text:
Write 'According to Wikipedia' in a PhD thesis
I am writing a PhD thesis in robotics and I was wondering if it sounds good to start a phrase with: 'According to Wikipedia ...'
Do you think I can do that or not?

You can... but doesn't mean you should. There is no force on Earth that will stop you from writing those words.

Sorry, maybe is my English failing me here. I know I can, I meant if is it suggested or not? And/or if you have ever seen it

Don’t quote Wikipedia.

You could put a footnote citing this

obligatory xkcd

Wikipedia articles usually refer to published papers to sustain claims. You should cite those instead.

You can't actually quote Wikipedia. It may have said one thing the day you looked at it, and then be changed, possibly many times, by the time someone else reads your paper and then checks the "source" of your fact. I used Wikipedia for information on the 7/7/1937 incident at the Marco Polo Bridge in Wanping China. A year later I went back and someone not happy about the prominent and heroic role the KMT played, rewrote it.

That sounds like a phrase from a half-baked high school essay, not a PhD thesis.  If you want to be a scholar, you should read and cite the primary literature.

@PeteMancini, this can be easily worked around. When citing dynamic sites like this, archive a time-stamped version on websites such as WebCite.org, and then cite both the original URL and the webcite URL. (Some journals such as Journal of Medical Internet Research requires this process.) Even if the dynamic site changed, the archived one will still be there as a document.

@Penguin_Knight, if it has changed, significantly, is it still valid? Big change brings up two questions. The first is that the information cited is wrong. The second is, for various reasons, neither is right. For example the description of the 7/7 incident is a political football with people changing it to suit their agenda.

Thanks to all these many suggestions. I was almost sure that I couldn't write 'According to Wikipedia' in a PhD thesis but I wanted to know your opinion about it.

Really!!! Are you writing PhD thesis ?

"According to some unknown guy on the Internet, I can say that according to Wikipedia..."
No, you should avoid that. Wikipedia is open, so it can be changed by (almost) everyone and you have no guarantee that the given information there is correct. While many articles are very informative, it might be better to take the actual source (given on the Wikipedia page) and make sure that this source is credible (e.g. published in a good, peer reviewed journal).

Apart from the obvious truth in this answer, the only situation I could imagine citing Wikipedia like that would be to clarify some common misconceptions stated in the wiki-article. "According to wiki, XYZ is a typical source of ABC, representative for a common misunderstanding in non-scientific literature about ABC-XYZ interaction, originating from an faulty interpretation of early DEF-experiments. Here, I want to address..."

Another case where one could actually cite Wikipedia is if you want to cite data explicitly from Wikipedia (e.g. some information on the number of available articles, on the number of readers, etc.).

Thanks all for your valuable opinions. I will take all this into account

To extend on @BPND: If you for any reason have to cite Wikipedia for the sake of citing Wikipedia, don't include exact information on which version of an article you are citing.

Actually, Wikipedia is a good, peer reviewed site. And the information is probably more accurate than in the average journal article.

@J.FabianMeier I presume you read that from Wikipedia?

@JiK I can't speak for Meier, but I personally learned that from the meticulously detailed, well sourced, and impressively unbiased Wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

@JiK I know that Wikipeda has a bad standing in academia, and I know that citing XY journal is usually considered to be "better" than citing Wikipedia. Nevertheless I know that many journal papers are only partially read by the referees - if an error is found later on, it is rare that any kind of erratum is published. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is read and corrected by many people and the chance that is right is therefore higher.

I think that Dirk’s answer is highly misleading and represents a popular, but false view of the website. Investigations have shown that Wikipedia contains as many or fewer statements of incorrect fact on scientific and technical matters as more traditional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica (though "mistakes by omission" are more common on Wikipedia). Just because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone doesn’t mean it’s unreliable. Additionally, just because anyone can add content doesn’t mean that there are no controls on content, nor does it mean that there aren’t people or systems for double checking edits.
However, it is correct that one shouldn’t cite Wikipedia because Wikipedia (like most encyclopedias) is a tertiary source and has a strict “no original research” policy. Encyclopedias are summaries of information, but don't contain original research by design and are not the original source of the content. You should always cite the original source of the content, not a reproduction of it. If you wish to credit an encyclopedia with drawing your attention to the material, you can append "accessed via Wikipedia" to a citation, which I've seen done in some published scholarly books and journal articles.

I doubt Dirk's argument is that Wikipedia is unreliable because it can be edited by anyone. Rather, because it can be edited by anyone, referencing Wikipedia is equivalent to 'according to some guy on the internet' and therefore serves little purpose as a citation, regardless of whether the information is correct.

@MarcksThomas I disagree about your interpretation, but let's say it's correct for a second. Citing "some guy on the internet" who writes a well articulated, well analyzed, and well sourced blog article is completely reasonable. Quality work is quality work, even if it doesn't have "Dr. Mathematician, PhD" attached to it. I have personally submitted research papers to the US government that cited multiple blog article. Those blog articles were excellently written and had the best analysis of the relevant data.

I am not sure why a comparison to Encyclopedia Brittanica is relevant. I would also find it strange to see a reference to that.

@TobiasKildetoft That's the point of my answer. I'm saying that encyclopedias are inappropriate sources for citations because you should always cite primary sources.

@StellaBiderman: I meant that literally. It's reasonable to cite some guy on the internet, but not 'some guy on the internet'.

@MarcksThomas I do not understand what distinction you're trying to draw. When you cite materials output by the CDC, you're not citing "some random underling at the CDC," you're citing the CDC. Similarly, when you cite Wikipedia you're not citing "some random person who edits Wikipedia" but rather Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Northwest_tree_octopus&oldid=765817385

For the record, I'd find "According to Encylopedia Britannica..." also strange to see in a PhD thesis.

A good Wikipedia article must be supported with credible sources and references (see here and here). Wikipedia itself has a good read on citing Wikipedia.
In case of scientific articles, the references are usually either published books and/or articles and papers from scientific journals and conferences. In either case, you should be able to follow them and reference the Wikipedia article (or the section of your choice) back to any of these original sources, and then cite that original source in your thesis. That makes for a valid and accepted citation instead of something that someone might have randomly written on the day you checked the article.

(+1) But what would one do when you learn something very basic on Wikipedia (which is probably outside one's field) that does not require citation? For example, "According to Wikipedia, the chain rule is ...".

@CliffAB find a credible source.

@CliffAB In most, if not all, fields, even basic subjects are well-defined in a credible textbook. For example, the "chain rule" must have already been explained in at least one reference textbook of the related academic or engineering field (and should be referenced properly in the Wikipedia article). Since original content is not suggested to be used on Wikipedia, even basic topics shouldn't be written based on "common" or "personal" knowledge.

@msouth: My point about the chain rule is that no mathematician would ever need to cite the chain rule in a paper. However, if you're publishing in a field that traditionally has no exposure to math (lit?), and for some reason you find the chain rule very helpful, it might be a good place to put a citation of the chain rule...even though you learned from a Wikipedia page, and pointing readers to the citations given by the Wikipedia page would not be as helpful as the Wikipedia page itself.

@CliffAB This is about a PhD thesis--I would cite a book.  You're trying to tell someone where the data is that backs up your claim.  You don't want to reference something that could change thousands of times between when you wrote it and the last time anyone ever looks at your references.  I think a website is iffy enough (people reorganize their entire sites and break old links), but a publicly editable site is just a really bad idea.  What are you citing?  What it said that day?  Because you don't know what it says now.  Like ali14 says, just get it from a textbook or something.

Depending on the reason for the citation it could be perfectly fine. For example, if you simply want to use the encyclopedia definition to start your introduction:

According to Wikipedia robotics deals with the design, construction,
  operation, and use of robots,[1] as well as computer systems for their
  control, sensory feedback, and information processing. The subject of this
  thesis ...

There is nothing wrong with this (besides maybe the lack of creativity: citing an encyclopedia is used very often in introductions). However, note that Wikipedia cites an original source for this definition under [1], so in this case it is probably preferable to cite the original (the Oxford dictionary in this example).
However, if your purpose is to use wikipedia as a source of factual (scientific) information it is not a good idea.

Why would you have information in an academic paper that you didn't consider "factual"?

Even for introductory statements, I don't think this is appropriate. I would immediately think less of any manuscript that contains the words "according to Wikipedia" because it shows a lack of effort and ignores the common wisdom that one should, in general, not cite Wikipedia. For broad, common knowledge statements like in your example, I would rather see no citation than a citation from Wikipedia.

@Sneftel To explain why it is not factual?

@NuclearWang That says more about you than about the author of the article or wikipedia. You are the one showing "lack of effort" by judging too fast. It is perfectly valid to cite an encyclopedia if you want to refer to the encyclopedic definition of a word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - nothing more, nothing less.

@louic Literally every answer to this question agrees: do not cite Wikipedia. Instead, cite the source material for the Wikipedia article. There's no reason to skip that step unless you just don't want to bother with the original sources. It would appear I'm judging Wikipedia citations as harshly as anyone else here.

@nuclearwang (1) If everybody did what everybody else did simply because everybody else did it, science would not exist. (2) many books, including scientific ones cite encyclopedias. (3) I agree that, if other sources are available, it should be prefarable to cite those, as my answer also clearly states. You are judging based on a fixed rule instead of using common sense: citing an encyclopedia just to illustrate what encyclopedias say is fine.

No, you should not. Wikipedia is not a scientific source. The scientific source is the primary peer-reviewed reference that wikipedia's articles cite.
You can (and should) use Wikipedia for a general understanding of a concept, but you should (read and) cite the primary source of the particular concept.
Finally, I would avoid writing "According to X, Y leads to Z" altogether and instead write "Y leads to Z because ...[citeX1, citeX2]". "According to X" is an authoritative argument.

In addition to the other arguments: Citing web sources is a problem, because you do not know if they stay online and if they will be changed in the future. Wikipedia is a bit better than other websites, as they have a clear edit history and citing with date accessed on ... is possible. But you're still relying on the article being still there. For deleted articles there is no (easy to view) history.

It is not "fetched on..", it is "access date" or "date accessed".

Changed it, thank you. Thought of the practice which is suggested for some references (not citation) to save a copy of the current version of some page to be able to reference to it when the website goes down.

Do you mean can you cite Wikipedia or can you use the phrase "according to Wikipedia"? Of course citing Wikipedia is not recommended since it can be highly inaccurate [look at e.g. Loudwire's "Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction" YouTube series where bands go through their history on the site and tell the interviewer what is true and what is false].
Using the phrase, "according to Wikipedia..." is of course absolutely fine, though I would suffix your information with a caveat that the citation is unreliable. You could also cite another piece of related information from a more reliable source, and make a reliability comparison.
Ultimately though, it's best to avoid citing Wikipedia altogether. If it is the only place the information you can find is cropping up, then it is most likely false.

hard to imagine someone not knowing the answer to this.
1) go to wikipedia
2) just cite whatever citation wikipedia gives you (hyperlink/bottom of page)
This has been hammered into my head since like 4th grade...


text:
Interviews for academic teaching positions and "diversity"
I am a Masters student in math, who loves teaching, and rather than go on for a PhD would rather teach at a community college. I've noticed in many of the schools to which I am applying the they emphasize the need to understand diversity and teaching to diverse ethnic, economic, and ability populations.
Now I'm just a simple boy from the farm, so can somebody explain why this is important to teaching mathematics? Aren't people, well people? And if a person knows how to do deal and relate well with others, knows how to respect other's differences and is a good teacher, what more is there to say really?
I'm not trying to be obtuse or controversial, but I just don't see what these factors really have to do with being an effective educator and they simply come off as being PCish to me, but I'm hoping someone can perhaps give me a substantive answer.

One thing to realize is that this concern is not special to the mathematics discipline; often there's a college-level diversity office that promotes this concern in hiring decisions, etc. You might possibly decode this as meaning students who are very weak; many have been part of disadvantaged families, did not grow up around people with college degrees, went to schools that were poorly funded and staffed, etc. Some will be barely able to read, not know times tables or 6th-grade arithmetic, etc. and you have to learn to teach to that.

This is an old question, but I feel like giving my two cents anyway. You know you're a "good teacher," but how would they know you're a good teacher? They have no idea. And yes, empathy, tolerance, respect, patience, political correctness, willingness to accept substandard pay, those are attributes they may be looking for in teachers, but one quality that hasn't been touched upon yet is having a spine and being able to control a class. The truth is that some teachers don't respond well to an environment where students do not respect them, or sit at the back of the class doing something else.

Now I'm just a simple boy from the farm, so can somebody explain why this is important to teaching mathematics?

Sure, I'll give it a try. The "this" that is supposed to be important are the qualities of being empathetic to, and understanding of, and passionate about, the unique challenges facing people who belong to certain racial, ethnic, or other demographic groups. Although the primary role of a mathematics teacher is to impart knowledge about mathematics, there are many ways and approaches to doing this, some a lot more effective than others. Part of the philosophy of diversity is the belief that a teacher (of mathematics or any other subject) who has a good understanding of and empathy towards those groups will be a much more effective teacher to students who are members of those groups, and, for example, in addition to successfully imparting the desired technical knowledge, would also have the ability to inspire their students, teach them additional useful values and habits, and overall improve their educational and life outcomes.

Aren't people, well people?

Yes, that is technically correct but is probably not a very helpful way to look at a question such as what makes someone a good candidate for a teaching position in a community college. The sad fact is that humans are programmed in many subtle ways to treat different people in different ways. The ability and desire to be aware of such tendencies and overcome them are very desirable qualities for a lecturer in a country as heterogeneous as the U.S.

And if a person knows how to do deal and relate well with others, knows how to respect other's differences and is a good teacher, what more is there to say really?

I think this question carries a premise that a person either relates well to all "others" or to none. That is not the case. Many people who belong to a certain group A will be able to relate fabulously to other members of group A and could be great teachers for them, while having a very poor ability to relate to members of another group B. In fact, we all feel more comfortable with and have a much better understanding of people who are similar to us - that is just human nature. But imagine that you are a community college administrator interviewing candidates for a math lecturer position, and along comes a member of group A who is able to convince you that he/she has a very good understanding of the challenges faced by members of group B and is really passionate about helping students from group B overcome those challenges and succeed. Wouldn't you be impressed and see great value in the possibility of employing such a person - at least assuming his/her general math lecturing credentials are just as good as the other candidates you're comparing them to?
Note that those sorts of qualities the colleges are looking for are of a much more specific kind that just someone having generally good people skills and a general ability to respect others. So yes, there is a lot "more to say" than the level of generality you are addressing.
With that said, of course having exceptionally good people skills can be impressive in its own right, and to some extent I believe you can tick off some of the right boxes without necessarily going down to the level of showing that you are passionate about helping very specific groups of people. Certainly showing a general respect for all people, whoever they may be, is a very good starting point for selling yourself in a job application.

In the U.S. (which I assume is the context, from the term "community college"), community colleges often teach very different student bodies than four-year colleges and universities. The student bodies at community colleges often contain:

More first-generation students
More nontraditional students - older students, students with dependents, students with full time jobs, etc.
More students from traditionally underrepresented minorities

Speaking somewhat stereotypically, faculty from more more selective institutions may not be familiar with these students, with the background they have, and with the challenges they face. It is not just a matter of "political correctness" to look for faculty who are able to work effectively with these students.
I have often heard community college deans lament the challenge they have with hiring effective faculty, because many of their applicants come from backgrounds where the average student was quite different.

Community colleges especially draw from diverse ethnic, economic and ability populations, so it seems logical that they would be concerned about their prospective faculty being able to teach those students. And no, this is not just "political correctness", but rather making sure the needs of the students are being met.
Consider:

At many universities, the average undergrad likely has had access to academic advising previously. They aren't likely working full time. They're probably less likely to be the first person in their family to be going to college. If you're a member of a different ethnic group, your references or examples might be out of context for them.
No, people aren't just "people". They come with experiences, perspectives, and biases all their own. Context matters, and a community college is a particular context.
They likely have very different goals and reasons for being at a community college than you had at a four-year institution.

The list goes on, but what they're looking for is your ability to work with students who aren't "like yourself", don't have the same expectations, background, etc.

Strong answers have been given, but there's one thing that was missing.
It's important to be sensitive to diversity and diversity issues so that you can support the educational institution's goal of diversifying the institution, i.e. increasing its diversity.
Yes, the other answers are correct that as a math teacher, you need to support diverse learners' success.
(I will add to what's already been said, that this includes supporting the comfort level and effectiveness of diverse co-workers.  It includes ensuring diverse learners can find a safe place to bring problems and concerns -- including LGBT by the way.  If your office is not such a safe place, that's not the end of the world -- but you should make sure you know a safe place to send your students when they need one.  It includes learning about diversity issues so that you'll recognize one when it appears in your immediate environment.)
But it's more than all of that.  It includes a commitment to changing the racial and demographic make-up of higher education.
As a rural student, you may find that you are able to relate to all of this extremely well.  Perhaps you could start by auditing one course that allows you to enter into the history of an underrepresented group in depth.  You may surprise yourself!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I cite a previously given, unavailable talk without self-plagiarism
In University, I was part of a philosophy reading group where people would occasionally give talks about their on-going research. Several years ago I gave one such talk, and presented original and new ideas that were never published or presented in a more formal setting, although the ideas were also presented in a term paper I wrote that same year. There is no public record of the contents of the talk, or even that that talk happened.
Now I am in a situation where I wish to reference that same idea in a research paper. It is outside the scope of the current paper paper to present those ideas as a new thing, but it would be something that would be appropriate to reference as existing.
How would I do that? I could get a DOI for the talk and reference it using that, but I would feel weird about referencing an unavailable talk that I gave, as it would feel like citation padding. This is doubly true since it is early in my career. I could write up a summary of the talk and put it on a publicly available repository, but I’m not sure if that’s a thing that is done. Are there other options?

Is the new paper a school assignment or a research paper?

@nabla it’s a research paper. I’ve added that detail to the OP

I think the right action hinges on this point:

It is outside the scope of the current paper paper to present those ideas as a new thing, but it would be something that would be appropriate to reference as existing.

It seems like you want to reference your past work because it is out of the scope of the new work and yet still relevant. If this is correct, then referencing the talk will not help the reader, who may (or may not) need to know about the past idea, concept, or whatever it was. Therefore your only option would be to publish the ideas in some form (paper, blog, etc.) or explain them briefly in the new paper.
If you simply want to show the history of your ideas, but it is not important, then I would leave out and simply acknowledge whoever helped you out.
If you are worried primarily about self-plagiarism, I do not see how not citing a non-published talk, that you yourself gave, is much different from not citing some thoughts you had in your head two years ago. It is a bit different, but not to the extent that it would constitute self-plagiarism, which is really about making it clear what is and what is not new in a paper as it is assessed for novelty during peer-review.

It is not a problem to deliver a talk where you outline some ideas, which later turns into a research paper. You don't need to cite the talk, especially if there is no existing record of it. On the contrary, writing up something for the sole purpose of citing it in another paper, could be viewed as unethical "citation padding".
Consider putting a small acknowledgements section at the end of the paper, where you write something like: "I wish to thank the organizers and participants of Reading Group X, which gave me the opportunity to present and discuss the ideas behind this study".

My issue is that doing so would feel like a weird tangent. The reference would in the introduction where I connect my current work to past work. I don’t recall seeing people introduce new ideas in that context before.

Can you put the part from the talk in an appendix? You could start along the line of

The author is not aware of any publication of idea of X used in this paper. This idea was presented by the author in the study group Y at University of Z in fall 20?? and in the adjacent report My cool idea X. As both are not publicly available, this appendix contains a sketch of the basic idea.

As a bonus, you can cite this appendix in future publications as well as others can do.

My thoughts would be that a talk is not necessarily a place where a new idea is validated, and thus validated to be used in further works. Note that I am from the medical sciences field, and not arts/philosophy.
An idea presented in a talk (in my field) is generally one that has passed the peer review phase and has been rigorously scrutinized.
So my answer would be that you write the paper first on your new idea, develop the idea further, and then use it in your talk.

I think medicine and CS are special cases. You can present non-peer-reviewed work in most science and engineering fields as well.

they already gave the talk

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


text:
How to submit one paper to many journals, to maximise chance of publishing?
I wrote a paper, and I found several journals (from high to mid impact factor) that publish similar papers.
There's always a chance of rejection, so instead of submitting to journals one at a time (and wasting my time on adjusting the layout in LaTeX for each submission) I want to submit the same "generic nice layout"  to several journals, see where it sticks, and after acceptance, work on LaTeX layout and implementing reviewers' remarks for the journal which accepted my paper.
Can I do it? Or is there a better way? How do people avoid re-editing their paper if journal A tells them to submit in journal B instead?

In general you do not need to follow a journals LaTEX layout rules at submission. Just submit in some generic nice looking layout. Only after you paper is accepted, you should follow the layout rules of that journal.

Another duplicate candidate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/185693/my-paper-got-accepted-at-all-three-journals-i-sent-it-to-how-can-i-publish-it-a/

It is generally considered improper to submit a paper to more than one journal at a time. Only one can publish it. The reasoning behind this is that you waste the time of reviewers if the paper shows up in their queue. Don't try to game the system in this way.
You need to choose an "appropriate" journal for your paper. If this is your first or an early paper that is difficult, of course, but you might seek advice from a colleague or professor as to which to send the paper to. It takes a while, but if the paper is at all appropriate you will get some valuable feedback on the work.
If you submit multiple places it will likely be found out. Reviewers review for more than one journal. Editors of different journals know one another.
You don't want editors to refuse future papers because you have acted inappropriately in the past. The system may be inefficient in terms of quantity, but it seeks quality. Follow the rules.

I think "improper" might not even be a strong enough word for duplicate submissions.

Thank you for this valuable answer! But still, even when submitting one-by-one in case of rejections... do I really have to play with LaTeX each time? It is the part of work I hate the most. Or can I just submit in whatever format, and then make it pretty after being greenlighted by everyone?

Journals normally say what formats they will accept for initial submission. Papers are very rarely published exactly as submitted so too much effort spent on formatting is likely wasted.

@user46147 most often, journal will accept submissions either in word or latex, and do the final typesetting themselves. So don't worry t omuch about it.

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


text:
Is a 12-month open access mandate compatible with a 12-month embargo period?
The conditions of my research grant say that I must ensure open access to the peer reviewed publications describing project results by making them available in a repository "within twelve months of publication" (the accepted manuscript is enough).
Springer's conditions for the embargo period say "Authors may self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later."
Are these two things compatible? My understanding is that they are, because the day that comes exactly twelve months after publication is both the last day that is "within twelve months of publication", and the first day that is "12 months after official publication or later", so by making the publication available exactly that day I would be complying with both the funding agency and the publisher. But not being a native English speaker, I'm not 100% sure.

I think you should ask your funding agency, to know exactly what they mean, and if the self archived version is enough (that I understand Springer allows for).

Yes, it is fine.

You might be able to ask your librarians to help you with this. For example, I know the University of Cambridge's have a program with which you can submit your work after which they'll take care of checking the requirements.
Given that you're at most one day in the wrong, however, I wouldn't worry too much - you're definitely working in the spirit of the rules.


text:
What counts as a "prior version" in Springer's self-archiving policy?
Springer's self-archiving policy ( https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/self-archiving-policy/2124 ) says:

By signing the Copyright Transfer Statement you still retain
  substantial rights, such as self-archiving: "Authors may self-archive
  the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own
  websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article in
  any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months
  after official publication or later. (...)
Prior versions of the article published on non-commercial pre-print servers like arXiv.org can remain on these servers and/or can be
  updated with the author’s accepted version.

So if I'm understanding correctly, if you have not uploaded the paper to arXiv or other repositories beforehand, then a 12-month embargo applies before you are allowed to publish the accepted manuscript in any repository. However, if you have uploaded the paper to arXiv or some other repository, then you are allowed to post the accepted manuscript there with no embargo as an update of the previous version.
Not that I understand why such a policy can make sense, but my real question is: how should "prior" be interpreted there? Prior to paper acceptance or prior to the first submission?
That is, for example: is it OK to submit a paper to one of these journals, be asked for major revisions, then do the revisions and submit them to arXiv in addition to the journal, and finally update the arXiv entry when the paper is accepted?

I would interpret "prior version" here to mean any version prior to acceptance, which would include ones submitted for revisions.  Thus, I believe that you are correct in your conjecture: you can submit to arXiv and keep updating that at any time, as long as your first submission is before acceptance.
So, why does such a policy make sense? My take is this: if the manuscript is already out there on arXiv, then it's in the journal's interest to make sure it's the most accurate version.  From a business perspective, for-profit journals probably do not like having things appear on arXiv, but in those communities where preprint circulation and self-archiving are the rule, they don't really have the power to prevent it.

What about submiting an "old" pre-print (pre review) version to arXiv, after acceptance and copyright transfer and update it later, after publication?


text:
How should English reference be cited in a non-English work?
According to the Chicago Manual Style 16 edition, section 14.194 Translated Article Titles, non-English article cited in an English work follows this formula:

Authors, "Original title," [English-translated title] Journal Date

However, how should English article be handled in a non-English work, considering that English is the language of science? I see no guidance in the style book. I think how it is formulated might be different, depending on the readership:
Academians
Typically, articles are cited as how they are cited in English work, with or without translation. Based on my observation, trivial words (date, and, issue, et al., etc) will be in English. This is to withstand the academic consistency, and let the software chooses how to process for simplicity.

Authors, "Original title," [Translated title] Journal Date

Popular audience
Since their main interest is to understand what it says and become accustomed to academic norms, I think the references should be treated as if they are regular text. Trivial words will be translated. Translated titles will be put first, original ones will be in brackets.

Authors, "Translated title," [Original title] Journal Date

Is this thinking reasonable? How should the journal names be treated? Would this break any consistency that a reference should follow? I haven't seen any precedent on this, especially with books for kid.

Related question: Should references in foreign language be translated to make popular audience get familiar with how academia works?

For what concerns citations there is a general international standard, the ISO 690, but at the moment I don't have access to it. Therefore, I'll give you an answer based on an Italian style guide and on a number of Italian and French popular science books, from different publishers, that I have on my bookshelf (e.g., [1-7], but I can find many others).
All books report English, German and French references in the format

Authors, "Original title," Journal Date

No translation of the title is provided. The translated title is reported only for books which have an Italian edition too.
Il nuovo manuale di stile (The new manual of style), edizione 2.0, by Roberto Lesina, §15.4, explicitly says

I titoli di scritti in lingua straniera vengono sempre espressi nella lingua originale.
Titles of writings in foreign languages should be always expressed in the original language.

There's no distinction between academic and popular science books.
Books [1-6] are written by Italian and French authors; [7], instead, is a translation of the original Russian edition, and there are Russian references. These are not translated either, but the Cyrillic letters have been transliterated. This is in agreement with the recommendation of the cited style guide for titles in non-Latin alphabets (§5.4.3).
To sum up: I think that there is some, possibly strong, evidence, from at least two countries, that references in popular science books should be treated exactly as references in academic works.
[1] G. C. Ghirardi, Un'occhiata alle carte di Dio, Il Saggiatore, Milano, 2003.
[2] M. Ageno, Le origini dell'irreversibilità, Bollati Boringhieri, 1992.
[3] R. Lamouline, Du Thermomètre à la temperature, Éditions Ellipses, Paris, 2005.
[4] J.-P. Parisot, F. Suagher, Calendriers et chronologie, Masson, Paris, 1996.
[5] G. Lolli, La crisalide e la farfalla. Donne e matematica, Bollati Boringhieri, 2000.
[6] A. Guerraggio, P. Nastasi, Matematica in camicia nera. Il regime e gli scienziati, Bruno Mondadori, 2005.
[7] V. I. Arnol'd, Huygens & Barrow. Newton & Hooke, Bollati Boringhieri, 1996.

Does this include languages not written in a Latin alphabet?

@virmaior Yes, but it also says that titles written in non-Latin alphabets can be traslitterated, following standard traslitteration tables (specified also in the ISO standard).

@virmaior See also the edit to my answer.

I have massively edited my question to reflect what's in my mind. Can you check that again? Thanks

@Ooker Wouldn't have been better to leave that as is and ask a new question?

because I guess the origin wasn't important enough, and could be answered in a couple thoughts

@Ooker Usually on SE the complete change of a question is discouraged, especially when there are already answers. It is better to ask a new question, possibly referring to the old one if they are related.

Actually when editing it I did have a feeling of that, but since for me these two questions are essentially the same, the later presents what's really in my mind than the first, then I decided to edit it rather than asking a new question


text:
I can't trust my supervisor anymore, but have to have his letter of recommendation. What should I do?
Background
I did my masters research project with Prof X. While doing this I joined his lab, where he used to ask me to do random tasks i.e. taking part in different projects, conducting lectures to undergrad students, help him preparing presentations, doing literature reviews not related to my project. I did all those things because of my curiosity and passion for learning as many things as I could. Unfortunately, this delayed my progress in my masters research project.
The Prof. X seemed not at all concerned not only about me but also his other students, except when he wanted us to publish. Although the research field was new to me and I had to do everything on my own and I learned a lot. In the end, he was quite happy and satisfied with my work. He offered me  PhD position at his lab but having bad experience with him, I politely refused that right now I don't have any plan to pursue my PhD.
After that, I could notice he is very cold towards me. During my writing stage, he continuously burdened me more with different tasks related to lab. Moreover, after submission he totally ignored to pass the examiner's names to faculty and it delayed my masters results further two months, even though I requested him multiple times. Once I came to know about this delay through faculty, I told him very politely that how can he do that? He just said (laughingly): sorry I forgot about it.
This is not the first time I found him selfish and not consistent while having no concern about any of his student.
Question
Now, I am applying for PhD position and I need references. I have other other faculty members with whom I have worked with or taken courses and they are willing to witness my motivation and good performance. The problem is that they require one of the referee must be the main research supervisor, in my case Prof X. I don't trust Prof. X in this matter. What should I do now?

You say that "they require one of the referee must be the main research supervisor". Let's suppose that you have two friends (A and B) who are also willing to join this PhD. A's master supervisor passed away a few months ago. B's master supervisor joined an expedition in Antarctica and won't return in the next months. What will the PhD evaluation committee (or whoever is there to receive the references) do in these cases? My intention with this question is to find out what happens when the master supervisor simply won't and can't provide a reference.

@VictorStafusa The analogy with the death of a supervisor is a special case and rather obsolete in this context. The selection committee should be informed and obviously they will assess the student based on his work and other recommendation letters.

@VictorStafusa - That's probably a different enough scenario that you could post it as a new question.

@eykanal Nah, I don't want to post that as a new question, because I don't have interest in this problem. I am only interested in knowing what may cause the committee to allow exceptions in its rules in order to maybe post an answer here.

What field are you studying in? Biology, Chemistry, Physics...?

Do you have any witness that Prof. X offered you a Ph.D.?

The problem is that they require one of the referee must be the main research supervisor — Have you considered applying to a department that does not have this requirement?

Just ask for two different reference letters and read one of them to make sure if he has written something to lower your reputation.

See What should I do if someone answers my question. Please follow those suggestions, and don't edit "thanks" into the body of your question; we are trying to build a library of focused, useful questions and answers here, with as little "chat" as possible.

I assume that Prof. X would be known in the field that you work in.  In that case, their behaviour will probably also be known to their colleagues. For the list of references I would give people I expected good references from.  In the cover letter, I would mention that Prof. X was my academic supervisor and could be contacted, but that the references listed were my preferred references.
Be careful not to say anything rude about Prof. X.  And don't complain too much about your experiences, or you would sound like someone who might be trouble.  Just say who are your preferred references, and let the committee decide for themselves whether to go with your preferences or follow their own guidelines.  If they go against your wishes and get a bad reference (or no reference), they won't be surprised, and hopefully they will also have gotten all the references you really recommended as well.  But the committee might also respect your wishes.
I agree that this sounds like a bad situation, and you might want to warn juniors in the lab about your experience so they can transfer if they agree with you.  Have you spoken to people who were senior PhD students when you came in, and ask how their experience went?  It may be that you are overly worried now, and that in fact your supervisor writes excellent letters.  You should probably do this before any of the other steps suggested above.

Have you spoken to people who were senior PhD students when you came in, and ask how their experience went? It may be that you are overly worried now, and that in fact your supervisor writes excellent letters. You should probably do this before any of the other steps suggested above. This is a great idea because OP is having trouble anticipating the main research advisor's behavior, and the letter is closed to the OP. The standard code language ("Would you be comfortable writing me a letter of recommendation") can't be counted on to give reliable results in the case of an advisor who...

behaves erratically. I would add to Joanna's answer: OP stated, "The Prof. X seemed not at all concerned not only about me but also his other students, except when he wanted us to publish," and said that Prof. X delayed the masters by two months by not carrying out a simple required communication step -- and then laughed about it. If Prof. X cannot carry out his advisorly duties reliably, then OP should put the problem squarely in the department's lap. A department administrator can sound out Prof. X, and send a departmental clarification letter if need be.

I think your concern is on good grounds.

they require one of the referee must be the main research supervisor.

They normally expect a recommendation letter from Prof. X and excluding him could create a bad impression on the selection committee. Certainly the selection committee needs to know how the student worked with Prof X. Recommendation letter, the master thesis and a personal interview are more or less only logical way to reach a conclusion about the application. From my experience the recommendation letter can have the potential to influence your chances of getting admitted even if an interview gone good/bad. If you exclude Prof X, chances are that your application gets rejected in the early stage, you might even get an interview if you are lucky.
My advise is to arrange a meeting with Prof.X and openly tell him that you are applying to so and so group, you are motivated in their methods in so and so topic and explain him why you really need to be a part of them. Tell him why you turned downed his offer and honestly share your concerns. Keep in mind  that this should not be an "I am sorry" type of meeting but an open discussion about what you honestly think.
Now you speculate that Prof. X would write a bad recommendation letter. I think he would have hard time in doing so if your master thesis is strong. He will have to convince the committee how bad was his experience with you, still you manage to produce a quality thesis. If you are confident about your thesis and even if you still think Prof. X would write a bad letter, I don't think it is a good idea to exclude him.

This is not advisable. You cannot afford a bad letter of recommendation from your research adviser. It is much more preferable not to have one.

@Prof.JoséF.Martínez they require one of the referee must be the main research supervisor stated the OP. It may be the case a bad recommendation can harm your chances but its more or less mandatory unless you are exceptional. And, the selection committee normally don't care if the student thinks that a supervisor will write him a bad recommendation, they just need one, they want to know how the student did with Prof. X from Prof. X. I have edited the answer to stress on this point.

"Tell him why you turned downed his offer and honestly share your concerns." Very high risk IMO.

You are looking for a risk-free response and there isn't one. The bottom line here is, you don't trust Prof. X, so a letter from him seems out of the question. You can be certain that this will raise eyebrows and your application may be turned down out of an abundance of caution. So let me preface my advice by saying thay this approach is not perfect. If you decide to request the letter, there's some good advice in the other responses.
1) The one thing you have going for you is the paper and your master's thesis. The master's thesis is single author, so there's no dispute as to who did what. You need to describe in your SoP precisely what your contribution to your paper was, cite the paper in the SoP, and provide a link to the paper and the thesis in case anyone cares to read it.
2) Carefully sift through the work of the professors you are targeting and describe briefly but compellingly why you would like to work in their group. Here's what will probably happen: The graduate committee will see that you are specifically mentioning a research group and will forward your application to that professor for comment. Once that happens, your SoP is in the hands of someone that can assess the quality of your work and your technical knowledge, who might actually take a look at the thesis/paper, and who suddenly has a lot of power over your application.
3) Additionally, you may want to request a letter from the senior Ph.D. student or (best) postdoc you worked most closely with; he/she should be a co-author of the work and should briefly describe in the letter in what capacity they know you before getting into the details. It should be someone you trust with keeping it confidential.
All the best.

José, reading between the lines in your Answer, I believe you are saying OP should not ask Prof. X for a letter.  Could you confirm, or make it more explicit please, to prevent any misunderstanding?  And if my understanding is correct, could you address the following: Should the OP say something in his application about the lack of a letter from the main research supervisor?  If so, what should he say and where should he put it?  Cover letter, a separate additional brief statement, etc.?

I would split the bounty with this answer if that were allowed.

I'm sad to say but you are in very bad spot right now. From your description,it looks like that professor suffers from bad case of inflated ego combined with very petty and vengeful personality. To hold back someone out of pure spite is quite bad.
You need his reference and he can flat out deny your request if he holds a grudge. Remember,your refusal of his offer hurt his ego.
I would suggest that you politely arrange a meeting with Prof X and talk to him in person. You are not gonna like what comes next. You are going to brown nose it. Plain and simple,there is no other way since he is in position of power and probably egoistical A-hole. Stroke his ego by telling him how much you learned from him,how you admired him and viewed him as a role model. Put together every positive experience you had while working with him and tell it in a way that it reflects good on him. Tell him how writing that letter and you getting admitted will reflect on him. BS it,embellish,but in the end,your goal here is to make Prof X happy enough to write you that letter. You don't need to grovel below him,but you need to play it tactful and smart.
I know that this sounds awful,degrading and above all else unfair,but life is unfair. Focus on the goal,bad taste goes away.
I had dealings with professors who were world class A holes with egos to the Moon and back. Asking anything from them made my stomach turn. Hell,my mentor on master thesis was like that. Superb professor,with lot of practical experience and theoretical knowledge. But he was egomaniac and a hole on the good day. But with right nudges and some ass kissing he helped me a lot. He even wrote me a letter of recommendation for my first job. Whole experience taught me thing or two how to handle those types of characters who held position of power.
Hope it helps and best of luck

You cannot afford a bad reference from your adviser(by the way, you don't have co-advisers?).
An adviser is a person who has the responsibility to supervise your work and progress. The credibility of your CV will be validated according to your adviser's recommendations, along with other professors, depending how much they were involved in your  education, gaining skills, and experience.
How you can avoid all of these? I don't think "butt-kissing" as someone suggested previously is a good way. I think you should openly talk with your adviser and discuss what is their opinion about your work, progress and future prospects. Nothing neutral- everything should be solved with this conversation, since you need to decide if you want to omit his/her recommendation. After all, you would be better off having NO recommendation than a BAD recommendation.

What if you told him that working with him has made you consider a PhD, but because of family/location/other issues, you can't stay at his lab in the long term?
I mean, you're trying to get a recommendation from this professor. As much as I dislike butt-kissing on principle, it sounds like he's the sort to live on some buttering up.
I got quite a few things to work out for me by playing nice. Sometimes you have to play nice even though the other parties aren't- and I've had to play nice with some seriously malignant people. All you can do is focus on the positives of that relationship when you're talking with them, but always keep the negatives in mind. Don't get sucked into his vortex while wearing the nostalgia glasses, though. You've made a good call by not staying in his lab.
Good luck to you, OP. :)

The supervisors reference letter is one of the most important parts of your application, and for that reason I think you should try a combination of things.
For one, trying to improve the chances that your supervisor will write positive things in your letter by having a discussion with them where you outline the many positive experiences (hopefully there are some) and accomplishments from your time as a master's student. Reiterating how Prof X helped you succeed in these achievements (eg a publication) should increase the chance of these things being written in your reference letter.
As others have mentioned, you should try to explain how you had some personality conflicts with your advisor but managed to overcome these and still be successful. Mentioning that you were offered to stay as a PhD student but declined because you have a desire to learn in a new environment etc, might also help the committee see that there is something odd about the negative things written in Prof.X's reference letter.
In addition, if you are on good terms with other Prof's in the department (eg your other referee(s) or a co-advisor), or better yet the department head, it might be worth having a discussion with them about your problems as they may also be able to mention something in their reference letter that will help to outweigh any negative aspects of your supervisors letter.
All in all, a very difficult situation, but not something that should keep you from finding a PhD position if you were a successful masters student.


text:
protect full paper by preprint
through some research that I have conducted shows that: preprint is a version of a scientific article that precedes its acceptance by the editorial board of a scientific journal. It therefore does not include the modifications made by the author(s) at the request of the reading committee during the peer review process, nor the corrections and layout made by the editor.
is this an advantage to avoid that my paper is used without my permission by another person, before its peer review?

What do you mean by "used" your paper?

Thank you, what I mean is that another person plagiarizes my paper before it is evaluated. Then submits to a journal before me.

Welcome to this site. I edited the question to prevent it from being closed as a shopping question. You can read more about that in the FAQ.

okay, thank you so much!

The peer review process takes a while (think many months or even years). Without pre-prints that research would not be available to the wider research community until after that process was done. Remember, research does not happen in isolation; it is one article reacting to another article, reacting to another article, etc. (It is not really that linear, as each article reacts to multiple other articles and some don't get reactions at all or much later, but you get the idea) Each individual article is usually a tiny step, but together the discipline as a whole makes progress. If for each step we would have to wait a year or so for the peer review process to go through, then that would unacceptably slow down the progress. So the main purpose of pre-prints is to speed up the work of the discipline, not protect your paper.
It may offer partial protection against plagiarism, but it is not uncommon for two or more people to have the same idea at about the same time. So you may still get scooped. Even if you do get to be the first to publish a finding, that does not guarantee you get credited for that, see: Stigler's law of eponymy. So often the bigger danger is getting ignored rather than getting scooped.

Just to add, the OP should look at the Advantages and Disadvantages of preprints in the Wikipedia article on Preprints. One advantage is to speed collaboration.

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


text:
Is there a standard for capitalization in references of math papers?
How do you capitalize the titles of references in a math paper? Would you rather write:

Global smooth solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations

or

Global Smooth Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equations

? The latter capitalization is the usual capitalization, where every non-grammatical word, and all names, are capitalized. But the former variant seems to be common in the references. The only exception seem to books, which are usually capitalized as on their titles.
I have been skimming over the list of references in mathematical papers by well-regarded researches, but I have not found a definitive pattern. In fact, in many publications, neither the author nor the editor seems to actually care.

Every journal has its own preferences for this. Use a citation management package like BibTeX or EndNote, and follow the style guide of the journal you submit to. In the end, it doesn't truly matter as long as your readers can find the article, but it's best to follow the journal's instructions in the case that they do actually care.

To add a little bit, my experience is that even if you don't follow the journal's style, there will be a copyeditor who will make the necessary changes.

Bill Barth is right in that this choice is typically made by the journal's style files and/or copy editor, not by the author. However, just  in general, my experience is that the first form (capitalize only first word and proper nouns) is more common when referencing papers, while the second form (capitalize all but "little" words) is used when referencing books.

You are right: in math, neither the author nor the editor is likely to really care. Most math papers are prepared with specialized software (TeX or LaTeX, using BibTeX of AMSRefs) which formats the references automatically. So we just trust the software, and focus our attention on more important things.
This must sound crazy to people who are used to fretting over some particular style - APA, Chicago, etc.  Their concern over something so minor, which can be so easily automated, is equally mysterious to us.

I don't trust BibTeX for capitalization.  Specifically, it seems to enthusiastically de-capitalize things, so that the example in the question is in danger of ending up as "Global smooth solutions of the navier-stokes equations" unless a human being intervenes.

That is a good point - capitalization and diacritics do need careful attention. I recently noticed that AMSrefs does the opposite with respect to capitalization: it keeps the capitalization that is entered, even for words that "should" be converted to lowercase.

@AndreasBlass The standard solution is to edit BibTeX entries and write things like title="Global Smooth Solutions of the {N}avier-{S}tokes Equations}". So you'll have Navier-Stokes even with a BibTeX style file (.bst) that uses lowercase.

@Blaisorblade Right, that's what I meant by "a human being intervenes."


text:
Capitalization of "Subsection"
I write a mathematical paper. Do you capitalize "subsection" when you refer to a specific subsection? For example, I would write:
"In Subsection 3 we show ..."

But I would write:
"In the previous subsection we showed that ..."

What is the consensus on that issue?

I would not capitalise in either case and my supervisor would probably complain if I did. Similarly, figure 3 or Figure 3?

You've got it right.  Think of it like proper nouns vs. pronouns.  Compare:

Mr. Jones told me about types of stars; then he explained how they burn hydrogen.

and

Subsection 3 explains about types of stars; the next subsection explains how they burn hydrogen.


text:
Is it more difficult to publish a paper that demands reviewers with knowledge from many different areas of mathematics?
I have got an article the making, and presented it to my PhD advisor one month ago. The article emerged from my master thesis at a different university.
A week ago, he told me the draft is good, albeit difficult to understand, but he remarked that it contained too many new ideas to be published at once. The problem is that no journal will be able to find a reviewer. Furthermore, I am just some unknown PhD student to them, so there won't be a "rubber-stamp" for me.
The draft contributes to an active mathematical research area which leads previously unrelated topics together - in particular, very different mathematical communities. My draft contributes by another bridge between communities. I am convinced that people will find the result noteworthy and interesting, but I also agree that the combination demands (basic) knowledge from many different mathematical areas.
It is a disturbing but possibly realistic perspective that researchers keep the same old soup at low temperature on the cooker. But isn't that too pessimistic? There are so many mini results published, why should I cut down on at least trying?
Are the concerns of my advisor well-founded in practices of the mathematical community?

"too many ideas to publish at once" - does he mean you should split it into a series of (more focused) papers?

I have to disagree with the premises of this question... conceivably the advisor was using some euphemistic way to impart some message? Basic knowledge is not such a rarity as people like to pretend. @PeteLClark's answer's content is constructive. Don't let yourself believe that serious mathematicians are low-energy ignoramuses outside their own tiny bailiwick. Good journals can find reviewers, don't worry.

If it's an "active mathematical research area", that implies a significant number of researchers working in it. That's your pool of potential reviewers. There doesn't need to be hundreds of them, just so long as there are a few and an editor can find them.

Does your adviser understand your paper?! If so, then a journal should be able to find referees (unless your adviser is a #1 genius, in which case you should probably do as he says). If he does not understand your paper, then you should ask him to suggest someone who will, and then ask that person for publication advice.

No, in my opinion as a (midcareer verging on senior) mathematician, there is no such thing as "too many new ideas to be published at once".  This is a curious reaction.
Whenever a student asks a "My advisor said....[something strange]" question here (or elsewhere), I have to wonder how deeply to engage in the possibility that the student somehow misunderstood the advisor.  Unfortunately misunderstandings between students and advisors are amazingly common...even when both parties are "good people" in every sense of the word.  More than a decade after graduating, I still remember spending several weeks of hard work on certain things my advisor asked me to do.  When at last I would go back explaining how hopeless it seemed, it most often turned out that there was some miscommunication: I didn't work on the problem that he had intended, or I hadn't read the right paper. [I remember wading through Katz's Rigid Local Systems because of a suggestion made by my postdoctoral supervisor.  Being a postdoc I was more savvy than a PhD student, so I probably spent at most a week before I went back to say "Really?  This is relevant to what I'm doing??" only to learn that, no, that was not the book of Katz he was talking about.  Still, I'd like to have that week back...]
I would encourage you to consider the comment "the draft is good, albeit difficult to understand".  I'm guessing that is meant to be independent information from the remark that your paper contains "too many new ideas".  Some key questions:

Was the draft prohibitively difficult for your advisor to understand?  People [students, advisors, referees...] say that writing is hard to understand in two very different circumstances: they may literally be criticizing the writing style.  But it is also quite likely that they are trying to say -- in a way which saves face for them and for you, but is in fact rather unhelpful because of that -- that they gave up before they could tell whether your arguments were correct, and they would only be willing to put more time into a better-written draft.  You deserve to know whether your advisor vouches for your work.

Related:

Does your advisor have the expertise in the disparate areas you are pulling together?  If not, he is really not the right person to be asking about this.  People sometimes seem to think (or more likely, to hope) that if they have a paper on "number theory" then I will understand it, and that if the paper references some work or lecture notes of mine then I will really understand it.  No way.  I often receive papers to referee which are about several things at once, one of which is part of my expertise but one or more isn't.  I like to learn new things, so I'll stretch to a certain point, but beyond that I just decline to referee the paper on the grounds that I'm not qualified.  If I can, I direct the editor to someone who is qualified; if I can't, I apologize for not doing that, but in no case do I intimate that no one is qualified to referee the paper.  How could I know that?!?

The idea that your paper is simply too ambitious is really a poor one.  At most it means it is too ambitious for your local mathematical community, and if you hear that as a reaction to your work which is otherwise said to be "good", it's a sign that you need to find a larger pond.

I am convinced that people will find the result noteworthy and interesting, but I also agree that the combination demands (basic) knowledge from many different mathematical areas.

Then you should find people who feel that the result is noteworthy and interesting, ideally those who understand all of it, but even those who understand some of it and can be supportive could be helpful.  If you think your paper is correct and reasonably (even if not perfectly) well-written, why not submit it to the arxiv?  If your paper draws together several different things, then try showing it -- via emails, for instance -- to people wom you know to be experts in at least one of those things.  They can tell you whether they are qualified to understand the entire paper, and if not they can (perhaps) tell you who is.

It is a disturbing but possibly realistic perspective that researchers keep the same old soup at low temperature on the cooker. But isn't that too pessimistic? There are so many mini results published, why should I cut down on at least trying?

Yes, that is too pessimistic.  If you've done something valuable and technically difficult, it will be publishable.  The level of technical difficulty may make the reviewing process more lengthy (it should; you are aware that you don't want rubber stamp reviews of your math papers, right?).  On the other hand, in mathematics "technical difficulty" can be a selling point: if you have done something that is broadly valuable but that few people (or no one but you) would have had the acumen to pull off, then you have done something very impressive and valuable indeed.
Good luck.

Among your other good points, the construct of the template of "advisor said <something weird/unintelligible/...>" is very much worthwhile. Maybe this deserves a whole SE website to itself... or at least a tag? So then part of the community's edits would have to be the addition of that tag, since the questioner would presumably not know that that was a huge part of the issue, etc. Like the fact that the special disadvantage of the inexperienced is to fail to understand the potential advantages of experience. And there's only so much fun to be sucked out of self-referential stuff...

As a mathematician who works squarely in between fields, there are some challenges which can make getting such papers accepted more difficult.  However, all that means is that you have to work a little harder at writing clearly and accessibly.  Think hard about who is going to read the paper and give them what they need to understand the paper.

As an editor, I once got a submission that combined two very distant areas of mathematics.  That was no problem; I just sent it to two referees, one in each area, asked each one to referee the part in his area, and assured each one that I had another referee checking the rest of the paper.  Of course, once both referees reported that their part of the paper is good, I still had to make sure that the parts fit together properly, but that was easy enough for me to do by myself.


text:
Letter of Recommendation from an unofficial college email ID
I will be applying for MS (computer science) in US schools. I am from a rural part of India where lecturers (who will be writing letter of recommendations) in my college still don't have official email id (e.g. name@mycollege.edu) and they use commercial services (e.g. gmail or yahoo mail).
What shall I do? Will it harm my application? I think so, because I doubt how it can be evaluated as not-fake.
My other option would be not to consider this LOR at all. I am currently working under a professor in one of the top institutes of India and I can get a recommendation letter from the professor. But I am working under him from past 6 months. How does this weigh against the LOR of my bachelor school lecturer who knows me for 4 years ?
To add more details, I completed my bachelors 3 years ago, so will this LOR be any of help since the lecturer only knows how I was 3 years ago, but not now ?

I should have been more clear, apologies. It's about my professors sending recommendations from unofficial email id

Usually while filling the application form we have to provide email addresses of our recommenders. They will recieve an email from grad school and will be asked to submit their letter of recommendations. So if I am not wrong, it will be plain text and I don't think they can 'upload' the document/PDF which includes letter head and their signature. And also most of universities require letters to be submitted online only, so I cannot mail them via post.

“Will it harm my application?” — Maybe, maybe not… it depends on the mindset of the persons who will review the application. The likelihood that it impacts negatively your application is probably not very high (there are more people than you think, even in non-rural non-Indian areas, who use commercial email accounts rather than institutional ones).
However, you are right there is some slight risk: there have been recent cases of people using faking email accounts for other researchers, e.g. in order to increase their chances in peer review. Because these cases have been publicized recently, people may be more wary of non-institutional addresses.
But more to the point: what can you do? — Not much. If the format  of the letter is free, ask your letter writers to use official letterhead from their institution… Otherwise, try and see if your letter writers are listed on their institution's public pages, at least, with their email address: that way, the person receiving the application will be able (if he wants to) to check their identity.

Thanks for the response. My college website only lists professors, without mentioning their email ids. (Just for the sake of curiosity I am asking, even if they did, the admissions committee would actually bother verify it ?)

@avi you cannot be sure, but they could…

I have updated the question, a bit after reading your answer.


text:
Cite only "good papers" or "all expected papers"?
I work in a small interdisciplinary field in which one group writes a lot of papers that aren't good but are often read.  When I publish on a topic that they have published on before, should I cite them even if their work is irrelevant to mine?
More context:
The prolific group publishes a lot of mathematical modeling papers in which the model is hidden behind a cascade of self-citation, is written in somewhat non-standard terminology, and no code or calibration data is published.  My field is dominated by non-modelers who are often not equipped to judge the modeling, but who read the papers for the figures and discussion (and open peer review has shown that they often review the papers without reviewing the model).
The ethics of citation as I understand them agree with this answer in that we must cite (1) intellectual precedents of our work, (2) supporting evidence, and (3) papers that provide appropriate context.  Because their methods are opaque to other modelers like myself, (1) and (2) aren't possible. The papers are also not (3) appropriate context because the science between the intro and discussion isn't done well and I view these papers as opinion pieces.
But, I can expect my non-modeler readers to look askance at my minimal citations of the group's work. As a less-established member of the community, it can look like I'm playing games with priority when I'm actually concerned about advancing the poor state of modeling in my field.  I'm debating whether to stick to my principles or give in to what I perceive are poor citation practices to lower friction and look more collegial.

I think your question is a bit confusing. You say "When I publish on a topic that they have published on before, should I cite them even if their work is irrelevant to mine?" - how is their work irrelevant if you are publishing on a topic they have published on? Beyond that, you might be asking whether you need to cite all the works by this group when you feel like all of those works are not strong. I think you need to cite any original findings, this may be their oldest relevant publications, and anything recently applicable (i.e. a review) - you don't need to cite every intervening work.

@Bryan: "how is their work irrelevant if you are publishing on a topic they have published on?" Just because two papers have the same topic doesn't automatically make one relevant to the other, does it?  If I write a paper on Shakespeare, I don't cite all previous papers involving Shakespeare: there needs to be a thematic or logical connection as well.

@PeteL.Clark Which leaves the question: If their work is irrelevant, why does fgm even bother thinking about citing them?

@PeteL.Clark skymningen's point is the same as mine: the question asker isn't clear about how related the work is; obviously if you define it very broadly you can get ridiculous examples like yours, but the questioner seems concerned about leaving out these citations. If it's truly just someone else that is also interested in mathematical modeling obviously they are unrelated; if it is someone else modeling the same process fgm is interested in, then it is almost certainly relevant.

In my discipline the typical structure of an article is introduction, theory, previous research, data/methods, results, conclusion. In the section "previous research" you describe the state of the art in your field regarding the research question from your article. As I understand the OP's question, there is a group the OP disagrees with, but who are considered in your field to be important. In that case you need to refer to them (not every single publication, but one or two main publications), even if you think their way of doing things is substandard. That does not mean you have to agree with them; you can tell your audience how your approach differs form theirs and how your approach is (in your opinion) better. But ignoring an important part of your field is bad. Addressing substandard practices is how your field can move forward.
Pragmatically, not citing them in the previous results section signals to the readers, editors, and reviewers that you are not aware of important parts of your discipline or that you don't want to take part in a particular debate. Both can easily lead to your article being considered less relevant, which could get your article rejected or ignored.

"You need to refer to the state of your field, even if that state is in your opinion substandard." I'm not sure I follow.  "Pragmatically, not citing them signals to the readers, editors, and reviewers that you are not aware of a major part of your field." Does it?  It seems to me that because the literature of published papers even in a small area is often vast, authors usually are (and possibly even are forced to be) quite selective in what they choose to cite.  In any case, the purpose of citation is not to show your own awareness of the literature.

@PeteL.Clark I edited the answer. Is that clearer?

Much, thanks.  I found your new first sentence especially helpful and interesting, as in my discipline (mathematics) the typical structure of an article is introduction, theorem/proof, theorem/proof, theorem/proof...There is also not a standard expectation that an article will discuss the state of the art in a field or contain any kind of systematic literature review.  It is more common for an article to do at most as much of that as needed to explain why the results are novel, and in my experience even that can be done in a way which assumes a lot of knowledge on the reader's part.

This answer best fits with my situation. My discipline doesn't follow the same paper structure, but the idea of clearly but quickly acknowledging their work and our differences in approach feels both scienfitically useful and ethically just.

If they are always citing all of their own papers, a good solution might be to just cite the last one, "and references cited therein". If you cite a review, you're also not citing every publication that's mentioned in it, and you don't have to do that here. This saves you from clogging up your paper with crappy citations, and doesn't give them too many undeserved citations.
You also write that you don't want to make any big statements, but you can just write some facts if you want to make a point in a more subtle way. For example: "some models that were thoroughly calibrated validated are described in [good publications]. Models published by [weak group] show that ...(something else that's also relevant)". You could definitely write somewhere "models in [xxx] not used because code was not provided".

Thank you for the useful comment.  That was also a good tactic for me to exclude data in a review. "We included [lots of good publications], but excluded studies where XXX could not be reconstructed from published data [papers coincidentally all from one researcher]."


text:
Is being featured on the front cover of a scientific journal an academic milestone?
I am a PhD candidate now writing my thesis.
I have recently submitted an article to a very good journal (for a particular yearly issue). Along with the article, authors were encouraged to send "cover images" for the issue. I enjoy drawing and illustrating, so I did. First the paper got accepted (with minor revisions) and a couple of weeks later I got an email from the editorial board saying my image was selected as the cover image of the issue.
I got really excited at first, but a couple of questions come to mind now:

Since authors are encouraged to send their cover images, is the selection based on paper quality or just image quality/beauty? I'm OK with being recognized as a scientist that can draw (ish), but I'd rather be a good scientist whose work "made it to the cover".
Does it have any academic value to be on the cover of an issue? Aside from being featured in the issue (which should generate a broader impact based on bigger exposure?), is it valuable/acceptable to add a line to my CV?

In addition to what's already been said: you get to put it on a department bulletin board.  Either an administrator or your advisor will do so or invite you to do so, or you can ask someone for permission to put it on some well chosen bulletin board.  It reflects well on you, on your advisor, your group, your department, and your institution.  Congratulations.  (If you were the editor, would you choose a catchy image that goes with a weak paper for your cover?  I don't think so!)

Certainly not a milestone. Consider that in many journals that costs money and than the author has to bargain for reduction or no cost at all. Don't overthink. The weight of having a cover is negligible. The people evaluating you in possible future scenario would know or look at the paper, which is published cover or no cover. This said, getting a cover is certainly a good feeling.

You are not getting paid for this, are you? I am sad to learn that the academic publishers have found a way to outsource another part of their job to scientists for free. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to know that they even asked you to pay for this 'honor'.)

Haha @FedericoPoloni, no. I'm not getting paid (nor did I pay for it, thankfully). But I too get the feeling that academic publishers have found a way to get away with more profit for less work, hehe.

@FedericoPoloni: I'd say this depends on the level of work asked from the authors. My n = 1 experience was that we were asked to submit a larger version of one image in the paper without axes/labels plus a short caption text (sufficiently self-explanatory to work without reading the paper). From that, an artist at the publisher produced the actual front cover image, which we got back for approval (like a proof). That level work by an author is IMHO entirely acceptable.

"  gonna get my picture on the cover, [chorus omitted for trivia buffs];  gonna by 12 copies for my mother..."

Yes, it is a plus, and yes, you can add it to your CV. But it is (and should be) just one thing among many. It, alone, won't get you a job or a promotion, but it adds to the list of things that are positive about your contributions. The academic value will be positive, but small.
The paper is more important, of course. The image might induce a few more people to read your paper; a good thing.
Congratulations.
But your sense that you want to be known for the quality of your papers is the right attitude.

I completely agree. However, as far as I observed, people who got their paper featured with a cover image are usually a bit more excited/proud of it than your answer suggests. It is at least frequently showcased at conferences and also often put in a frame and placed in the office or somewhere where many people will see it. And as far as I can see, there is nothing particularly wrong about it. In some fields, it is difficult enough to have a representative and pleasant image describing what you do at a glance.

This appears to only answer the second question?

@Axeman The first question is poorly written and based on subjective elements (what is the selection based on) that we cannot know the answer to unless we made the descision ourselves. The first question is predominently rhetorical as the OP goes on to state what they would like as the outcome anyway.

Have you or @Snijderfrey seen people put this on a CV?  How does one include it?

Indeed, first question was rhetorical. There's no way you could know unless you are in the editorial board of this particular journal (which I haven't mentioned); so I'm content with the answer provided by Buffy.

@Kimball In the list of publications as a note next to the actual publication or in parentheses next to it. If you'd ordinarily list title, authors and issue, here you'd list title, authors, issue + (showcased on cover). Along those lines.

Several reputable journals I am familiar with ask authors to submit cover images.  Once they receive the cover images, they ask the authors to pay a fee for the image to appear on the cover.
For people who know about this process, awareness that the authors may have paid a fee to appear on the cover decreases the prestige of appearing on the cover.  People who do not know will be impressed.

How do they decide between the authors? Is it a bidding war between people who want to appear on the cover?

@meneldal They set the price high enough that most authors won't do it.  There is also a waiting list.  In addition, sometimes there is a "front cover," "back cover," "inside cover" and so on.  These journals do not print paper copies.

When a paper I coauthored made it to the cover, the journal asked us for permission and a larger version of one of the figures in the paper. The actual cover image was then produced by an artist at the publisher and AFAIK no fees were involved.


text:
Would a question that requires an amount of text to explain be good to send?
From Is it appropriate (as a PhD student) to email other researchers asking about some details in their papers?, I get that generally you will get answer if you ask question on their work. But what if your question is tangent to their work, and requires some space to elaborate?
The draft is below:

Dear Prof X
To introduce myself, my name is Y, from country Z. I have read some pages in your book about the connection between [concept A in field 1] and [concept B in field 2]. I wonder what do you think about the connection between [concept C in field 1] and [concept D in field 2]?
[16 lines and 184 words to elaborate the connection. I don't consider this as a wall of text]
I also have a blog article explaining all my observations about the connection between field 1 and field 2. It may take only 5 minutes to read.
Thank you for your reading. Hope you enjoy it.

Some notes:

I haven't read his book enough to say that I know a large portion of it (just skimming it), but I can say that I understand A, B, C, D at least in introductory level.
I don't have any institute, but I think my culture is relevant to field 1, so perhaps it can be a kind of expertise/institute?
I may apply to his school in the future

Related: How do researchers send unsolicited emails asking for feedback on their works?

No one that doesn't know you personally would read such a long email. Most probably won't even get to the not-a-wall-of-text before deleting it.

Why not write that you've been reading some papers that they have authored and have thought of some questions, so you're wondering if they'd be willing to discuss some of your ideas with you.

Your email appears to be quite lengthy, however, I do not really see the PURPOSE of it. So, you ask a question, but what do you except from the receiver? Are you looking for collaboration, for new ideas, ...? If you want to get an answer, be precise and state the purpose of your email clearly.

This comes across as the kind of question that people ask not because they are interested in the answer, but because they want people to listen to their point of view which they explain in a very long premise that comes before the question.

Since you haven't read the whole book, how certain are you that it doesn't describe (or deny) a connection between C and D?

@AndreasBlass because B and D are in different subfields in field 2. From my understanding, there is no direct relationship between them. (For those who knows cognitive linguistics, B is conceptual metaphor, and D is polysemy.)

@AndrésE.Caicedo in that case, I wonder how they read prospective grad students' emails? They are also unsolicited, and require them to read before respond

As a busy person who receives these sorts of emails, my response to email tends to fall into two categories:

I can respond to this right now, and get it out of my queue.
I'm going to need to think about this some, I guess I'll put it off for later... and later turns out to be days, weeks, or months before it surfaces again, if ever.

Unfortunately, your draft email above will most definitely fall into category #2.

"What do you think about..." is an open-ended request for an essay. Is one sentence enough, or a page, or a full scientific paper?
You want the reader to digest 16 lines of technical discussion with an unclear goal of evaluation.
You also want the reader to go read your blog post, which makes me wonder if that's the real point of this.

You've thus got 3 different things you're asking of the reader, none of which actually says what you really want to get out of the interaction.
And that's the real problem: why are you writing to this person?

Do you have an answerable question they can help you with? (i.e., not "what do you think..." but "Does Concept A actually mean that Red Ones Go Faster?")
Do you want to show them your work and see if they think it makes sense?
Do you just want them to be aware that you exist?
Something else?

When you figure out what you most want, focus the email on precisely one thing that can be addressed quickly, and try to keep the whole thing to only 3-4 sentences.  If you can do that, you also will have forced yourself to be clear enough about what you want that a useful answer is much more likely.

If my purpose is to ask them an answerable question, then would they have time to answer? The question does not relate to his direct work (or which I'm aware of), but does relate to his field in general. I'm still not sure how to ask the question without explanation. It's like asking a question on Stack Exchange only in the title and leave the question body empty.

@Ooker Again: what is the underlying purpose behind writing to this person? I'm certain that "to ask an answerable question" isn't it, because you can ask answerable questions in many other places too.

If you write to a senior person the chances to get an answer are low. In order to improve your chances I can recommend:

Keep it as short as possible. You need to catch interest within the
first 3-5 seconds in your email. The chances for an answer decrease
with the length of your email. In connection with this:
Don't waste their time ("To introduce myself, my name is Y, from
country Z")
Start with something very positive e.g. "I was very
    excited to read your XYZ - especially how you described the connection between A and B" (researcher really like to hear this - but again: keep it short and do not overdo it with the honey here)
Quote a mutual connection e.g. "Prof X (whom he knows personally)
suggested to get in contact with you" (but only write this if it is
true!)
If the professor needs to open a link or can not answer the email
within 2-3 min (sometimes on his phone during a boring meeting) then
your chances are pretty slim if your cause for contacting him is not
groundbreaking.
Give him an easy way to answer. Instead of asking him to explain
give a yes/no option. For example instead of "I wonder what do you
think about the connection between [concept C in field 1] and
[concept D in field 2]" write "I was wondering if the connection
between [concept C in field 1] and [concept D in field 2] could be
interpretedin way A or do you think B might be more appropriate?

The PhD comics nicely summarize this here.