text:
Faculty position decision timeline
I can't seem to find a answer regarding this point, I would like to know what the usual timeline from the point of application (for tenure track faculty position) submission to  contact for interviews looks like. I have applied to numerous positions, some in February of this year. More than half have neither rejected or contacted me and May is just around the corner. What can I expect?

If you haven't heard back from applications by now I wouldn't get your hopes up. No response is often an implicit rejection.

Country? Field?

No answer often means implicit rejection indeed, as @astronat wrote. Don't wait for an "explicit" rejection to move on. As an example, late dec. 2016  I applied to a position. Mid-april 2018 I received an email informing me that my application was not successful. You should not expect to receive a negative answer anytime soon.

It's hard to answer your question without knowing the country and field. I'll answer from my perspective, which probably extends to your situation, but take it with a grain of salt.
Here's a helpful resource describing in detail a typical (successful) job search timeline for computer science tenure-track faculty positions in the US: http://www.pgbovine.net/faculty-job-search-timeline.htm
Most interview invitations are sent out by the end of February. If you haven't heard by mid April (now), then unfortunately I think it's almost certain that you won't be invited.
Another source of information: Most departments list seminar speakers on their website. When their seminar starts filling up with interviewees, then you know they have been sending out invitations.
Most places never send a formal rejection or, if they do, it comes so late that the outcome was already obvious. So don't expect to hear anything.
Commiserations. The academic job search is tough! I wish you the best of luck in your other endeavours.

My response is coming from my experiences in U.S., working in languages/linguistics, serving on a job search committee, and applying for jobs myself this year.
Typically, initial interviews will start up 2-4 weeks after the application deadline, as search committee members need time to look over the pool of applicants, meet up, discuss, and come to a consensus re: their top picks. There are definitely some exceptions though - I had one place reach out to me after only a week, and another place that reached out almost 2 months after the application deadline.
Also keep in mind that every search committee is operating under some sort of bureaucracy where they need to get approval from higher ups every step of the way, which also adds to the waiting time.
If you've made it to the initial interview and they want to bring you back for a second round/campus visit - which is always the case for tenure-track jobs -
 they'll probably reach out in 1-2 weeks (the initial round of interviews can take 1-3 days to get through, followed by more meetings/discussions). They'll book your campus visit maybe 2-3 weeks from the time they contact you. After that, you might have to wait an additional 2-3 weeks for a final decision (if you're their first pick), given that they probably have 2-3 other final candidates, and because the campus visits are much lengthier, full-day events, each candidate visit is spaced out a bit.
Concrete example: with the job search committee I was on, our application deadline was near the end of October, and the final offer wasn't made until mid-February, I believe. Approximately 3.5 months. (assistant professor)
A contrary example coming from my own job search experience: a couple of weeks ago I received an offer for a job I applied for in mid-March (visiting assistant professor) - so that one only took a month! And in another case, I got an offer last week for a job I applied to back in January, after doing my last interview with them well over a month ago...so that one was closer to 3 months total (and admittedly, I'm pretty sure I wasn't their first pick, lol)

Visiting professor is usually different from tenure track. I've never heard of the multi-day mock lecture, research presentation and abundance of faculty meetings being done for the hiring of a visiting professor.

My response is coming from being on hiring committees in Canada. We generally do not ask for letters of reference at the time of application, but three references who we can contact if/when we want more information on a potential applicant. We then ask for the letters, which can take some time to assemble given the busy lives of most referees, and use them to make the shortlist. Thus, it might be 6-8 weeks before we actually contact applicants for further information or to schedule interviews.


text:
I got accepted to a top quantum information conference as a poster but not as a talk. Is it really worth something?
The background story: I started submitting to a (quantum information/computing) conference in the COVID era, and the experience of online poster sessions was really horrible, at least for me. I largely felt that no one was really interested in poster sessions.
Recently, one submission was accepted to a top quantum information conference, but again not as a talk but as a poster. Unlike many conferences where all submissions not selected for talks get invited as poster sessions, this conference seems to do some vetting (I believe it is like 30~40% selection rate and talks are much less obviously), though I am not really so sure of that. So I was wondering if it really is worth doing a poster session in-person in the area of quantum information/computing. And I am asking for your advice, given that I have zero in-person conference experience and other people should have more understanding and experience.
I really would love to be in the conference in-person, but I would have to cancel some important engagements if I were to attend, so I want to weigh in relative importance.
By the way: the reviewer comment was not 'hostile,' though they had some reservations about general applicability, not logical/mathematical correctness. Since the conference has no rebuttal period, this is the final decision. So I am not so sure how I should consider the worthiness of the conference. Would my poster session simply be waste of time for everyone? To restate, the question stems from my past COVID era poster session experiences that were simply horrible.

I think the answer strongly depends on your own priority, your poster subject and the importance of the conference.

Would your poster be on the last day of the conference? One thing I learned over the years is that the last day can be a graveyard in terms of attendance at both talks and posters.

Presumably this poster will go into your vita, and benefit you forever.  (Unless the custom in your field is that after the work is published in a journal, you never mention the poster session again... in that case it only benefits you for a short time.)

If you mean QIP, then almost every submission gets accepted as a poster. There is no prestige associated with having a poster accepted, but you can certainly try to use it as an opportunity to present your work to the community (a large part of which attends QIP every year).

To extend what Roland has already said:
Oral presentations offer an opportunity to broadcast your work to a largely captive audience. Everyone in the room 'has to' listen to you for 10 or 15 minutes, even if they mainly came to the session because of Big Name speaker. So they offer a great opportunity to advertise yourself and your work. On the other hand, the audience is largely passive: you talk, they listen (or fiddle with their phone). Usually you won't get much feedback or new conections.
Poster sessions offer more opportunity to engage with people: you can have a real conversation about your work, make new friends/connections, and get meaningful feedback about how people react to your ideas and what you might do next. The extent to which this happens depends on several factors, including:
(i) The organisation of the conference - are poster sessions integrated into the programme in a way that will encourage people to attend? Or are they squeezed into time where people will have other priorities (e.g. the 30-minute break between talks, where people are mainly interested in toilets and coffee).
(ii) Your personality - are you outgoing and willing to catch the eye of passers-by and 'encourage' them to talk to you about your work? Or are you someone who is going to hide in the corner and try and avoid talking?
(iii) The poster session itself. Ideally, you want to be in a session where there are other interesting posters on similar topics, so that your target audience wants to come along - and you want it to run at a time that doesn't clash with anything else that people might care about. Often some poster sessions in a conference will be really busy and vibrant, while others will be almost dead. With experience, you might be able to predict how a particular session at a particular conference will be.

Maybe also worth mentionning: (iiib) If the poster session is well organized in topics, with posters on a similar topic put close to each other by the organizers, you might have other posters on your topic near yours, and this might create discussion with other poster presenters nearby, generating scientific discussions, that can be quite of interest when several posters discuss results on a similar hot topic.

@PLD Yes - but you don't want your immediate neighbours to be super-popular, because otherwise the crowd around their poster tends to block people from reading yours! It's a complex optimisation problem! ;-)

Unless obviously wrong or irrelevant, most committees will not screen out the chance of presenting posters in their conferences. In another word, accepted as poster is not as selective as contributing oral talk (when you would like to treat it as achievement), as Roland mentioned. This is because when you are giving a oral talk, every participant is spending their time on your work and the committee needs to make the best use of people's time and attention. It's often the broad interest, rather than work quality, that decides if your work is chosen as oral talk.
However, IMO it's definitely worth to present a poster as there are more chance to talk with people in the same specialized field. You can make sure people come to your poster are indeed interested in your work (or they can just pass by), and discuss with them really in detail.

While I second Roland's and avid's answers, let me offer an additional perspective which neither of them mention.
If your eventual goal is to stay in academia, then your publication record matters. Since you seem to (broadly) be in a computer science field, conferences matter a lot. If this is indeed a top conference in this field, having a paper published in it will make your CV much stronger -- and once the conference proceedings are published, nobody knows any more whether a paper was presented as a poster or an oral. However, serious conferences require that at least 1 author of every paper attend the conference and present the work (or at least make their best attempt to attend -- if you end in a hospital the day before your travel, nobody will take it against your).
On the topic of the usefulness of the poster sessions themselves, there's definitely a discussion to be had: some people find talks more useful/engaging, some people think poster sessions are better because they can better facilitate the discussion, and some people swear that the whole point and primary benefit of (in-person) conferences are social events such as lunches and after-hour drinks. In my personal opinion, the casual opportunities to meet and talk to many different people really are at the heart of a good conference - if there's an interesting paper, I'll eventually read it anyway. So consequently, I found the whole experience of online conferences pretty bad all around - with the few online "poster sessions" I've witnessed suffering from the problems you describe - nobody engaged with them (likely because they didn't know how to).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What to do when finding errors in my submitted bachelor thesis?
I have just submitted my bachelor thesis. However, I found right now in total two mistakes. One is that a table is missing, although this table is not that important. The other is one sentence ends in the half way. I haven't found out them since I was too busy at that time with another exam. Would my bachelorthesis fail due to these reasons?

Does your system permit corrections? Will your advisor have any influence if you just inform them of the mistakes along with a correction?

I'm not really sure about this since the ddl of my thesis was yesterday. I'll check this. Just don't know how serious a missing table can be.

Talk to your advisor and let them know that you found the errors. Have a corrected version ready for them. It can't hurt and might help.
People make mistakes. Other people recognize that. People especially make mistakes at a pending deadline. But, on the other hand, sloppiness isn't good and you may suffer for it.
But, if it is otherwise good and sound, failure seems like a bit too far to go.

I think failure is much more than a bit too far. I would suspect no real consequence whatever. Lesson learned: don't crowd a deadline.

Also, errors are to be expected. Many authors maintain a list of errata for each substantial paper. It's reasonable to email that to your supervisor, and ask if they want them incorporated into the paper if its yet to be examined. Providing the list at least makes them aware you know of the errors. Once examined or published, keep the list independently of the paper -- don't incorporate any further errata. After a few years write a short introduction to the errata placing the paper in its historical context (eg, are there now different approaches, has your view changed).

Thanks for all the suggestions here. I'll tell it to my advisor and prepare a new version of it as well as give a errate for it. See if it works tomorrow.

It depends on how the rest looks. If the rest is great, those mistakes might not matter at all. If it is borderline otherwise, it might tip it over to the fail grade.

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


text:
What skills can I acquire only during a PhD? What is the difference between doing a PhD and doing a research job in industry?
I am applying for a PhD position, and am wondering about the differences between a PhD and someone with work experience (or research experience in industry).
What I love about doing research is that I can devote myself to solving an actual problem. I decided to study for my PhD from my childhood, but now it seems to have become an obsession. It feels like I can only fulfill myself after finishing the doctoral study. But what can PhD experience bring me? These days I've been thinking about what would be different if I had chosen to work instead of pursuing a PhD. I could also do experiments and conduct some research projects in a company. Are there any skills I can only learn during my doctoral studies?
I have read some websites that gave me very general ideas, like communication skills, self-starter and project management, but I think I can also develop these skills in a job, even in my Bachelor's or Master's.

Different people do it for different reasons: some, because they like research, some, because they like teaching, some like a (relative) independence, some want to be administrators, some because they do not know what else to do....

Possible Duplicate: What skills can I get during a PhD to be competitive on the job market against non-PhD holders?

"I could also do experiments and conduct some research projects in a company." This depends on the the field and the company. If you work for a company which has an R&D dept and you happen to have the skills required for working in that R&D group. Yes, you can do research in that company. However, that kind of job positions in general will require a PhD degree before you are hired. Without PhD, you would probably end up with being a research assistant, i.e. help doing somebody else's research.

This will be field (and possibly country) specific. Is it possible to specify the field?

"But what can PhD experience bring me?" The possibility of having an academic career. Most academic positions require a PhD. You can acquire whatever skills you like in any way you like, but if you don't have a PhD, it's going to be orders of magnitude more difficult for you to have a career in academia (at least in the Western academia).

@Nobody Thank you very much for your comments! Actually, I have saw the question in your link a few days ago and started to question myself. At that time, I didn't realize that it could solve my problem. I reread all the answers and comments, now I understand a PhD degree is a threshold for many jobs, even though it can narrow the range of job options. Doing a PhD is like a shortcut to become a project manager, and I can do research at the same time! And all the skills I thought general and could be developed on the job, I could acquire more quickly during doctoral work.

@IanSudbery I am applying for PhD in biomedicine/molecular biology in Europe and America, very fundamental research interest, seems difficult to get a job.

Does this answer your question? What skills can I get during a PhD to be competitive on the job market against non-PhD holders?

@RichardErickson Yes, it can answer my question.

First note that industrial research is, with some exceptions, generally very applied and usually product focused. Academic research, also with exceptions, is generally focused on expanding the known in new directions and fields. That is quite different.
Some large companies have general research groups, but even there, most of the research is focused on the needs of the company, not the needs of scholarship and of society.
So, if your research goals are very applied and of use to some industrial sector, then a PhD might not offer many skills over what you could obtain in some large and profitable company (or a focused startup, perhaps).
Another major issue is the field. If you want to do high-energy physics then the opportunities lie almost entirely in academia, just because of the equipment needed. At the other end of the scale, pure mathematics doesn't fit well with most company's goals.
Another possible issue is that much industry research is proprietary and so contact outside the company may be enjoined and publication might be impossible. Most academics are encouraged to build wide circles of contact leading to collaboration, which is an effective way to explore (and even to find) ideas for research.
So, while there are possibilities for doing meaningful research in companies it is quite different than that typically done in universities and some (not all) government sponsored labs.
There are some industry situations that are quite similar to academia, but they are rare, meaning that you aren't especially likely to be able to find a suitable position there. I know some such folks in the CS field and they are very happy, productive and, well known, but, again, the exception, not the rule.

Thank you for your answer! I am applying for PhD in biomedicine/molecular biology, very fundamental but is my passion. I get it now that working in a company can never bring the same satisfaction comparing to doctoral work. And I love collaborating and communicating with other researchers, and all the academic conferences!

In the life sciences, more or less, a PhD is required for most industry jobs above the most junior, so there isn't the oppotunity to learn research skills in industry.

As an aside and for my own information, is the split between pure and applied (product focused) as strong in the life sciences as it is in some other fields? My suspicion is that it might not be the same.

@Buffy Yes and No. I once had a top ecologist tell me (as an undergrad) that one could complete the same PhD project with the same scientific questions (e.g., soil microbial communities, community ecology) in a h many different department (e.g., applied forestry, theoretical ecology). However, the grad experience would be very different. I think the technical and methods tools cross-over easier, but context and soft skills differ. So, no to science, yes to people and cliques, and probably to technology transfer.

Ian, +1. I had a friend in grad school who hit a glass ceiling and needed a PhD to get promoted in a Pharma company so back to school she went.

@buffy in the more molecular side of things I'd say there is less of a divide. Many of us do both applied (to bring in the money) and pure (because that's what we enjoy) in the same research group. Although there are purely applied groups.


text:
PhD Advisor is lying about funding and doesn't write their own grants
I am currently enrolled in a science research PhD study in Canada. I am co-supervised by 2 people in different fields. The problem is that I started my PhD ~1.5 years ago and was told that there was funding but there wasn’t; something didn’t work according to plan, I am not sure what happened. Since 2017, I have written every grant and submitted it under my primary supervisor’s name to get my PhD funded. The issue is that my primary supervisor told my co-supervisor that they had funding and told the department they had funding when they didn’t. However, I am not sure how the primary supervisor is funding the situation, but at times I have to incur expenses and am told I will be reimbursed. Is that normal? I also heard that grad students are not required to write the whole grant applications but can assist in sections if required? Should I speak up about having added stress of writing grant applications, which isn’t even my job? Furthermore, at one point, I would have to constantly ask for my monthly stipend. I have repeatedly asked them about the funding situation and the primary supervisor seems to be quite nonchalant about the whole issue and does not have any urgency regarding the matter. I am not sure if I should speak up to anyone about these issues, but I also don’t want to go over my primary supervisor’s head, betray them, and besmirch their words.
Summary questions:
1. should I tell anyone that all our grants are rejected and there isn’t any funding?
2. Should I be having to incur expenses for my own research? (edit: costs related to research expenses, not conference or food. Even in the past the conference expenses were not covered and I had to pay out of pocket)
3. Should I speak to my advisor about how I shouldn’t have to write the grant applications?

Oh, I just noticed the date this was posted. Necromancy time. If you really do get reimbursed, then that part is not abnormal. If you get told you will be reimbursed but don't get the money, that's no good.

How does a prof get away with telling the department he has a grant but he does not? Surely he is required to pay for certain things?  As to writing the grant proposal: You could look on it as a potential position of power. Write it so your area of research gets 70% of the funding.

Normal? Regrettably I would consider this semi-normal.
A good situation? Absolutely not.
Is the situation likely to get any better? From your description, definitely not.
As you say that you only started 1.5 years ago, and you are in a bad situation, change groups, and if that isn't possible leave or change university.

This situation (stop funding) could be happened, but rare.
I recommend you should check the funding reports in Canada.
It should be opened.
So, you can check the status of the budget of your lab.
For example, in USA we can check how much the lab has got or will get the governmental fund.
Another recommendation from me is to write not a grant but a fellowship.
It is much easier to get "your own" budget.
A lot of fellowships are floating in the USA/Canada.


text:
Should I apply to grad school as an international or as a domestic student? (Canada, Engineering)
I'm interested in going to grad school in Canada. I'm a foreigner but I can relatively easily obtain my PR as I satisfy all requirements.
Admission-wise, would applying to grad school as an international student give me any leverage? Considering that the tuition fees would be far higher and Canadian universities are run with a business mindset.
I did my undergrad in Canada but my GPA is far from stellar (well below 3.0). I'm trying everything to improve my chances of admission.

By “grad school” do you mean masters or PhD?

I meant masters but information about both would be helpful.

I think the answer will be quite different for the two cases. Typically masters students are a source of money for the department, so paying international fees should make such students more attractive. However, PhD students are usually a cost to the department since they are paid through RA/TA, in which case that advantage reverses.

In most English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), "domestic student" means "citizen or permanent resident of the country" - regardless of where you graduated.
Please notice this definition may be different in other countries (for example, in Germany, grad school applications by anyone who completed their undergrad in Germany are considered "domestic" for all purposes - barring, in some cases, tuition fees...).

The question is regarding the first case - for someone who can potentially apply as either a domestic and an international student, which application would have better chances of admission?

This is admittedly wild speculation and only suggests a way to find the proper answer.
If the university has designated separate categories for admission then it might matter, but it would depend on how competitive each category is. But it is difficult for you to learn the latter, even if you can determine that there are, indeed, separate categories.
But if there are no such definite, separately considered categories, then I would suspect (predict, but not "know") that it would have little if any effect. At best a third level consideration.
In order to obtain admission anywhere, under almost any system, you need to convince the committee that you have a solid background of knowledge, that you are a hard worker, and that you have a good likelihood of success in the program and thereafter. If you can do that, then other things will matter hardly at all. It would only really matter if it were down to the final few applicants in which decisions need to be made on less important criteria.
There are irrational systems, of course, some depending on patronage and such, but not in Canada.
But even the GPA will matter less than you think if you can show other clear indicators of success.


text:
How to mask present unemployment when asking for recommendation
I voluntarily quit my job 6 months ago. I need to get a letter of recommendation from a professor I know for grad school, and I want to include my resume in the email I send this professor.
What is the best way to mask or downplay the fact that I've been (voluntarily) unemployed for 6 months?
Is it too bad if I remove employment history altogether from my resume?

Why do you think this is necessary?

What have you been doing? You said it was voluntary, have you been raising a child, taking classes? You can say what you were doing even if it wasn't working for the man.

I don't think your professor is going to change the letter of recommendation based on your employment history. In fact, I'm pretty sure most professors would not be looking over that part of your resume very closely because it's not relevant to the letter they need to write.
Don't leave out your employment history though, that looks really weird.

I think some professors, at least, would try harder to help you if they knew you'd been out of work. Don't assume the opposite in any case unless you know more.


text:
Why does the status "under peer review" change to "Awaiting Reviewer selection" after 2 months?
I submitted my manuscript 3 months back. After a few days, the status changed to "under peer review". It was so for two months. Now the status is changed to "awaiting reviewer selection". It is totally confusing. what does this really mean? what is happening to my manuscript?

They might simply look for an additional reviewer. Sometimes this happens, e.g. if the editor couldn't make a decision based on the reports of the two initial reviewers. You could also write to the editor and ask what is going on.

Thank you for clarifying. But its since 3 months of submitting my manuscript and 2 months of "under peer review" process. Also there is no answer for any inquiry mail sent.

A first round of peer review might take up to 8 weeks easily and finding reviewers also needs time. So if the editor started to search for an additional reviewer after receiving the first two reviewer reports, everything seems quite in time. If you wanna know in detail what is going on, the only option you have, is to e-mail the editor.


text:
I am the fifth author on a paper, but I contributed more than the fourth author. What to do?
I have some questions regarding authorship. We are preparing an important biomedical paper with a list of over 10 authors, and the authors are ranked by contribution.
My name comes after someone who I think contributes way less than I do. But I wonder if I should let people know I am not happy with the ranking.
My concerns are:

Does it really matter being the 4th or 5th author? I wonder if it is worth being the "peace-breaker" for something not important.

I am the most junior one in the team. I guess that is the reason they put one person who contributed way less than me in front of my name. Is it common practice to give less experienced people lower rankings.

Since I am only unhappy with one person's ranking. How to raise this issue without targeting one particular person.

My boss is the corresponding author. And the first author is an external collaborator. Should I discuss this directly with the first author who put everything together directly or check with my boss first?

Sounds like a great way to make sure you aren't included on collaborations going forward. Two authors might (and I mean only might) manage to agree on who did more than the other. By 10 authors, I can pretty much guarantee you would get at least 12 different orderings if you asked each author to give a list.

What field? ....

@JonCuster And many people will overvalue their own contribution, even if they try their best to be scrupulously fair. You know everything that you did and every bit of effort you put in. You know what you threw away, what editing you did. For other people, you can only see what they shared with you.

@DavidSchwartz - indeed, and some people bend over backwards to assign more credit to others. As an old advisor of mine said once, "Glory is not a thermodynamically conserved quantity" - there is enough to go around.

Ever heard of teamwork? How can you possibly work successfully as a team if you're spending your time jostling for position in this way?

@tensors_are_4_engineers the OP mentioned this is a "biomedical" paper and in that field, the closer you are to either end of the author list, the better. The last author is usually the person supervising the research and the first author is usually the person doing the work. Prestige is associated with both first and last and then decreases as you move towards the middle. So the 10th and 9th authors are in a much, much more prestigious position than the 5th or 6th.

If there are ten authors anyway, it really doesn't make much difference whether you are number four or number five.  Just go with it for now now as you don't want to make enemies.

I once contributed an analysis to a paper that wasn’t ultimately used in the final results. Prior to publication, I was given the paper to review and only provided cursory edits. A handful of others with editing roles were also listed as authors, but I was listed last, implying the least contribution. My role producing an analysis also wasn’t noted. What did I do? Nothing. At the end of the day, unless it’s absolutely egregious, making a stink about the order of authors seems like a fast track to losing collaborators. Pro tip: discuss authorship order and contributions at the outset.

I would let it go, save my time, and try to publish a paper in which I am the first author. To be honest, if you are not the first author nor the corresponding one, the rank of all other authors doesn't mean that much. I used to collaborate with a lot of people for a 3 papers, finally the authors' order beside first and corresponding goes with alphabetical order.

@tensors the authors are ranked by contribution, yes, but most likely in the way I described since that's the standard in the field. No need to get testy.

We are preparing an important paper with a list of over 10 authors, and the authors are ranked by contribution. ... Does it really matter being the 4th or 5th author? I wonder if it is worth being the "peace-breaker" for something not important.

No, I wouldn't pick this fight. It will not matter down the line at the risk of upsetting people you work with. And really, authorship assignment is noisy as it is. Obviously I don't know your situation, but junior people don't always have a full picture of everyone's contribution and their relative importance.
Regardless of issues with order, you can always suggest a contribution statement, like CRediT so that people reviewing your work can get a better idea of what you did, specifically.

Yeah, the question where in the middle of a long author list you land precisely is almost the textbook definition of "not a hill worth dying on".

Agree, this is not the hill you want to die on.

Didn't know about CRediT. What a useful resource!

@henning I think they need better names, but it's something.

And there's sometimes an Authors' Contributions section as well...

"I wouldn't pick this fight" Fight? It doesn't have to be a fight.

@Tomas It's an idiom. "I wouldn't go starting trouble" would work as well.

Does it really matter being the 4th or 5th author? I wonder if it is worth being the "peace-breaker" for something not important.

Not even a little bit. In some fields, authors are alphabetical. In others, being first (or sole) author is important. In others, the last author has a particular meaning (usually the lab's PI). But I seriously doubt there are any instances ever where being fourth instead of fifth would make a difference.
So, I definitely would not expend any goodwill on this.

I am the most junior one in the team. I guess that is the reason they put one person who contributed way less than me in front of my name. Is it common practice to give less experienced people lower rankings.

Varies widely. But do bear in mind that the more senior people may have contributed to the infrastructure / lab generally, even if their contributions to this specific paper are more modest.

Since I am only unhappy with one person's ranking. How to raise this issue without targeting one particular person.

Tactfully and privately. In your case, you would probably discuss this with your boss and they would take care of communicating the decision, if they decide to bump you up. (But in this case, I would not raise the issue at all.)

My boss is the corresponding author. And the first author is an external collaborator. Should I discuss this directly with the first author who put everything together directly or check with my boss first?

Definitely check with your boss first. Jumping over your boss's head is generally a nuclear option, even outside of academia. And in this case, even if the external collaborator agreed with you, they would have to discuss with your boss in any case, so jumping over your boss's head would have no real upside (and plenty of downside).
As you gain more experience, you may eventually be able to go to the external collaborator directly, and it will be sufficient to inform your advisor that you have done so. But you should definitely err on the side of getting permission from your advisor before contacting external people (especially for something this delicate).

and as far as "checking with your boss" might you want to stress how that conversation might go? As in "Hey, , you know I'm still a little junior here, could you perhaps explain better how authorship order goes?" and the OP might even take the tact of going the other way (yes, this could backfire) and suggest perhaps "I don't know that I did that much more overall than <#5>"

Well, in this case I don't think the conversation should "go" at all; OP should drop this.  But yes, if OP decides to broach this with the advisor anyway, a mild question like "I was wondering why X was listed above me in the author list" would be wiser than making accusations or displaying anger.

The real answer is "ask your advisor." You don't want to get a reputation as someone who is difficult to work with.
In some fields (I'm thinking about high-energy physics), papers can have thousands of authors(!). Does it matter if you are 115th or 332nd? Clearly not.
The most important positions (in most fields) are first and last - just as you noted; everyone else will be considered equal contributors (which is why most papers list them in alphabetical order).
Don't worry about this and press on to the next paper!

In some fields, first two are seen as essentially equal, and some fields don't recognize the last as the "supervisor" spot. And some fields just have it alphabetical :)

In papers with multiple authors, any place beyond the second is just like saying "this person did some work or was involved to some extent". Don't worry about being one position up or down, as other said it will not matter in the long run.
Here's some humor not to take this issue to seriously

I didn't got the "Serious Trust Issue" for economics, accounting, etc.? I how it's humor, I just didn't get the punk

I have a story for you. I am now working in industry, but something similar could happen in an academic setting. We were hired by a company to develop some image analysis project. One of the steps wasn't working so well, until one of their guys, a manager, had an idea that pretty much solved it; better, faster, and easier than what we had so far.
If we were writing a paper, he would definitely deserve a spot in the author list, despite him not having even touched the code at all. But, if you hadn't been on that meeting, you might not have realised the extent of his contribution. Indeed, it would look like he is being included out of politics because of his position.
Even if you knew his idea, you might not think it is that important. In hindsight, it is kind of obvious; but we were four experts working on that for weeks and it didn't occur to any of us. Tunnel vision does that to you.
So, the moral of the story is that it is very hard to evaluate contributions, specially once you are a bit removed from the first author. And even that may be hard: in that project, three of us had so different contributions that a fair argument could be made for any of us deserving the first place over the other two.
Congratulations on your paper!

This is the most kind and useful reply, thank you! I felt it unfair when people have their names only because of politics, or showing up in the right meetings. But now I have a different view of evaluating contributions. It is not only the sailors and captains that matter, but also who built the boat and designed the route.

Going forward at this stage in your career, beyond first author papers, the most important thing will be being included on as many papers as possible, and for that the order won't matter. What will matter (in second place) is stating what you contributed to this project in your list of publications. Ideally this will also be in the author contributions section in the paper, but sometimes that is vague (e.g., "A, B and C conducted data analyses"). For your own records, I would write down exactly what you contributed, and for this it doesn't matter what this other person did. When I submitted my PhD dissertation, I was asked to explain for each peer-reviewed paper for which I was not listed as the first author, what I contributed to that paper. For this it was really useful to have this information handy. And it didn't matter where I was in the author list, the moment I was not senior or first. Be willing to help in the lab on various projects and you'll have a really nice CV. Don't fight for your position on the list if it's not your main project, and it's going to make people less likely to want to involve you in other projects. If you had not been included on the list at all (this also happens), that would be a completely different story.

It sounds like the modus operandi of a person that would mention, in professional CV, how he/she was appointed as the class leader in the second grade of primary school. Or, for another approximation, it gives of a vibe of a person that used to remind the teacher to collect the homework in case the teacher forgot about it. In other words: let it go and don't do this, this will alienate you from your peers and potential future collaborators because it will signal that you tend to excessively focus on superficial appearances and unimportant minutiae, instead of getting the actual work done.
I think that even being listed as the 1000th author in a project made by collaboration of 1000 authors is still better than being listed as the 1000th author and being widely known as 'that self-focused person who started drama over a small detail'.
I personally would not want to collaborate with a person that would pick a conflict over such things as it sounds like a great deal of pain in the back that would better be avoided. The order in this case is really not that important. For example, it has now come to me that, in the context of RSA encryption algorithm, I have never thought that Ron Rivest did the majority of the job, Adi Shamir helped with some less important details, while Leonard Adleman just happened to be around and jumped in to provide his two cents once or twice. No, I think that nobody has ever thought like that: I personally regard them of equal importance as the authors of something great and useful for all of us.
Also please make sure that your surname is not just the last in the alphabetical order.


text:
Do I need to tell my PhD supervisor that I am taking another part-time job?
I am starting my PhD this September in the UK. And I am thinking about taking up a part-time job. But I am not sure if I should discuss with my supervisors and ask for their permission first?
The part-time job is from the same university, research-related, and in the same domain(but the technical skills will be different from my PhD). It takes 14 hours a week.
My PhD contract allows me to do 20 hours part-time job. So admin-wise, it won't be an issue.
I am considering taking that job because of 1）although I have a PhD stipend, the money is very little. Additional income would help a lot and 2) I worked a while before starting my PhD. I want to keep my previous job experience "alive" by doing this PhD. 3) the project management skills in this job will benefit me in the future.
I am not sure if I need to get approval from my PhD supervisors first.

What does your contract say?

You need to check the relevant rules and regulations. Where I was, the graduate program director had to approve any extra employment if a graduate student held a full research or teaching assistantship.

So you haven't started yet, but are already thinking about not being upfront with your supervisor? I suggest this is unlikely to end well.

You should discuss it with the supervisor, because it is a big thing and it wouldn't be a good idea to keep it secret. And be prepared that they might say that they think it is too much time per week.
You can then argue that it is in the same university and related to research (this is preferable to it being in some company that they know nothing about), you want to keep up your skills from work, and you are not sure yet whether you want to work in academia or industry after your PhD.
You could also say that you are in your 30s and the basic stipend is rather low. But this is not such a strong argument, and the supervisor might say that is what being a PhD student is like and other people manage to cope with that amount.
They might also say that you should do part-time teaching in your department instead. I think that is what most PhD students in the UK do to supplement their incomes, and the supervisor would definitely be comfortable with that idea, and it would be less than 14 hours a week.
Could you negotiate the other job to be slightly less than 14 hours, or could you do it at certain times of year such as in the vacations? Could you do the work in less than 14 hours even if that is the official amount of time? I think if you can be flexible or think of different ideas, it will be helpful.

With the edit to the question, this seems like a matter of etiquette, rather than anything else. It also seems like a "part time PhD" if 20 hours external work is permitted.
If it were me (US) I'd appreciate knowing that you had other duties, but wouldn't object. In fact, knowing this might help me advise you better. It might also get me thinking about other alternatives that might serve us both well.
Given that, it is a matter of personality and your judgement of the reaction you might get. Do you want to hide this for some reason? Would revealing it affect your relationship? Can you integrate both things in some way? How intensive is the work needed for the doctorate? Is that your first priority?

Note that all of my own doctoral students were employed in regular jobs. We dealt with it and organized the program around that fact.

I am afraid my supervisors would be against it because of the time commitment and the career direction. This part-time job prepares me for an industrial job but my supervisor probably wants me to stay in academia. Moneywise, the minimum maintenance cost is 14k per year before inflation, but I only get 16k. And I am in my early 30s.

The excellent answer by Buffy definitely also holds from the UK perspective. I would encourage you to discuss this with your advisor, specifically so they can help advise you better (at the very least, adjust the workload and expect results accordingly).
Additionally, you say you have not yet started a PhD programme, and will start in September. While the contract allows you to take up additional 20 hours of part-time jobs, you might want to discuss possible effects on your PhD. If your PhD is indeed a part of a regular 3- or 4-year UK PhD programme, it will likely be difficult to finish without dedicating to it full-time. As funding often can't be extended, taking up additional work may result in a lower quality PhD (finished in time) or a longer PhD (with a part of it potentially unfunded). Not trying to dissuade you, just saying there might be more factors to consider.
However, I also want to say that good advisors should discuss career options with you and offer you support in your choices. And while there might be some advisors applying undue pressure on their students to stay in academia, I have not actually met many (any?) of these. Most of my colleagues are fully aware that only a small percentage of all PhD students will end up getting a permanent academic job (or even taking up a research position within academia as their next job). A vast majority of PhD students end up working in industry; the PhD just opens the doors to a larger pool of positions in industry (one would hope, better paid).
I don't think aspiring to an industry position after your PhD should be a barrier to speaking to your advisor: they should be able to explain your (industry) options following a PhD better (maybe offer an opportunity for a collaboration with industry you have not previously considered?), and if they are not supportive of your plans for professional development and growth, it may be better to find out sooner rather than later.


text:
UK PhD application, are there hard requirements on the structure and format of research proposal?
I am applying to a UK PhD Computer science/bioinformtics program that requires submitting a research proposal. When I check the requirements for research proposals from different universities.
The consensus is that, the proposal will be assessed based on
1) knowledge about the research area
2) the ability to build and develop solutions for a problem
3) proof of critical thinking

Some universities recommend (not enforce) standard structure for research proposals. For example, University of Manchester recommends having background, review, methods, and
outcomes sections, like
Background
  Background -1
  Background -2
Research question
  Aim-1
  Aim-2
Methods:
  Method-1
  Method-2
Outcomes:
  Outcome-1
  Outcome-2

I find this structure hard to adopt. For me, it would be much easier and natural to structure based on each research sub-aim:
Overall Background
Research question
Aim 1:
   background
   methods
   expected outcomes
Aim 2:
   background
   methods
   outcomes
Aim 3:
... ...
Summary

I wonder

is formating and structure a mandatory thing?
will my own structure work?
I find it hard to put all background and methods in one place. To me it makes more sense to link the method to the corresponding background. Is it because I haven't build a nice connection across different research aims or it's totally okay?

Expectations may vary depending on discipline. Could you give some indication of the area? e.g. lab sciences, social sciences, history/literature, mathematics/CS...

@YemonChoi It's bioinformatics and computer science.


text:
I was given to review a journal paper that overlaps with a submitted paper of ours
I was recently given to review a journal paper that significantly overlaps with a work that we recently submitted to a conference (about half of the contributions are the same).
Any advice on what to do in this case?
(even if I tell the editor now that I'm unable to review the paper, I've already read it).

With the slight difference that our paper is currently under submission.

Since this is tagged CS, are preprints available for both papers?

Neither have a preprint available, and now I'm uncomfortable uploading one.

@user104841 That's unfortunate. Both groups noting "we recently became aware of a related work" would've been appropriate if they were. It might still be possible by going through the editor, as suggested by Buffy.

just decline to review and don't take advantage of them.

If you already submitted the paper you have some evidence of your own work even without a "published" preprint. Inform the editor of the situation and get advice. You may even be permitted to review it and point to your own paper in the review, but that would be up to the editor.
Parallel independent work is pretty common, especially in popular fields.
One option is to use editors of the two journals (assuming there are two) to act as intermediaries to get the two groups together. I don't think I'd recommend doing it on your own, however.

Our submission was to a conference, sorry for not mentioning this. Does this change anything? If we are rejected, would it be OK to submit it again?

If you are confident about the work then you should be fine, but continue to develop a paper trail to show you haven't plagiarized the other work. I don't think that journal vs conference is a deciding factor.

I guess I should also avoid writing a review for their paper. If we are accepted to a conference, should I notify their editor?

Probably best to do that, but give full information. The conference chair may need to make decisions, but also knows about parallel work, I'm sure. It is best if the news comes from you.


text:
Is it unprofessional to bring up a personal / medical issue during the PhD viva?
When I submitted my PhD, I was newly pregnant. For context, I'm 34, and my husband and I had been trying to conceive for quite some time, so we were extremely excited.
At around ten weeks, a sonographer explained that I'd had a "silent miscarriage", meaning although I had no complications or symptoms of a miscarriage, the fetal heartbeat had stopped. Obviously, this brought on a lot of emotions and follow-up appointments, and for about two weeks, my world seemed to kind of stop.
The day before I had surgery to remove my pregnancy tissue, I found out that my viva had been scheduled in less than four weeks' time. I've mostly jumped back into real life since then, but I am still struggling with hormonal issues - dizziness, brain fog, forgetfulness (sometimes I can't remember words, other times I've forgotten that dinner was in the oven until I smelled burning), a lack of focus, feeling like I'm on the verge of tears, etc.
With about two weeks until the viva, I'm really nervous that these issues will have me stumbling over words, forgetting scholars' names and theories, and ultimately, caving under the pressure.
So, would it be unprofessional to explain to the examiners beforehand that I've just recently suffered a medical trauma and ask that they bear with me if I need an extra moment to gather my thoughts? I certainly don't want to overshare or make them feel uncomfortable, but equally, I want them to be aware that if I become emotional or have trouble focusing on a question, it's not because they've done something to upset me or that I've come to the viva unprepared.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Who is part of the viva at your university? Your committee? Outside examiners? I am asking because I am trying to figure out if you can “back door” this information in advance.

I have one internal examiner from my university, who I've never met before, and one external examiner that I know quite well from a previous university I attended.

Have you or your advisor tried contacting the disabilities office at your university?  You do have a temporary disability.

I am so sorry to hear about your loss.  If you and your husband would like specific support, I highly recommend contacting this organization: https://www.emmasfootprints.com/.  Not only can they connect you with other resources, but they can also help you determine how best to talk with others about your situation.

Can't you get a sick note and reschedule?

I'd try to reschedule my viva / defense given the circumstances. Is that not a possibility for you? So, seconding @DonQuiKong's question, but even without a "sick note".

Not central to the question, but for completeness -- was it meant as "although I had no complications or symptoms of miscarriage"? That seems more consistent with the rest of the sentence. It seems that "no" may have been inadvertently omitted.

It would be helpful to tell us what country and what field you are in.

@DonQuiKong it's pretty complicated to reschedule an external examiner. All profs have busy complicated schedules. If they have to travel to attend the viva, there are travel arrangements to be made.

@yo9cyb I know. But op is unable to perform the task and therefore unfit to work aka sick. That happens. People break a leg, get Covid or have whatever else. The correct way to handle such a problem is to call in sick and reschedule, not to ruin your grade by going through due to some false sense of obligation of not being sick.

Too long for a comment.
First: how awful for you and your husband.
Is there someone in your department who knows about your medical situation or who you would be comfortable revealing it to who can help? Someone who could arrange a postponement, or quietly let the examiners know enough about the problem so that it would not influence their judgment.
In many universities the viva is really just a formality. Your advisor and your committee know what's in your dissertation and have approved it.
Good luck.

I just want to add to this to say that in the UK system the viva is very often not a formality. Examiners are completely independent from advisory teams and vivas can be failed. It is true that the contents of the thesis are more important, but for borderline cases the viva is crucial. So I would treat this as any other exam, which means raising any possible extenuating circumstance as early as possible.

Yes. (Yes!) it is much better if others say these things on your behalf than if you say them yourself. Use what allies you have.

I am very sorry for your loss.
In the UK at least your graduate school will have a procedure for any extenuating circumstances that could affect your performance at an exam. You should check what the procedure is with them or in their documentation.
Speaking personally if I was an external examiner I would want to know if something had happened that would affect a student like this and I would expect guidance from the university on how to handle it. I would expect the communication to come from the school or the internal, not from the student directly, and I would hope they only share the necessary detail.
We all want students to do as well as they can do.
With best wishes.

It sounds like you are in the UK, or at least in somewhere that follows a similar system. If so, it is acceptable (and reasonably normal) to contact the internal examiner before the viva and explain your situation/concerns. If you are not comfortable doing so yourself, it is also quite acceptable to ask your advisor (or another faculty member from your department) to 'have a quiet word' on your behalf.
In most institutions, the internal examiner has responsibility for organising the viva, and considerable flexibility in how it is run. In general, you would not communicate directly with the external - the internal examiner would handle passing on any necessary information - but the situation is a little blurrier if (as you write in a comment) you have a relationship with the external outside the examination process.

I am sincery sorry for your loss.
In line with some comment, I suggest to hand in a sick note and to reschedule the viva. What you describe are defintely health issues and you should have the time to take care of yourself and to deal with the loss instead of having to prepare for a viva. Take this time and prepare for the viva, afterwards.
What you communicate to the examiners?
This strongly depends on your relationship to them. If you have a good relation to your advisor, you could tell them. Most advisors that I know care a lot about their phd students and would be grateful to learn about issues of their students. They most likely such would support and help you in this situation as much as they can.
Even for a purely professional connection it can be ok to share a reason for a sick note, although at least here (Germany) this is not mandatory.
If you have a bad relation to your supervisor, you probably want to take the way over the institution, as other answers suggest

+1 for spelling out that this situation is clearly the size of health issues that should lead to answering no on the famous (at least where I am) "Do you feel fit [health-wise] to do the exam?"

my heartfelt condoleances and sympathy! I am a professor at at US university, but I have been a committee member on vivas in France, UK, and Switzerland.
In every viva where I was an examiner (or thesis defense, for that matter), when the committee deliberated (without the candidate present), the thesis advisor gave the rest of us some background on the candidate. This is especially true if the candidate has had problems. I understand that there are vivas in the UK where the advisor is not present, and the chair of the committee is someone outside the area who ensures the viva procedure is correctly followed. I don't have direct experience with this, but I would suggest approaching both the advisor and the committee chair (e.g. an email to both of them). At the risk of saying something widely known: the advisor/committee chair is your advocate (sometimes in addition to being one of the examiners) in this case. They will also know how much to share with the committee from what you shared with them.
I have been on a committee where the candidate had a difficult health situation very similar to yours. The student was not hospitalized, but was unable to put in the usual amount of thesis/defense work for months. It happens. Thesis work is demanding on the mind and body (again stating the obvious). The advisor (NOT THE STUDENT) explained the student's situation to the committee in advance of the viva. This helps an examiner, because it's not always easy to see a student's emotional state from outside when you meet them for the first time.
So, you need to talk as soon as possible with your thesis advisor and/or committee chair about this.
You can first talk to the staff member who is in charge of the graduate program (it's called Graduate Program Administrator in the US) and ask about procedures. But keep in mind that procedures are a framework in which there is much flexibility, and the GPA rarely knows what kind of flexibility a committee can afford. The GPA can tell you for example if you will need a doctor's note to reschedule, and who must approve it, but the committee chair can advise you if that's optimal. As it was already said in other answers, committee members have a long experience and have seen other cases when the student had serious problems.
A viva with external members is very hard to schedule in first place. It may delay your graduation for a long time. That's another reason to address  any issues early.
If you are not comfortable speaking to your advisor about this. (1) If you feel your advisor would not be supportive: talk first to the professor/faculty member/dean who is overseeing theses/program completion in your school or department. The GPA can tell you who that person is. The "dean" can sit in when you talk to your advisor, and can keep an eye on the situation. (2) If you are uncomfortable talking to your advisor due to your particular medical problem (I am a woman and I can see myself being uncomfortable), I suggest that you ask your husband or a trusted friend to break the news to your advisor. Then you and the advisor can discuss what to do (without the friend present).
It is not a good idea to tell the committee at the viva about a medical problem. First, if you know about the problem, waiting until the viva is ongoing is too late. Address it (talk to your advisor) as soon as possible, to give everyone flexibility.
Then, sharing a personal issue with a group of strangers, all at once, will make it very difficult for everyone. I don't expect the committee to be other than sympathetic. But they will have to very fast go into problem solving mode, with a problem of a kind they weren't expecting. And the examiners are human, such kind of news will affect them emotionally too. Plus: the examiners often don't know each other, they are in a different time zone sometimes. I'm saying all this to highlight that the committee's decision making process may be impaired in the circumstance. And you want them to decide optimally for your own sake.
[A parenthesis here: If during the viva you happen to be "stumbling over words, forgetting scholars' names and theories," it's okay to excuse yourself. You can say "Please may I have a moment to collect myself." You don't need to explain anything else. Nobody wants you to "cave under pressure", the viva is about all the good work that you did, not about how you handle stress. I was in a room once with a student presenter whose voice was literally strangled by stress. He said: "Now I will pause to take a deep breath." That's exactly what he did, and in a moment the exam went on. I made a mental note to tell my students to do the same. In fact, I wrote a short presentation for students in my department about how to handle a situation in an exam when they are asked a question they can't answer. But this is off topic so I won't include it here.]
So, dear Meg, I encourage you from my long experience advising students to discuss with your advisor. Nothing can repair the loss you have suffered. But a thesis viva is a milestone to cherish, and, with support from your more experienced professional colleagues (yes, your committee is a group of colleagues) it can be a positive experience to last a lifetime.

Actually, in the UK vivas where I acted as an examiner, the advisor was not present during any part of the viva (not the presentation itself, and definitely not during the deliberation). And, the committee chair is explicitly not one of the examiners (they are typically from a completely unrelated field, and are just there to make sure the viva procedure is correctly followed). So I would tend to disagree with your claim that this happens for EVERY VIVA

@penelope Thank  you for your comment. I have edited my answer to reflect it.

I recommend you seek a deferral on your viva
Firstly, I'm sorry to hear of your loss.  That is very sad and I hope you and your husband are able to have a child successfully in the future.
As to your academic problem, I recommend that you put in a formal request to have your viva deferred until such time as you are properly recovered from your present pregnancy-related issues.  The university has standard mechanisms for students to get special consideration (including deferral of assessment items) in the event on medical issues.  From your description, it is clear that this event has impacted your preparation and it is still affecting you.  Under such circumstances it is better to use the formal mechanisms for seeking deferral and special consideration rather than ploughing ahead without these but then seeking to raise them informally.  It is not unprofessional to do the latter, but it does create some problems and it is not the optimal method.
In addition to seeking a deferral, it is up to you if you want to disclose this issue directly to your examiners.  You are under no obligation to disclose medical issues to staff outside of the formal process, but if you would like them to know of your circumstances then you can disclose this if you want.  Many academics are parents and some have also experience miscarriages (and in any case, irrespective of whether an academic has children they will be sympathetic to your situation).  No-one is going to think you are unprofessional for having experienced adverse academic impact from a pregnancy and miscarriage.

Sorry, this is truly unfortunate and part of the horrible reality that PhD education has become longer and more stressful, with more students doing phds after pre docs and with work experience, meaning that studies coincide with starting a family. It exacerbates existing gender discrimination.
The viva in the UK is not a formality as it is in other places. Examiners don't deliver written reports to the advisor and student ahead of time. However, your written work should speak for itself. Your job will be to clarify and show that you understand the methods you used. You can (and should) notify your advisor and internal examiner. If you're not up for the task at the moment, you should postpone. It's likely not a big deal.
Another thing to consider: depending on the institution, the outcome of the viva might be pass, minor corrections, major corrections, or fail (usually with a possibility to resubmit). When corrections are requested, there might be a time limit (eg six months). If you don't think you'll be able to do this, better to talk about it with the advisors before hand and discuss the options. The details will be specific to you institution, field and dissertation.
Good luck!

I disagree with the 1st paragraph. This is a horrible reality of life. But it is also something that a university has to deal with exactly as with any other medical (or life) issue that happens to affect an exam. Which is something that given the large numbers of exams that take place at universities happens regularly. While probabilities for particular issues differ with gender, sex, age, ... that is no whatsoever business of the university exam office illness regulations - they must deal with each individually regardless of whether OP has a rare issue or a common one...

Another thought: Personally, for the sake of ending discrimination, I prefer issues to be treated in as neutral a fashion as adequately possible. The viva-related question here is of administrative nature and can appropriately be answered in a gender-neutral, sex-neutral and age-neutral fashion. (Neither do we consider OP's skin color etc.). IMHO while OP chose to disclose some details, it is it not our business here whether OP is close to 50 or almost 20. Whether it is the viva or the Bachelor thesis defense (or even Abitur).

Nor would my answer differ had OP said her (!)(or his) girl-friend suffered a miscarriage and they cannot focus thoughts and feel at the verge of tears or get into rage without provocation and they don't know whether they'll be fit for their viva 2 weeks.

I don't think we disagree about what universities need do to help out students: my point is more that PhD norms are really for unattached young people that can dedicate 100% to studies. That's not the case anymore (and never did have been).

My condolences as well.
As @Broele and some other have already said, your situation right now clearly falls into the category of health-wise unfit to do the exam.
I gather from your question that you cannot predict whether you'll be sufficiently recovered to do the viva in 2 weeks.

Common wisdom would advise that right now is not a good time for you to do far-reaching important decisions, and I'd extrapolate this to mean also that it is not a good time for exams that you take very seriously.

Time frame
Since you write that your issues are caused by the abrupt hormonal changes, what does your MD say about the expected time frame? They may tell you should reschedule your viva and they should then also give you an attestation saying that.
(Remember that there are medical conditions where one oneself doesn't properly sense/realize that one shouldn't e.g. do exams)
I'd recommend to notify your advisor and/or the head of your exam committee and/or the exam office ASAP since for the examiners it is much better to know 2 weeks earlier that the exam needs to be rescheduled. Particularly if the committee has external members that need to travel.
So, tell them that health-wise, you'd not be able to do the viva now, and that you cannot expect to/predict whether you'll be sufficiently recovered by then.
If you think this is better for you*, you can of course try to negotiate/decide together with the head of the committee to give it a try and see and either do the viva as planned if you are lucky and recover faster than it looks now or postpone it last minute. This option is fine if everyone is fine with it - it is unlikely to work if you have an external examiner coming from far away.
Openly and transparently deciding to give it a try will automatically also make them aware that you have health issues that may affect your performance.
* Maybe your recovery will be faster if the pressure of the viva is not lurking in the future - regardless of whether you reach your full (when healthy) potential (=> grit teeth and over with it in order to put that additional obstacle out of the way of your recovery). Or maybe your recovery is hindered by the pressure of the closely approaching viva or potentially later by a hindsight regret that you may have done better in the viva had it been postponed (=> get this obstacle out of the way of your recovery by canceling it for now, and reschedule when you are sufficiently recovered). Or ...
Only you can judge for yourself which way to go. But both options are fine in general.

Not oversharing
Usually, I'm personally very much on the side of not sharing medical details since making this the default ensures a practice that protects those who need this privacy.
So I hope for you that you do not feel pressure to explain or even justify yourself any further.
However, in case you do feel pressure, defend yourself - and that includes the possibility to reveal information that you feel less bad about revealing compared with the pressure (or e.g. danger of rumors) that you perceive. This is about your recovery, so choose what is overall best for you.
Revealing information about your situation is not a black or white choice, you can control the level of detail:
One possibility may be to reveal that you had a surgery and recovery is not as fast as one would wish for: "As you may have noticed/guessed/know, I had to have a surgery some time/2 weeks ago. Unfortunately, recovery is not as fast as I had hoped/there are complications, and I cannot predict whether I'll be sufficiently recovered for the viva in 2 weeks".

I certainly don't want to overshare or make them feel uncomfortable

You being uncomfortable with oversharing is an important feature that protects you. Be friendly to yourself and listen to your own guidance :-).
Someone else being uncomfortable with details they may hear from you is an additional protection for you. I'd say it is a 2nd line of defense that we have built-in (biologically or culturally?), in case your own do-not-share protection isn't working well, e.g. due to sickness or in case you cannot not share because illness or disability is obvious*.
Thus, their comfort is not yours to need and worry about. (And anyways, I expect your comfort with sharing should stop you earlier.)
They are professionals and have been in exams many times and thus have experience dealing professionally with life (and death :-( ) as it happens to affect exams and other aspects of professional life.
Note: if all works as professionally as expected and noiselessly, you rarely hear about this unless you are affected.

Sharing to get accomodation
* The whole question is of course far more complicated, since sharing can be prerequisite to getting help from others. People with chronic illness or disability need to dig into this and take the time to getting to a good strategy. For acute situations like yours now, giving yourself more time to recover and then hopefully doing the viva like anyone else is likely better.
(Personally I also think when a chronic disease or permanent disability is still as new as 2 weeks, it's likely too early for important long-term decisions.)

If a viva is close to a "defence" in France, it is expected to be for the to-be PhD and an opportunity to formally be knighted into Academia.
It is quite relaxed and there is zero possibility for it to go wrong. The jury has to play the jury game but everyone knows the rules.
With all this said, it would be a good thing for everyone involved to know that you are going through a tough time. They could arrange for you to make it quicker if you wish, or not - and everyone would know why you react the way you react.
If I was part of the jury, I would prefer to know (and had a similar, though much lighter, case) to help arrange things if the situation goes south.

There is around a 4% failure rate for vivas in the UK. Not common, but not unheard of. https://www.discoverphds.com/advice/doing/phd-failure-rate

Yes, the Viva in the British system is quite different to the defence in most European countries.

It is your research work not you that is being evaluated. Knowing people's names is not of value, except if it means you don't know some critical peice of work.
And nobody knows everything. You simply need to explain what you did, but how and your reasoning. Nothing more nothing less. Like someone already mentioned. It's a formality. Don't belive the people who make a big thing of it. The big thing is all the work during the phd and what you learned writing it up.
That job is already done. Now go enjot the fibishline.
I have personally never heard of anyone being allowed to do a viva and not passing.


text:
My paper was accepted by a Journal four years ago, but it has not been published yet. They didn't answer my last e-mail about it. What can I do?
It is a very important journal in the field. My paper is a letter explaining that an article previously published in that journal had a mistake, and that the correction reverts the result. The paper was accepted in September 2019. It seems that the editor does not like that my paper has evidence of a mistake in the journal. I considered complaining to the company that publishes the journal. Can anybody recommend an attorney to assist me, and maybe to legally defend me? I have been waiting for a long time now and they have the copyrights.

What's a usual backlog for this journal?  (I know a few journals that take more than 4 years from acceptance to publication.)

I would certainly go through your institution's legal resources before finding a random attorney for yourself. (Not that it's necessarily time to do that, just if you need to learn what your rights are)

Try calling and sending out registered letters. Document your attempts to correct the record. And yes, contact the parent company of the journal if you think that will help.

WHO EXACTLY have you been emailing about this? If it is only your editor, then send an email to the editor in chief. Or try contacting some other member of the editorial board before contacting the publisher. I very strongly suggest that you assume an honest error, rather than that the editor is trying to suppress your paper - that will not work in academia, and your editor knows it, and most editors (especially at "better" journals) are mature and well-respected people in their fields. Better to try other avenues before actions that might leave you looking bad.

Please be mindful of Hanlon's razor before interpreting "my paper hasn't been published" as "someone's trying to hide the truth from the world", and especially before reacting with legal threats.

@AlexanderWoo I can understand why reviews would take long. But in what situation does a waiting time of 4 years from acceptance to publication happen?  Is it typesetting? Is it such a rarified journal that they accept more papers than they are able to publish on their precious sheets? In any case, if it really takes 4 years, indeed the OP is best advised not to be confrontational.

@BryanKrause, your comment here would be the foundation of my answer. The OP may have a case to, at least, get their copyright back. But a university funded IP lawyer would be the best option IMO. Another issue is how copyright works for things not ever published, but that is a question for an IP lawyer. It could well be that by not publishing it, their IP has been stolen.

@CaptainEmacs Either they greatly exceeded their budget or their staff quit.  In 2023 it's hard to hire clerical staff for cheap.

"It seems that the editor does not want that my paper put in evidence a mistake of the journal." This sounds like a very unlikely motivation. @CaptainEmacs In my case (just 2 years) it was a backlog of accepted papers waiting to be assigned to an issue. The paper was published online quite quickly though.

@AdamPřenosil If it's published online quickly, then there is nothing to worry about. If you can place it on arXiv, it may get the note: accepted for publication in XYZ. Maybe that's OP's best move.

I thank you all very much! I will write a kind  letter to the editor asking if there was a problem or a mistake.

Seems to me that the most probable explanation of this is that the editorial board member who made the 'accept' decision is unfamiliar with the system, hence the 'accept' decision did not actually go through (e.g. it should've reached the editor-in-chief, but it didn't). If the 'accept' decision reached the publisher, it would be extremely improbable that the publisher does not publish it.
So, make sure that everything is actually working as it should. Ask another member of the editorial board, perhaps the editor-in-chief, to check what's happening. You can also ask the publisher.
Note no response to email does not mean they're ignoring you - your email could've gone into the spam box, for example.

To amplify this answer: the aim is not to get the paper published. The aim is to help the journal be a better journal by publishing the paper. Whoever the OP approaches, if the aim is to work side by side to achieve this, it will almost certainly work better than face to face confrontation.

I thank you very much! I will write a kind  letter to the editor asking if there was a problem or a mistake.

Call the editor. Quit using email and call. Be polite and just ask to trace the submission. Nothing beats having direct communication and getting as many facts as possible.

I would send an email to the editor in chief of the journal or the publication team. Depending on the amount of back processing required, publication in a journal can take years, based on what I've read. However, you have to pose some, perhaps rhetorical, questions to yourself. Do you have documentation of your submission and approval? What is said by your colleagues, university, or supervisor? You also need to account for the actual time frame that takes from submission to publication. Publication involves numerous steps. The submission of the article comes first, followed by peer review and journal publication. In all academic fields, the average time from the moment you submit your manuscript until you receive a firm decision is one year. It takes an average of six months more after your article is accepted before it is published.It's important to use caution when wording your response to avoid coming across as conceited or biased.  It is highly recommended that you consider the possibility of an honest mistake instead of the editor attempting to censor your work. Keep thinking positive.

In all academic fields, the average time from the moment you submit your manuscript until you receive a firm decision is one year. It takes an average of six months more after your article is accepted before it is published. – That statement is wrong in this generality. There are fields and publishers where the average time to the final decision is a few months and the time to (online) publication from then is a month. Of course you can take a grand average over all of academia, but that information is barely relevant to anybody and nothing to base any advice on.

I thank you all very much! I will write a kind  letter to the editor asking if there was a problem or a mistake.

If you feel uncomfortable to call, another approach would be sending a letter via the ordinary mail. Stop using E mail. Spam is very abundant now and some filters may be aggressive enough to drop your message without any obvious reason.
Staff change is a likely reason why some decisions have been forgotten. If they have changed they mind, should have notified you.
Never wait for as long as four years.