point of view, i.e. "industry in general has more money than universities, so why on earth they are asking for rebate"

which is why I am trying to dispel this particular myth ;-)

As the commenters write, this is quite unusual.
However, if the conference fees were not published before the paper submission deadline, you could try it out if you get the financial constraints imposed by your lab in writing. While strictly speaking, the organizers could consider this to be unprofessional, it is in that case still somewhat clear that the problem is not really your fault.


text:
I cannot get funding to travel to conferences, is it normal to target journals instead and would it affect my future Computer Science career?
One of my research papers have been accepted to a very prestigious conference (top most in my field of study in Computer Science).
Since I am not a full time student, university rules do not allow for funding my travel and conference registration charges. Also, I do not earn enough to support my own travel to a different continent. Moreover, my advisor, who is also a co-author in the paper cannot travel due to personal issues.
The conference website doesn't mention about any kind of support neither have I ever seen(short career) such a support being provided.
So my questions are:

Should I rather target journals for publications since most of the reputable ones in my field are free to publish but may take anywhere between 1-2 years to get accepted. Moreover, they may require more comprehensive work and analysis which I may not always be able to commit to, resulting in my work lying unpublished.
Is it normal to just aim for journal publications ?
I am a Phd Student. I want to go in academia in future. I believe aiming for journal publication would result in less number of publications for me. Would it affect my career in future ?

I assume you have exhausted all the usual travel grant options...

First of all, apply to everywhere you can including the conference itself for travel funds. Second,if  you co-author perhaps your co-author will have a grant that can fund your travel? Third, if you are a registered PhD student, try applying to your university in any case for travel funds. Someone kind might relent.  Basically, be bold :)

Doesn't the conference allow student volunteers? They usually get the registration fee waived.

Would it be possible to switch to full-time? It might be worth it financially (oddly enough) and it would greatly help your goal of staying in academia.

@AvengerDr I didn't know about volunteering. thanks I'd certainly look into that possibility

@AustinHenley The full time admissions at my univ are very competitive and follow a different mode of admission process than mine. My advisor says that if I convert to full time now, people usually take it as a back-door entry. He says I am very talented and do not need to put such an impression about me on others.

@krammer I have never heard of such a thing (no one will ever even know you converted).  However, being part-time does have an impression.

Could you consider going through the normal admission for full time? Having a paper accepted at a top conference is a very strong point.

Very likely having only journal publications will NOT harm your future career prospects. Let me elaborate.
If you plan a career outside the US, this is even truer. As far as I understand most countries are moving towards a more journal evaluation of computer science. I cannot point to a paper to that effect, but most of the papers that discuss conference x journals in CS are from non US researchers, which may indicate that there is some pressure in these countries to move out of the conference publishing business-as-usual model for CS.
For a career within the US, @jakebeal answer to this Academia question seems to suggest that journal publications are also the important metric of evaluation in "lesser institution".
I heard from someone that was applying for faculty positions two years ago that the most prestigious CS departments were only considering candidates that had at least 1000 citations - so the most prestigious institutions do not seem to care for number of publications and where (this is hearsay information).
Now for the caveats, as you realize, a journal-based career will imply in less papers - which I argue is not necessarily a problem, but you have to be sure that you will have some paper/papers published when you apply for a job. Avoid, if you can, journals with too long a review cycle - you may not have any/enough papers published by the end of your PhD.

Yes, I'm afraid that having only the opportunity to publish in journals will harm your career prospects:

you will appear to have published less than someone who could publish the same work first at a conference and then at a journal;
journals have a far longer review cycle so getting journal papers out during your PhD will take time.

In addition to what was suggested in the other answers, you could try to contact the conference organizers (before submitting) and ask to give a talk remotely. If you know some colleague who is attending the conference, you could also ask them to present the paper on your behalf even if they are not an author.
Your situation is a prime example of why mandatory travel to publish in conference proceedings, which is the norm in CS, is a broken system.


text:
How is a part-time degree (from a reputed institute) perceived in the academic job market?
I have recently graduated with Computer Science and Engineering and joined an R&D firm. During the job, I enrolled for a part time MS(Research) from the topmost institute in my country (with reputable world rank). Though the only difference from full time course is that we get 1 extra year to complete part time course.Everything else, like the courses, class timings, labs, exams and rigor remains the same.
I intend to join academia in future. How valuable is a part time degree with respect to joining academia and industry?

What country are you from? In most of North America and Europe, a Ph.D is needed to join academia. In some countries the MS is sufficient to get an introductory professor position.

The degree doesn't say part time, so it makes no difference from that perspective.  Thing's that might make a difference for part time degree seekers (though these don't seem to apply to you) are more CV/resume related --  i.e., any major gaps where it doesn't look like you were productive, indecision, seeking degrees to avoid making decisions,...

The fact that you have done your degree either part or full time will not change your degree's value. I have never heard of part-time degrees being treated differently from full-time degrees. In fact, it would be unusual to list a part-time or full time status on your CV so it's not clear how people would know. And I doubt many people would react differently.
Your decision to do a degree part-time or full-time has other important implications on your long term goals but they are indirect. If you want to go into industry, choosing a part-time degree might mean you have more time to build up industry experience which might be nice. If you want to go into academia — and you can afford to go to school full time — do the full time degree because work in industry will only slow you down from the pursuit of your long term goal. Being a part-time student might also mean less attention from faculty who might think you are less serious about an academic track while you are doing the degree.

While the OP has probably graduated by now, I believe the answer to this question is culture dependent. My answer will focus on the industry part of OP's question.
First and foremost, the accepted answer was partly incorrect as it would be quite obvious to an experienced HR, from your CV, that your employment record and your degree overlapped in time. Thus one or both of them has to be part-time.
HRs from my Asian hometown care. Why?
While the OP was pursuing a degree from his/her home country, other readers coming across this question might enroll in an overseas program. In this case, a full-time degree overseas would entail multicultural exposure, which is an important employment consideration for multinational companies. Depending on the country where you get your degree, it may also imply that you can speak a foreign language.
Whereas a part-time degree from overseas would most likely imply distance learning and a lack of networking with fellow classmates in your research area. The argument stands even if the degree is from your home country, but a different city.
It does not matter if my weak "deduction" above may not necessarily be correct. As long as some HRs think this way, those jobs are forever lost to you. (This "some" becomes "most" in Asia.) Even if actual researchers in the industry consider you an equal, your application will go straight to the bin before ever reaching their desk.
Nonetheless, your experience at an R&D firm, if it is of the same area as your research, is much more important than whether your degree is full-time or part-time when it comes to hiring decision. The word "same" is stressed because, referring to the culture of my hometown again, unrelated experience is not considered working experience, at all.

I got my master's degree in computer science by part time study while working full time. It was the same arrangement as in the question - same courses and other requirements as the corresponding full time program, but spread over an extra year.
My employers treated it as a valid qualification for the rest of my industry career. After that, I was accepted into a CS PhD program. It was my only formal CS qualification. My bachelor's degree was in mathematics.
If you look really closely at my resume, you can tell I was studying part time because of the overlap between university attendance and a job. There is nothing about my degree that makes any distinction between full or part time study.


text:
What to put in the Discussion section of a paper in this case?
From what I know in the Discussion section, it is recommended to establish a comparison between one's proposal with what other authors have done. For example, in the CS field, I have seen that this is not so troublesome, for instance, if I am proposing a model of ML that predicts diabetes if my article uses the same dataset. So, in this case, I can compare similar methodologies or similar results obtained by other authors.
However, I have what to do when the dataset that I am using is only suited for a determined environment. For example, let's imagine that I want to predict the crime rate of certain portions of a city, and I live in London, but I found many articles about how to predict the crime rate in New Delhi. In this situation, if the two datasets are different, how can I write a Discussion section? I cannot compare my research with others (the New Delhi example) because my dataset is different. I have stumbled upon this trouble with some localized datasets, any advice?
Thanks.

Why can't you discuss your results compared to another data set?

Thanks for the comment @BryanKrause, maybe I might be wrong but I believe that the comparison will not be quite fair. Some datasets, for example in ML, present some internal patterns that made them easier to classify than others.

Ah, is this a paper where your result is just "our performance was XYZ%" and you aren't actually interested in the results otherwise? Either way I think this sort of thing is typically better discussed with an advisor than on StackExchange, because it's specific to your particular research rather than helpful for a broader audience.

You don't need to discuss the results per se - that indeed doesn't necessarily make sense given the different datasets. However, you can discuss the methodology. For example - why did you decide to use algorithm X while the other paper used algorithm Y? Why did you decide to remove certain features that the other dataset didn't? DId you make any modelling decisions that go against some other papers? What do you think the ethical implications of these predictions are and how does that align with research on ethics in machine learning.
Comparing only the accuracy (or whatever metric you've picked) isn't really valuable in this case indeed, so look at other things you did.


text:
Sources to cover open-access fees
As this question mentions and as I know from my (limited) experience, some journals demand a high fee to make the articles you submit to be available as open-access. For example, a quote from JVSTB Info for contributors:

There are no page charges required for publishing. Authors have the option during submission to indicate if they would
  like the article to publish as open access. There is a $2200 fee for open access.

I can't imagine every researcher to pay this from his own pocket. I can see some universities are willing to cover these fees. However, I am pretty sure that my own university will not pay for this. What other sources to cover open-access fees I can look for?

I have tried to find out more related to this in a question that asks from the other direction. (Apparently, the OA policy discussed in that question does not cause any OA payments as described in your question, but it is somewhat related, nonetheless.)

I think for most people, if their university won't pay for the OA fee, their reaction is not "Let me try to find other funding sources" but rather "Let me look for a different place to publish".

@NateEldredge I think, in most cases journals are selected based on the paper topic and the intended audience, not on the journal's open-access policy. YMMV, however.

Of course that's the first consideration.  But often you can find another journal whose scope, audience and selectivity are very similar, and whose OA policy is different.  And that may be easier than beating the bushes for funding sources which in many cases do not exist.

@NateEldredge it's even easier in this case since it sounds the paper could be published for free in the same journal if not made open access. That sounds like the most reasonable thing to do.

@CapeCode I am fully aware that the paper can be published for free if not made open-access. I am not struggling to pay the publishing fee, but I wondered if there are ways to cover open-access fee specifically.

Per the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)'s guide to open access income models:

According to one survey, article processing fees are wholly or partially subsidized, either by a research grant (34%), a foundation grant (5%), or by the author’s host department (8%) or institutional library (27%). The payment of such fees out of an author’s personal funds appears relatively low—about 5% across all open access journals.

The most common sources of funding for open access publication are research grants (that allow open access fees to be charged to the grant) and institutional library funds. PLOS has compiled a list of some institutions and funders from around the world who have Open Access funds or policies to support open access publishing charges. You can check that list to see if any of those are available to you.
If none of these options are available to you, find out if the publisher can offer a fee waiver. According to the SPARC guide:

Most publishers using the model make allowances for special situations (for example, individuals without a host institution or from less developed countries), assessing lower fees or waiving fees altogether when no institutional subsidy exists. Society publishers often discount article publication fees for members, or waive them entirely.

For example, PLOS waives fees for research from eligible low-income countries and offers fee assistance for authors who have no other source of funding that covers the open access publication charges. Similarly, Elsevier offers fee waivers "in cases of genuine need." Wiley offers an automatic waiver to authors in certain eligible low-income countries, and discount to authors from another group of countries. Springer has a similar automatic waiver, and also allows authors to submit individual waiver requests.


text:
How to request to be co-corresponding author
We had a paper accepted in one of the top biology journals (IF=15). It is a work in which I participated in the part of computational biology, and was submitted by a colleague, she being the corresponding author since she is an expert on the field. We had a major revision and I had to do an outstanding work and a lot of calculations in order to have the paper accepted. I even developed a new approach. So now that we are at the proof stage, I would like to request her to appear in the paper as co-corresponding author since this is very important in my country. I do not know exactly how to do it. I will tell her to add me as co-corresponding with the text “to which all computational biology based correspondence should be addressed” since she is wet lab biologist. But I do not think this will be enough argument for her, i guess she will say initial ideas came from her side. What do you suggest for my “cover letter” to her?

Is this even allowed by the journal?  My experience has been that journals only allow one corresponding author.

Many journals I know allow several corresponding authors. And in addition, I have the experience that journals such as Scientific Reports allow adding co-corresponding authors during proofs stage

Is there also prestige to being the single corresponding author in your or your colleague's countries? Because if there isn't you might well be overthinking this.

Yes, i think there is prestige in being the only corresponding

Is it possible to consider a paper on your own showing this "new" approach - perhaps find another area where it could be applied to reinforce it?

Yes, that is what I  am doing now.

Why don't you just say that being the correspondent author is valuable in your country?  This shouldn't be a problem unless being the correspondent author is also valuable in her country.

we are based in the same country. the problem I see is that she can say "I want to be the only corresponding author. If both of us are corresponding, then it is of no value for me"

While I don't really understand the value of this to you, not being in your immediate culture, the solution is clear as it is in most similar situations.
If you want something, just ask for it. Give her your reasons why it is important to you and why you need this at this time. If you ask it as a favor and not as a demand you might be more likely to prevail.
You may not be successful, but nothing you do can guarantee success. Asking keeps it collegial and preserves your relationship for the future.
Yes, you contributed, but so did she, I assume. In most places corresponding author is just a task, not an honor.
I'll suggest that whatever happens in the handling of a single publication it is unlikely to have much of an effect on your career. Working for long-term relationships is, to me, much more important than any check mark on a box or minor point on a CV.

Yes I agree completely on asking it as a favor instead of a demand. And also in the value of long term relationships. Thanks for the point

What you write to your colleague is very similar to what you're writing here. You've strongly contributed to the computational side of this paper, and those computations form a substantial part of the paper. You feel that sharing corresponding authorship would accurately reflect both of your contributions. That's basically it.
You could also ask for a shared last authorship, and you should definitely consider asking for a shared first for your student who's done the computations.
Congratulations on the paper!

From my point of view, a shared last authorship is the same as sharing corresponding authorship. Otherwise, why do you think it is different? Thanks for the answer

It feels the same to me as well. However, I think I've seen shared last authorships that were not all corresponding (and I've also seen corresponding authorships for people who weren't last authors) - but my memory could be playing tricks on me.