text:
Is it professional to have a "cited by" section of a personal website?
I'm not sure if there's a word or phrase for a "reverse bibliography", but that's what I'm looking to put on my website - a list of other papers that have cited my own work. The goal is to show that my work has had influence and has spread beyond just the paper itself. Is this common in academia, or is it only common to list one's own papers?

How about creating a google scholar account? Then people can easily look up that information.

For any well established research, they will usually have quite a large number of citations, which would make a "cited by" section would be exhausting to maintain and large beyond meaningful readability.  A better route is to link to an database that actually engages in curating ones citations, such as Google Scholar.
I do, however, sometimes see people maintaining a collection of notable articles in non-scientific media.  These are not normally picked up by citation databases and are valuable for showing that work is having impact outside of the scientific community, as well as (sometimes) providing a nice introduction to the work.

Very interesting, I'll look into Google Scholar as an option.

Regarding "maintaining a collection of notable articles in non-scientific media", I know my advisor keeps a section similar to this in which he lists TV, and radio interviews conducted with him.

To expand on @jakebeal's answer: If you can still list all citations you have ever received, then the number of citations you have received is so small that the attempt reflects negatively. Most reasonably well established scientists have thousands of citations to their credit. It becomes impossible to list them all. The list also often grows by a dozen a week, more than you probably want to keep up.
As already noted, the solution lies in linking to a referencing service such as google scholar or MathSciNet.

I agree with linking to a referencing service, but this is somewhat field dependent.  The median number of citations for a pure math paper is 0, and the very top journals have IFs around 3.  There are National Academy members with "only" a few hundred total citations.  It is a significant (though also very noisy) indicator for someone applying for a tenure-track job to have been cited, and even more significant if they've been cited more than a dozen times (though subfields vary quite a bit in both paper writing and citation practices, so interpretation requires care).

A dozen a week means in 2 years you get > 1000 citations... isn't that a heck of a lot? Sounds like a rarity even among professors...

@AlexanderWoo That's why the very first thing a hiring committee does is to look up all the applicants on MathSciNet to make a table of the number of papers and of citations. This can be a problem in applied maths, where MathSciNet a) doesn't list the more application-focused journals and b) has a backlog of months to years, but should be more accurate for the lower-volume pure maths fields you are referring to. Google Scholar is way too noisy to be relied upon in this context.

@AlexanderWoo -- one could argue that if you only have a few hundred citations over a lifetime of research, then you're doing things nobody cares about. The same could be said about the median pure math paper. But that's a discussion not worth getting into.

@Mehrdad -- I don't know. I got 438 citations last year (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hmznSQwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao). This is a reasonable number, but I could probably list 2 dozen colleagues within 5 minutes who are significantly above that.

@ChristianClason -- it's true that Google Scholar lists a lot of things that may or may not be relevant. But I do think that it is a very useful tool when comparing people in the same field against each other.

@WolfgangBangerth Only if the person in charge actually takes the trouble to curate the list properly. I could name some colleagues whose impressive citation numbers are due to them sharing last name and initial with an (even more) prominent mathematician. On the other hand, as a first glance to what they've been up to the last year or two, Google Scholar is indeed very useful (and much more so than MathSciNet). Horses for courses.

@ChristianClason I think that if you choose to refer people to Google Scholar see who you've been cited by, it's clear incumbent upon you to curate your page.

@jakebeal I agree of course, but my point is that the fact that some people don't limits its usefulness as a tool to compare people against each other (e.g., in the context of a hiring committee). All this is somewhat tangential to the original question, though, since a committee would put even less stock in a self-maintained "cited-by" list, so (properly) maintaining a Google Scholar profile is indeed a reasonable alternative.

Let turn this round....
People reading your website may be doing so because they are interested in your research topics.  Therefore assuming you list your papers by topic, it could be very helpful for you to also list papers that expand on your papers in interesting ways, including explaining how they expand on your work in a few sentences.


text:
When to start applying for permanent lectureships (UK, humanities)?
Last year, I finished my PhD in history and started a 3-year postdoc at a Russell Group university in the UK. I have a few peer-reviewed articles, but haven't published my thesis as a book yet. When is a good time to start applying for permanent lectureships (tenure-track assistant professorships) in the UK?

Your mentors (e.g. PhD advisor and postdoc advisor) are key here. You'll need their support to land a position (and they are in a much better position to answer your question then us).

Yesterday. Or earlier. The more you apply, the more you understand how it works.

There is never a perfect time. There is always something to finish, or something important to do to boost your CV.
You should start applying when you feel ready, or perhaps slightly before that. The job market is extremely competitive -- it might take 2+ years and 100+ applications to get your first offer. Better start early and learn by doing.

The time to start applying is now. You are in a strong position, fresh out of your PhD and with a 3-year runway in which to get a permanent job (or find a very good second postdoc that will set you up for a permanent job). This means that for the moment you can be picky and only apply for jobs which you think would be particularly good to have, or for which you think you would be a particularly strong fit. Apply more and more broadly as you get towards the end of your postdoc, until in the last round at the start of your third year you're applying for more or less all the jobs out there (that you would actually take).
I realise that having a book is very important in history, and you may well not be in a position to actually get a permanent job until you've published one, but it's still important to start applying regardless.

Partly this is because, as others have said in their answers and comments, that you will learn how to write applications and how the job market works by participating in it, not by simply spectating.
Another reason is that there is a lot of randomness in the job market. For some jobs, you might be more competitive than you think, just because of some alignment of circumstances that makes your profile a particularly good fit even if you're relatively junior. Moreover, opportunities which pass you by now may not come again. The job market in the humanities is very tough at the moment, and may even get worse in the future.
It is also because even if searches are notionally closed, word gets around. Even if a search committee rules you out as too junior, they might still view you as a good prospect, and that could be communicated to other people in the field. Similarly, if you are applying to permanent positions now your letter writers will also have you in mind if the question of hiring comes up (e.g. at conferences—people talk!). It's good for you to be in as many people's minds as possible as a good prospect, even down the line. Starting to apply now sends a message for the longer term.

All this being said, there is a cost involved in being on the job market. It takes a lot of time to prepare good application materials, and more time still to tailor them to particular jobs. This is time you're not spending doing research and publishing your work. That's why I recommended a staged strategy above, starting with fewer applications and ramping up to more as you get closer to the end of your position, when your profile will be stronger and your materials more polished (but also when you'll need to have another job more urgently). There is also an emotional cost, so again, building up over time can help keep that manageable.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I submit my Research Proposal as a Writing Sample for a US PhD application in Humanities?
I noticed that in US PhD application forms there is no separate portion for attaching a PhD research proposal. The writing sample I have is an essay from an undergraduate class and non-academic articles written for a newspaper. My master's theses were written for a different field and in a different language. So I wrote the PhD research proposal to address the competency in the field I wish to apply. The online applications do not say, and the admissions are not answering this question. Can I submit my research proposal as a writing sample or will combining the shorter undergraduate essay with  two newspaper articles into one writing sample be better?

I would advise against this. Writing samples and research proposals are distinct documents, and submitting one when you have been asked for the other is not likely to be a successful strategy.
A writing sample should demonstrate, first and foremost, your ability and your potential in the field in question. It should be a polished and high quality example of what you are capable of, hopefully suggesting to its readers that with the right training (i.e. theirs) you will develop into a real scholar and expert in the field. A writing sample is not a place to set out a research programme. If they ask you for a research proposal, then of course you have something to submit, but it is not surprising that many programmes do not: in the US system, you will be expected to work out the subject of your dissertation during your first couple of years in grad school, rather than arriving with a topic in hand that you are ready to start work on.
You would be better off submitting your undergraduate essay, assuming that it's in the right field, but in whatever time you have before submitting the application you should try to improve it as much as possible, so that it reflects as well as possible on your knowledge and ability. I don't know exactly how important writing samples are typically taken to be in the area of the humanities that you are applying in, but in some (e.g. philosophy) they are extremely important indeed, especially for candidates who come from non-US institutions and whose academic transcripts are harder for admissions committees to judge.

Unless there is some expectation of confidentiality in the research proposal you could use it. But most of the things you mention could serve as well. Even something from a different field. The purpose of the writing sample is to judge your competency with writing in the expected language, not necessarily the field of interest. You are applying to a doctoral program not because you don't need to learn what it is designed to teach, after all. I think this is especially true in the US, where most students enter with only a bachelors and aren't expected to have deep knowledge in the field beyond the basics.
Submit something that shows you can write effectively in English for the US, and can effectively carry an argument.

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


text:
Difficulty of the Mathematics GRE Exam
I've been gathering information about the GRE mathematics subject test. Going over most of the tets available at this link, I see that to get a scaled score of, say, 800+, one now need a higher raw score on the newer tests compared to the older tests. This naturally led me to infer that perhaps the exams of recent years have become easier, making the curve shift toward the right of the range. However, the following link mentions that the subject tests have actually become harder! I was hoping if someone could expound on this issue. If the subject tests have become harder, why does one need to a larger raw score to get the same scaled score.

Define "harder"?  If the questions are about the same, but you have to get a higher raw score to achieve the same scaled score, then in some sense the exam has become harder.

(At least in mathematics), by this year the general types of questions asked are very well known, and many people study intensely and specifically toward this exam (rather than studying mathematics itself...) Drill in timed-test-taking helps in obvious technical ways. So the raw scores go up. But/and at some point (in grad admissions for our program) I stopped caring about timed, multiple-choice appraisals, so this inflation does not disturb me at all.

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


text:
How to make sure graduate admissions committees are able to recognize/verify the material a student has self studied
I posted a similar question at the following link yesterday; since, however, the focus of the question was different, I'm posting this question in a separate post.
It seems as if I'll be taking the next year off and studying a lot of mathematics on my own and apply to graduate schools in the next cycle. There's a lot of advice both on this website and Academia StackExchange for such students. However, I'd like to know how can students who have studied material outside of class better convince the admissions committee of the work they have done thus far. I know it's generally difficult to do this as an international student; the situation must be different for U.S citizens, I suppose.
Assuming I don't get to take courses which I'll be self studying over the next few months, how should I go about making sure the admissions committee take due notice of the work I have done, and more importantly, they can recognize it, if not verify it completely. Of course, I will keep in touch with my math adviser. In addition, what else can I do? Say, I am studying abstract algebra on my own in the summer, working out problems in, say, Dummit and Foote's book. Should I, perhaps, make a website (a Google site), periodically type the solutions to the work I have done and post it online, so when I apply to graduate schools, I can refer admissions committees to this portfolio of sorts.
In a nutshell, I'd like to know, especially for students who have gone through such a process/situation, of the list of best possible set of actions one can do to make sure the work one has done outside of class is duly considered, if someone who is interested in mathematics schools doesn't have a large number of math courses.
Edit:
I have an additional query: I'll be taking next year off, but I'll be able to visit my college. Even though I won't be enrolled in classes, preferably with the instructor(s) who already know me, sit in their classes, work on problem, and perhaps even take exams. even though I won't get a grade, I could ask the instructor to mention in the letter that I completed this task. She could also comment on how well I did relative to my peers. Thoughts?

@CoderInNetwork I'll course be doing that. But I see that as more of a requirement (on which I will have to do well, of course) requirement to apply to schools. What about other 'unofficial' work I may have done outside of class; hence the question.

A web site does not seem very useful, because there is no way to know who actually solved the problems. Also, an admissions committee is unlikely to have time to review and grade your portfolio of problem solutions. Think about how much time you are asking them to spend on your application, and multiply by the number of applicants.

@PatriciaShanahan Yes, of course. This was the best alternative I could think of. Do you have any other suggestions? I'm sure students before, who must have self studied material, must have gotten into some schools, in part based on the work they did outside of class.

@JunaidAftab I got into a CS PhD program based almost entirely on work done outside of class. My academic CS education was limited to a master's degree awarded over 25 years earlier. At the time, the GRE had a CS subject test. I did enough independent study before taking it to get 94th percentile. I also got letters of recommendation from colleagues who knew I was doing research-type work on the job.

@PatriciaShanahan You did have a master's degree in CS prior to getting a PhD. I think that's the best one can do to catch up if one hasn't had a very rigorous undergraduate education in the field one intends to go to graduate school. The research-type work seems like a good option. Unfortunately, with my interests that overlap in 2 fields, it'll be hard to find someone and work on a problem. I hope the material I study outside of class, which'll hopefully be mentioned in letter, will be able to convince the committees to see that I have done work outside of class. Any comments?

Letters of recommendation which attest to this, and also perhaps the math GRE. You can't believe how much garbage I see in personal statements about how much students have "mastered" a particular mathematical topic studying on their own, only to find out later they had "forgotten" what they had learned months ago after I meet them in the autumn and they're banging on my door asking me to take them on as their potential advisor. So this is why I trust letters of recommendation over the word of the student by and large these days. Please get one of your letter writers to attest to your self-study. Generally, the more senior and influential the letter writer who says this, the more likely I will believe you've self-studied what you say you've self-studied.

I have a have a follow up question. I read your answer to a related question at http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/77965/how-can-i-effectively-switch-fields-from-physics-to-math-post-undergrad/84764#84764. What do you mean by "expository paper" in your post? I assume math reading courses usually involve working through a textbook and solving problems. In this case, what would qualify as an expository paper, and what did you mean by it in your post?

I got into a computer science PhD program based almost entirely on work done outside of class. My academic CS education was limited to a master's degree awarded over 25 years earlier. My bachelor's degree was in mathematics, not CS. In 2002, I don't think anyone really cared that I had known how compilers were built in the early 1970's.
At the time, the GRE had a CS subject test. The combination of a general effort to keep up with what was happening in computer science and some independent study before taking it got me into the 94th percentile. I got letters of recommendation from colleagues who knew I was doing research-type work on the job, and could point to patent applications.
Translating my experience to your different situation, I agree with the comment recommending taking the GRE subject test in mathematics, even if it is not required. Apply at least some of your study time to the topics that will be tested in it, and to taking practice tests.
Ideally, find some courses you can take with controlled, graded tests. Think of the grading as a service you are paying for with your tuition, even if you don't need lectures.
Keep in touch with the professors you are hoping to use as references. See if one or more of them will let you help with their research, or discuss your independent study. For this purpose, the research does not have to be what you intend to pursue in the future, just something that will let you demonstrate your skills.
Your objective is to have the following:

GRE subject test
grades on courses you have taken
letters of recommendation

accurately reflect your level of suitability and preparation for graduate studies. Those are the things you can be sure an admissions committee will consider.

Thanks for your detailed response, Patricia. My biggest concern is that I lack some coursework. I chose to take more physics courses than mathematics; I didn't know at the time the extent to which I was more interested with approaching the intersections of these two fields mathematically, and I should take more math courses. I have an additional query: I'll be taking next year off, but I'll be able to visit my college. Even though I won't be enrolled in classes, preferably with the instructor(s) who already know me, sit in their classes, work on problem, and perhaps even take exams. Then...

even though I won't get a grade, I could ask the instructor to mention in the letter that I completed this task. She could also comment on how well I did relative to my peers. Thoughts?

Wait, what?  I feel like I stepped out of the theater for a moment and missed an important plot development.  There was a sudden leap from wondering whether To Take More Courses Next Year Or To Take Next Year Off, "that is the question," to "I'll be taking next year off," and I don't know how you got from there to here.
But if I assume you will not be enrolled in any courses next year, and that you have some rational reason for arriving at that plan, then:
The answer to the question you asked here is:

If your university and the instructors in question allow you to audit (either formally or informally), then you could augment your transcript with letters that say what grade you would have gotten in each audited course if you had been enrolled.

But let's back up a step.

"I chose to take more physics courses than mathematics."

Sorry I didn't catch that in your earlier questions (my fault, probably).  Now that I've understood that, and remembering that in your location you will only be able to take one subject test, and that you were unsure whether to target your applications to study mathematical physics towards a math department or a physics department, and, finally, keeping in mind that as an international applicant, it would be wise to maximize your chances of admission and offer of support (typically, a teaching assistantship), I suggest the following decision making procedure:

First, take a practice test for the physics GRE and one for the math GRE.  If your result is significantly better in physics, then your best bet would be to take the physics GRE, and apply primarily to physics departments.  However, you could hedge your bets by choosing universities that have faculty members who do mathematical physics in both their math and their physics departments.  Note that it is not impossible to change departments later on.  But it would be a shame not to get the admission and the support to be able to get started in a U.S. university, as is apparently your aspiration.

I understand that right now you are feeling pulled to study math, partly because that's what fascinates you at present, and partly in order to remedy some perceived deficiencies.  However, some involvement in a research project with rigorous mentorship would strengthen your application.
Comment: It sounds like you might be underestimating the importance of the GRE subject test in your application.

In your second last paragraph, are you implying that I get involved with a mathematics research project? I don't undervalue the importance of either the physics/mathematics GRE's. Yes, I have to do great at it, especially if I choose to appear for the mathematics exam. Even though It's very premature for me make such a claim, I'd like to be in a math department because I'd like my training in core courses to be as a mathematician, laying enough ground work for me to approach the research topics mathematically. You're right, in an ideal world, I'd take both the GRE's, apply to both departments

Etc. I hope I'm able to find at least some physics departments that may accept a Math GRE but that seems like a long shot. As of now, I'll be more than happy to get into even a decent math master's program, before going enrolling in a doctoral program.

It might be hard for you to contribute much to a math research project at this point (remembering how far you've gotten with your courses), but you could see if someone will take you.  Worth a try!

There's no reason not to apply for a PhD program.  In fact, it is often advantageous to declare that as your goal.

Of course. Perhaps I could get involved in a project that'll involve mentoring on behalf of a professor as well; I may not get to work on a problem, but I may get to learn new material. More than that, what about a physics project? I may get a RA position with a professor in the open quantum dynamics etc, but I doubt it'll help me much with math schools.

Junaib, as others have written here, there are plenty of mathematical physicist who are housed in physics departments.  I have even seen them housed in computer science departments.  The important thing isn't the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" math stamp, but the thesis research that you end up doing.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

You're right; it's goes with other way as well. People with undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics at times sit in the math departments and teach math courses as well.

I will try and apply to a wide variety of programs: master's programs, middle tier math schools. Assuming some physics schools accept the math GRE as well, I can perhaps try middle tier physics schools as well (assuming I give the math GRE).

@JunaidAftab - Did you see what I put in the Chat location?

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


text:
Will a paper published in an unrelated/other sub-discipline matter for graduate admission?
My question is similar in spirit, though different in context (I think) to the question posted here.
My professor and I recently submitted a paper on arXiv (submitting for publication soon) that falls in the domain of quantum physics. Here's the link. I really liked enjoying working on the project, and I found it to be a valuable learning experience.
I, however, don't wish to apply to graduate school in physics and specialize in quantum mechanics -- and the study of open quantum systems etc. Ideally, I'd like to join a mathematical physics research group, working of such topics as quantum gravity etc. with a mathematical focus or working on the mathematical aspects of various sub disciplines (quantum mechanics, topological insulators etc.).
I'm aware that being able to demonstrated the ability to do research prior to the graduate level is highly valued at US universities. My question is how will the graduate admissions committee(s) view this (potential) paper? It's already hard to get a spot in various mathematical physics research programs. Will they consider this publication as having no value to them, since the paper doesn't directly coincide with their sub-discipline? Or (if I spin it right), is it possible/expected that they'll view this as an indication of the student's ability to work outside of classroom, work on a project etc.
Edit -- How I intend to spin it. I'd like to use this paper to convince the graduate admissions committee follows: I come from a non-physics background ( major), and I have been studying physics/mathematics (in class, out of class etc.) for the last 2-3 years, and I wish to apply in 1-2 years. I started working on this paper after 1 year of studying physics in class. My first year was quantum mechanics (QM) heavy (three courses). The professor suggested the problem, which mostly used ideas from QM and some basic ideas from quantum information. I worked on the project with him and given my experience of having made the transition, making the first year of transition QM intensive and then working on a QM related problem and producing something with/with the help of a professor (regardless of its impact), I'm thinking of selling it as an indication that I can work outside of class, even when I (had to) make the transition; more importantly, given a problem related to the material I had covered after making the transition, I could produce something.
I know I'm more of "selling it" rather than "linking it with my future research interests." How does this sound in terms of having an impact on the committee and how they'll evaluate me (and my unusual situation).

Please see the edit to get more information on the context.

Evidence that you can complete a research paper is a definite positive.  Many good students are not cut out for original research, so this should help make you an attractive candidate.  As you suggest, it is up to you to explain how the existing work does or does not relate to your intended research program as a graduate student.
NB: I am in the social sciences.

Let me try and edit the question as to how I intend to spin the project on my application in the future. Hopefully, this'll give you and others a better idea of the context.

Please see the edit to get more information on the context.

Whether a paper in another discipline has a positive impact or no impact for an application highly depends on the admission committe and your way of handling it.
If you simply list the publication in your publication list, it might be just noticed, not even be recognized or lead to a question in your interview. I doubt that there would be any negative impact.
Depending on your personality you could also be more straightforward and add a few words on this publication to the job application letter. Use it to highlight your ability to think outside the box or to  learn the ropes. These are positive attributes. And yes, this technique indead could be called "selling it" but not necessarily in a negative way.


text:
Cover letter to article submitted by someone besides the corresponding author
My supervisor has asked me to submit an article that was already worked on before I joined our university.
The journal requires that a cover letter be submitted, but since I have contributed minimally to the manuscript, my supervisor has elected to be the corresponding author.
In writing the cover letter, is it appropriate to write on my behalf of myself but ask that they address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to the corresponding author [insert supervisor's email here]?
This manuscript is not in my field, but my supervisor wants me to get my name on it anyway to start working on other related projects that will be in my expertise.

"Corresponding author" is just a corresponding author, the person the journal will communicate with. It's an administrative role, not one of value or prestige (typically; there may be some exceptions, see footnote); perhaps your subvisor is confused about this, but really I think they are just asking you to be their secretary.
The cover letter should be written on behalf of all the authors, even if a particular author signs it. It seems bizarre to me that someone would correspond with the journal on behalf of the rest of the authors and not be named the corresponding author, since that is exactly what a corresponding author is – if I am the editor, I would like to know who I should write to, so I ask you to tell me this by giving me that person's contact information, and I shall deem that person "corresponding author". If your supervisor will handle the rest of the correspondence, then the cover letter might as well be signed by them. If it's unimportant and lacking prestige to be a corresponding author, it's even less important and further from notable who wrote the text on a cover letter, there is no need (and zero value to you) to have your signature there.

This manuscript is not in my field, but my supervisor wants me to get my name on it anyway

Have you actually contributed materially to this manuscript, besides perhaps minor edits of the text itself? In the case where you haven't, you almost certainly should not be an author in the first place, and the rest is moot.

footnote on corresponding authorship:
In some cases, particularly in fields where order of authorship does not signal contribution, people may use corresponding authorship to indicate the person primarily responsible for the work. Additionally or jointly with this, some journals also differentiate between a "corresponding author" and a "communicating/contact" one (the former listed in the published paper; the latter taking on the administrative role I described), or facilitate a different "corresponding author" during the submission process vs. in the published paper. See some prior Q&A here on the topic:

What is the explicit meaning of “corresponding author”?

Is there any academic advantage of being the submitting author of a paper?

Does "corresponding author" carry an implied meaning?

What correspondance for corresponding author?

Yes, the dean's suggestion may well be unethical.

Recall that "corresponding author" can mean the person one is to contact first after publication if you have questions.  Not that I ever follow that rule.  The cover letter should be on behalf of all, with signatures a formality.   Who is author is the big deal and I agree that something is rotten in Denmark.

@BryanKrause I have made minor edits and additions to the paper. I am listed as the third author because that's where the dean told me to place my name.

@WnGatRC456 At least in my field, that sounds insufficient for authorship.


text:
Lack of team support in post-PhD Mathematics career
I received my PhD in mathematics about ten years ago. Despite my preference,  desire, and attempts, I was not offered any postdoctoral positions. Part of the reason was (I think) that my dissertation topic was outdated, as opposed to being trendy. Since then, I have accepted a couple of tenure-track positions in teaching-oriented institutions, the second at a two-year Community College and in two years from now I will most probably be tenured. However, I constantly struggle with existential questions. I am not where I wanted to be. Granted, I have a job, but if my goal was to have a job, I was totally capable of aiming at a higher-paying job, instead of mathematics, when I was deciding what to study at college. As a teenager what intrigued me about mathematics (and still does) was its beauty and the opportunity it provided me for being creative through research and continuous learning. However, since my PhD the processes of research and learning have been very slow, despite my continuous attempts. For a long time I used to think the reason was lack of time due to heavy teaching load. While that may have contributed to the problem, I now think a bigger reason is lack of team support. There is a disconnect between my job and my research. I don't have people (graduate students, researchers, etc.) around me to whom I can talk about my research, everyday or every week. Consequently, the ratio of outcome to the time that I spend on research and learning new things is very small. So what are my questions?

Ideally I would have liked to be part of a team, a lab if you like, consisting of one or two senior mathematicians (lab leaders), research assistants (mathematicians like myself who are not young enough to be postdocs, but still need to develop their research plans), postdocs, and graduate students. My question is, does such a model exist anywhere?
Are there any options for mathematicians who really are not after a secure job and prefer to work as research assistants (paid less), rather than tenured "calculus teaching" faculty who do not meet age requirements to be considered for postdoctoral positions?
Suppose someone (e.g., myself) didn't know better and did his dissertation on a topic that was not trendy and because of that couldn't secure a postdoctoral position. Is that the end of their career as a research mathematician? Are there any other options? What would you suggest?

If you don't want to actually change jobs, but just want a better research environment, is there a research university near you?  You could start by just dropping in on their colloquiums, and build connections with people with similar interests.

I think you are overestimating the importance of the thesis topic being trendy.

@Tobias Personally I think dissertation topic is important for getting a postdoctoral position, at least in the U.S. The reason is when departments are looking for postdocs, they usually want someone whose work is related to their own research. Now if someone writes a dissertation on a problem that no one is working on anymore, then that person's chance for getting a postdoc position is reduced. What are some other factors that you think are important for getting a postdoc position?

@Must: I am inclined to agree with Tobias.  By the way, doing your dissertation on a problem that "no one is working on" is usually a good thing rather than a bad thing.  If you meant that the dissertation is in an area that no one is working on anymore, then that could be a problem, but most theses are done in the advisor's area so that doesn't seem like much of a risk.  Important factors for getting a postdoc: (i) the quality of the thesis work; (ii) the reputation of your advisor and the strength of their recommendation; (iii) existence and quality of other work; (iv) excellent teaching.

@Pete: Yes, I meant area.

There is a wide spectrum between working in a "dead" area and a trendy one. Certainly working in a completely dead area would be a disadvantage, and it can be an advantage to work in a trendy area. But most people will not be continuing with precisely the same topic as in their dissertation when they start a postdoc (or at least, they will generally be expected to expand beyond that topic during the postdoc).

This model is extremely common in Europe (for example, one of my coauthors in Germany is in a group with her and another senior professor, two junior mathematicians on essentially very long term second postdocs, and about 7 or 8 young postdocs and 7 or 8 graduate students), but there is no institutional framework for it in the US.  I know of pairs of tenure-line faculty at the same institution who are close enough to essentially run a joint research group, but outside of a few departments, they are unlikely to have more than one postdoc at a time, so "research group" mostly means them and their graduate students.
Not really.  Essentially postdoctoral positions are the only mechanism that exists in the US system for paying people who are not already performing at a pretty high level to do research.  You could still apply to these, though as I think you've already guessed, the odds aren't great this long post-Ph.D.  I think the other possibility would be obtaining a long term, non-tenure-track lectureship at a research university (for example, my department hired someone to such a job this year) where there are senior faculty who might work with you.  There would still be high teaching expectations (though maybe not worse than a TT community college position), and any research involvement would be "on your own time," but presumably that's largely the case now.
I suppose this depends on how you define "career as a research mathematician."  The answer is obviously not "absolutely no," look at Yitang Zhang.  Of course, that's a very extreme example (Zhang didn't even have a teaching position in mathematics for several years), but I think it does show that if you do something undeniably great, at whatever age, the community is open to it.  On the other hand, this is like asking "If I can't get on a Division I college team, does that mean my career as a basketball player is over?"   Obviously, no one can stop you from playing basketball, but if you mean doing so professionally, the odds are slim. If you're really that good, then maybe an NBA team will notice and hire you.  But you're not going to be in the place that they look for potential new players, and you'll be missing out on how most people develop their skills.  So it's a tough row to hoe.

I think in terms of what's realistic: if what you're missing is being around other people doing mathematics, getting ideas, etc. and you're not worried about security then I would look into finding a permanent (or at least renewable) but non-tenure-track teaching position at a larger research department.  It will certainly have some downsides, but I think it's the closest feasible approximation to what you're looking for.

This kind of position would give you access to a university library and the chance to attend the departmental colloquium, and perhaps the chance to interact with tenure track faculty in the department (if they're willing to spend time talking to you about research.)


text:
Can I describe in my own word few experiments from some academic papers to write a popular science book?
My book is about a theory that is based upon existing theories and recent experiments in biology. Since biology is not my main field, and since my theory is interesting to the general public, I self-published my book.
The response to my book has been good.
But now I am afraid because I have described several mainstream biological experiments in my book, which although I accessed through my institution, and are not in the public domain. I was careful to cite the original research and describe results in a short, non technical way, in my own words. I also included several graphs in my book that I drew myself in a qualitative way, based upon the diagrams of the research papers.
So, can there be any legal issues with my book? A friend of mine is suggesting that I need to get permission from publishers of the research papers before describing the content of their papers, because I used their material for commercial purpose (to write my book).
I must clarify that the experiments that I have described are only a part of my book, about 20%, and the rest of the book uses the experiments to develop a semi-original biological theory of my own. I needed to describe the experiments to let the readers know the basis of my arguments.

If describing other people's research required their consent or their publisher's consent or had to be done accurately and responsibly, a lot of people would be in trouble.

If you couldn't do exactly what you are describing, then there would be no textbooks.

There is similarity to an artist painting an image (or author writing a story) that is later critiqued by an art (or literature) critic. The critic may offer some pretty significant descriptions of the artist's work. The artist still owns rights to the image and the critic has done nothing wrong.

In general, copyright protects words, sounds, images, and similar artifacts.  Copyright does not, however, protect ideas or knowledge.  The use of ideas and knowledge can be protected by a patent.  No intellectual property right, however, can be used to prevent a person from describing a published piece of information in their own words.
In your case, it sounds as though you are taking what you have learned by reading about this scientific work and presenting it with your own original words and images.  As such, I think that you have nothing to fear, as long as you are certain to give appropriate references and credit to the original authors whose work you are describing.  In a popular science publication, such citations might be more informal than in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but as long as they are clear to the reader, what you describe doing appears to be entirely ethical and appropriate.

"No intellectual property right, however, can be used to prevent a person from describing a published piece of information in their own words" - unless it's about the souls of some aliens in a volcano... people have been sued just for mentioning it.

@all Just curious - given that OP accessed this research through his/her institution, would said institution (generally) be entitled to a cut of any profits accrued? If yes, would it chase the same for, say, a moderately successful book? Obviously local policies will vary, but is there a well populated median of them?

@vsz You can sue for anything you want in the USA, and if you invest heavily enough in lawyers you may even win. That's why anti-SLAPP statutes get enacted.

@stochasticboy321, the University would not be entitled to a cut of any profits solely on the basis of it proving access to the research any more than a non-University library would.

In addition to what Jakebeal said in his answer, what you are worried about is common practice in review articles, science journalism, textbooks, and of course other popular-science books. Producing either of these would be extremely tedious if there were a copyright issue. Also, if this were an issue, I should have encountered it in my experience with the former two.


text:
How long does it take a student to conduct undergrad research and then release a publication based off of that research?
I'll be attending a accredited/well-recognized university for my undergrad this coming fall, and I'm just curious about research correlating with publications. I have a particular yearning passion in enhancing the field of pediatric robotic surgery, a new field of medicine that just opened up very recently, and I am firmly intrigued in doing undergrad research along with a publication from that department. Now I know for a fact publications take up an exceeding amount of time.
My main question is :
How long does it take a student to conduct undergrad research and then release a publication based off of that research?

Even though any research takes a minimum threshold of time,  it depends heavily on the field and where you want to publish. But it is not clear from your question whether you are a medical student.

If you are serious about research as a means to advance your future career, aim to spend around 15-20 hours a week on it.

I think your question is perhaps ambiguous (does "typical length of time" mean hours you put in, or days/months from the start of the project?), and not really answerable regardless of the interpretation. There are different kinds of undergraduate research. Here are a couple of the usual ways undergrad research is done:

A somewhat intensive short period of time (6-8 weeks, say) where a student works on a topic chosen by an advisor ahead of time. Presumably these topics are carefully chosen so that the student is able to make real progress in such a short period of time. These projects are often in the form of an REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates). If you do some googling, you will likely find REU's in your field of study, and some advisors/organizers nicely list all of the publications that come out of the REU's. You will see that not all REU projects result in publications.
Working over a longer period of time with a specific professor in your department. This can be an actual job, where you are paid to work in a research lab, or it can be an "independent study" course, where you actually get a couple of credits to work with a professor on a research project. If you are being paid to do research as a student job, your hours may be (at least technically) limited by university policy. This type of research can be very substantial. For example, I knew a person who worked in a professor's fluid mechanics lab for all 4 years of his undergraduate education, and I think they produced and published some nice results.

So, for shorter more packaged projects, I think a "typical" time would be 6-8 weeks. For longer, more open-ended projects, you could potentially work with a professor for years (depending on lab space, grant money, etc.). All of this is highly field-dependent I'm sure.
Now, all of this being said, I think the most important point to make is that publications should not be your ultimate goal. Work hard, be passionate about your field of study, learn as much as you can, and keep up on the other things you have to do as an undergrad. If you do this, then you will impress your advisors and have great letters of recommendation, which will help you get into a great graduate school, and then you can spend the rest of your career worrying about publications :)

So pretty much most students will take the 6-8 week study program in the summer I'm guessing?

The answer depends on many many factors

How intelligent you are
How concentrated your work is
How hard what you're doing is
How much support you get from the rest of the group
How much previous experience you have
Whether the project actually ends up producing publishable work
What the rest of the group is doing, where they are at with publications
Whether you're first author/who actually writes the paper.

I go to a famous university in the UK and even though I've spent two of my summers doing research projects that were 8 weeks long, I've only been listed as an author in one conference abstract & talk so far.
For example my first project would have been publishable if it had worked but the problem was far too complex and it didn't work out.
I'm now in my masters year and much more likely to get a publication from the work I've been doing in the past few months (2-3). There are up to 3 papers my supervisor is talking about my work being included in and .
I put this better outcome down to better vision from the supervisor, harder work and better work from myself due to experience and the fact the group are looking to publish soon.
It's very complex balance of things, if your main goal of a project is to publish which is fair enough because this is how we concretely measure progress in academia, I'd suggest a minimum of 8 weeks work would be required. You also want to keep an eye out on how frequently groups are publishing and ask the research scientists you look to work with about publishing prospects when deciding.
If you were writing the paper yourself then you need extra time for that too.

Thanks, but what if the publication is between the student in collaboration with the professor, how would you say about that?

You'll pretty much always work in collaboration. What exactly are you asking? It will still take at least 8 weeks work on the problem and probably more. It will then take a month or two to write up (whether you or your supervisor does that) and then months for the submission process. The only shortcut is if you do a small piece of work for a bigger paper and you get added onto the end of a paper they are already working on.

Also in the UK at least, summer projects of 6-8 weeks are available but only students interested in research complete them and only a small number of these projects lead to publications.

Well what I am asking specifically how is the credit distributed between the student and professor. Does the professor tend to get more credit because of their wealth of knowledge? Sorry for not being clear enough.

Ah okay, so in most fields, whoever writes the paper is typically the first author and other authors come after. The credit will basically be given to authors on how much of the work in the paper was done by them, your supervisor would be on the paper too, often as corresponding author but if you've done the most work and written up you'll go first.

Another thing that I'd like to add to the factors listed is prerequisites. One of my friends is interested in dynamical systems but he cannot take up research very seriously before covering the heavy groundwork which includes pretty involved stuff including algebraic geometry.


text:
Can I submit/ArXiv without my advisor? I am being blocked from publishing my work
I joined a research group of a faculty member in 201x, and worked with her for three years. During that time, I collaborated with a large hospital to perform research in the domain of medical informatics. I spoke about my research at two conferences; one was a talk, and the other was a poster presentation. My advisor asked me to write up the research in a paper around the second year, which I did. Around the third year, I decided to switch research groups, because of the relationship between me and my advisor going sour, and not having funding from her (I used to work part-time to fund my PhD research).
Once this happened, she withdrew her support from me publishing my paper and ordered that I give up my work to a fellow grad student. I told her, that my manuscript is in its Nth revision, and that I would like to take it to completion as first author. She was dismissive and didn’t offer any comments on my work. I told her, that, should I pass on my work, I would like to discuss authorship issues in advance, which she wasn’t ready to discuss. She ganged up my new advisor against me, and together they forced me to give up my code, results, paper drafts. I had to then leave the university without a degree.
Fast forward couple of years, I receive an email from a student in her lab (the student whom I had to hand over my work to), saying that they are publishing a paper, and have decided I am the fourth author. I read the paper and found out that it uses my experimental setup and design, data collection, and one of the ideas I had presented (the idea wasn’t the main crux of my paper, but I believe it was novel).
I want to

Publish my original draft in ArXiv/BioArXiv, as first author.
Request my advisor to cite my work in their publication.

Given how she behaved with me, I know that despite what I am asking for sounds fair, she is likely to object.
I am asking the community: Can I go ahead and ArXiv it without her permission? I could add her as an author, but not take her permission. Also, if you have any other ideas on how to deal with this situation please let me know.
(For the record, this was at a top-10 school in the US in an engineering department).

How much is her contribution to your original draft you intend to send to arXiv?

She was instrumental in getting the collaboration between me and the hospital to kick off and work, signing off on the consent forms to collect data at the hospital, and putting me in touch with the right people. No input to the actual analysis, programming, or work needed. Maybe some feedback on abstracts, some written material and posters.

To the final written draft that I have, probably nothing.

To ask @scaaahu's question differently: Is your old advisor a coauthor of your original draft? Would she have been if you had published earlier? If she is a coauthor, you must have her permission.

@Lux: Can you please [edit] that information into your question?

@Lux: Can you clarify what you mean by "can I go ahead"? What exactly is at stake here? Obviously you can upload anything to arXiv, so what's the catch for you? Are you worried they'll take it down? Are you still doing research and worried about your research career? Are you wondering if you'll get sued for copyright infringement or similar? Are you wondering if your coworkers will suddenly hate you if they hear about this?

@Mehrdad, I was wondering if my professor can retract it from arXiv. I am fine in case they want to hire another student and legitimately build up on my research, but from prior experience with them, I feel (and am almost sure) they won't give me my due credit in authorship. Putting my draft on arXiv, just helps me present my own research, thus forcing them to cite me, now that the research is out in the open for all to evaluate.

I think the best advice to your delicate situation very much depends on where you stand right now. This all boils down to conflicts of interests and emotional spats: your (mis)advisor pushing you out of the field and now you wish to take the higher ground. However how important is a publication just anywhere for your interests right now? Are you staying in the academia, same field?

@Lux, perhaps you could Accept one of the submitted answers?

I suggest you respond to the student and your former advisor roughly as follows:

You do not consent to their proposal to publish the paper, as prepared, with you listed as 4th author. You believe that the substance of your contribution entitles you to first authorship, either on this paper, or on another paper to be published with citation priority.
You understand that your decision to withhold consent blocks the publication of the current work.
You would welcome an amicable resolution to the impasse that meets the needs of all parties.
Your proposal is [** what you said above **].
You welcome any alternative proposals from them for how to divide the work, in ways that are fair, and consistent with previous understandings and contributions.
You propose that if you cannot between yourselves craft a mutually acceptable solution within a reasonable timeframe -- say, 30 days -- then the matter should be submitted to the University Ombudsperson with a request to help mediate the dispute.
** [Edited:] If asked: You are open to alternative proposals for referees, but you want to keep the Ombudperson involved as the core arbitrator. (The reason: Other mediators might be more knowledgable about the professional and intellectual details of the case, and thus might be genuinely helpful. But they might be your ex-advisors allies, and/or craven cowards who just want problems to go away.)

I would cc everybody concerned on your letter, including the office of the University Ombudsperson. This last cc gives the Ombudsperson a 'heads up', and also puts a time-stamp on your letter with a (we hope) neutral third party. It also serves as a 'cease and desist' demand temporarily blocking any attempt to submit the paper for publication without your consent.
I am sorry you find yourself in this difficult situation.

I believe this answer is good for the specified situation. Note also that it would be good for your work to appear in a journal paper, since you have done most of it. Also, for open access distribution, you should consider arxiv prior to publication, but arxiv is not a substitute.

@Lux I agree with everything Arthur Small says; I would also suggest cc'ing the Head of the Dept. (this issue involves not one but two faculty within your former department, and the Dept. Head should know about a situation that might be considered academic bullying), and also your Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Review Board (ERB).  These are issues beyond that of your former advisor's research group, and need to come to light to responsible parties at the department and college/campus levels.  I also am very sorry that this has happened to you, and hope the situation improves.

@iwantmyphd may be right - but my impulse is to wait, and confer with the Ombudsperson first. Perhaps there is a well-worn path to be trod here. The  more third parties you bring in, the slower things will move, and the more confrontational you may appear. My impulse is to see if you are getting any positive resolution, before expanding the "circle of complaint".

I did contact the Ombuds office. They told me flat out that they only offer options and do not offer advice or mediation. In essence they were not helpful.
I did contact my advisor, and told her very politely that since the work they are trying to publish builds up on my work, I would like them to review my arXiv draft, and cite my work in their publication. Obviously there has been no reply.

If I cannot find an amicable situation with them, I would have to 'cease and desist', as suggested by @Arthur Small.

A paper must not be published without the (explicit or implicit) consent of all coauthors. This holds true for preprint servers as the arXiv just as for journals, etc.
Given the state of your relationship, there is no basis for assuming implicit consent of your former supervisor. Thus, submitting the paper to the arXiv with your former supervisor as coauthor without asking her is not an option.
You might be able to make a case that she should not be considered a coauthor. My understanding of the norms in your field is that the default assumption is that supervisors are coauthors - so your case would need to be strong enough to overcome that assumption.
This will depend on what your goals are, but in most cases, I would suspect that being some middle author on the paper they want to publish now might be the better outcome for you than having the original paper as single author on the arXiv, and a nasty publication ethics dispute.

Notwithstanding my suggested plan, @Arno's word's carry much wisdom. Whether to pursue a more aggressive defense of your claim, is a tough, tough call. One imponderable: allowing yourself to be bullied or humiliated, can itself be deeply draining. It can warp your entire outlook on your career, even on your life. For this reason, I would argue for a professional, calm, non-confrontational, non-emotional assertion of your claim, with attempts to create a quick, amicable resolution. But yes, it could get nasty, and thus expensive. Taking the authorship offered, is not obviously the wrong move.

Lux, I agree with Arthur Small that to take on this "fight" or not is a tough call. I myself is not a belligerent individual, but I personally feel that sometimes in life, even if a situation is terrifying, there are some things that are so important it compels you to stand up for your principles, against all odds, and against those who wrongs you or deliberately tries to take advantage of you. Not trying to make a direction comparison to your situation, but universal suffrage and gay rights would not exist if everyone just avoided confrontation.

Although experiences can shape our world view, I wouldn't call it "warp". Life is a journey and some of my negative personal experiences, in my opinion, have made me stronger and more mature.

The advise you're getting from other answerers is fine -- though I have a few points to offer.  In this analysis, I'm entirely leaving the circumstances of your separation from the school out of the scenario, as there are quite a few sides to stories like this, and chances are your department and faculty don't have the same view of the situation as you do.  I'll leave my analysis to circumstances as they exist now.
I suggest approaching the head of your departmental graduate program for a discussion before raising this to a higher level, and then possibly to the chair.
I also point out that the "fast forward a couple of years"  part now puts part of the burden on you.  You left a potentially volatile situation simmer for quite some time (innocently), and what would have been fairly easy to deal with a few years ago is now somewhat difficult.  If you dig in your heels, and your past adviser does the same, I point out you're standing in the way of another student's publication, and you have to decide if you really want to do this.  Try to remember that this student has been working for years in good faith.
In light of this, you might think about other possible resolutions that you might find acceptable.  I think your request to publish your original manuscript as a draft, and have that cited in the new paper, is quite reasonable, but it does place some work on your old adviser that she might find objectionable, thus she might not be interested. You might think about how you would respond, for example, if you received an offer of second authorship for the current paper.
I encourage you to think about this situation in terms of how important this publication is to your career path as it stands right now.  If it isn't all that important, you might just want to say "make me a second author" and let it go, but if its key, digging in your heels might be the right thing to do.  Don't let it turn into a revenge thing, though.


text:
Where to learn the 'real' funding threshold for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellowship final project selection
Recently, I received the preliminary result for the MSCA-IF-2016 (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellowship) application, and I learned that I am in the 'reserve list'. I wonder if there is a way to learn the updated funding threshold, which can help me make a better guess regarding my position in the 'reserve list'.
Thanks!

I recently contacted my national contact point. They were able to inform me on the size of the reserve list and my position on that list.
Best

You can find the results from your national contact point and you can also check the list of the results as provided from their site.
In addition, according to their blog from last year:
"This may take up to one year until you are informed if your proposal will be still be funded or not. Experience from recent years shows that no more than 5 proposals - but depending on the panel! - might be funded from the reserve list. It is impossible to foresee or give a valid estimation about the chances for funding."