text:
Publishing without an affiliation while having one
There are many questions here about publishing without an affiliation. They have in common the situation that authors do not have an affiliation to use (for example they are unemployed). My question is different, an author has an affiliation, thus:
Are there downsides in publishing a paper without affiliation while working at a university? The question is general (including legal, ethical, and other aspects, such as possible career repercussions in future at the current or future affiliation).
The reason I am asking is that I know of a case of a person who was leaving a university for industry. The paper was written and accepted during his tenure at the university. The work has nothing to do with the new company. The paper was accepted just days before his new job, so he put the affiliation of the company (the reasons were also personal because he was not on good terms with the university), without the one from the university. The university was not mentioned anywhere. The company does not do any research, hence having a paper with their affiliation was irrelevant for them and for the job. I am wondering what would happen if instead he decided not to put any affiliation.
Some information:

The work has been done in private time without resources from the university (theoretical stuff that does not require anything except time and a computer, so no equipment, funds, and similar). The only resources I can think of are paywalled papers accessed from the campus network.
There is no conflict of interest, and the publication doesn’t conflict with the any work or policy at the university.

My gut feeling is that people severely overestimate the value and importance of putting a specific (or none, in that case) affiliation on a paper.

Somewhat similar question: What should someone who works at a tech company that isn't associated with the work list as affiliation?

Nobody (including the university) care.

@xLeitix and qsp, I am not sure about that since departments in certain countries are assessed by output, so they may mind if one omits their affiliation

I cannot answer to each aspect you are interested in (legal, ethical, and other aspects) but I would like to mention some general aspects one should consider:

Most universities have publication guidelines which includes a paragraph about affiliations, see e.g. page 38 of the Guidelines for  research  integrity of ETH Zurich.
University prestiges and university rankings are partly based upon publication output. Some rankings use Web of Science and a publication is not assigned to a university if the affiliation is not given in the publication.

As you mentioned that the work was completely written in private time, the situation is extraordinary. I'd suggest to talk to the professor and the university administration. At least the author should give credit to the university (library) for the literature supply.

"At least the author should give credit to the university (library) for the literature supply." - that is an interesting point, although it is questionable whether the affiliation is the right place for this credit. This could easily be seen as unethical, especially if the university has a benefit in rankings as a result.

@O.R.Mapper The affiliation is definitely not the right place for this credit. Could be placed in the Acknowledgements. Regarding the ethical aspect: I don't think that there is a simple answer to this, but you are right, this aspect has to be considered. P.S. I recently saw a paper giving credit to SciHub. That was a surprise to me.

@FuzzyLeapfrog, thanks for the answer. I was hoping for a general answer but it looks like it depends on the university and the manager of the department.

I suspect the worst that would happen would be that their previous supervisor would be a bit grumpy. It sounds like that was the intent anyway. I doubt it would have any effect upon how the funding body considered the work. Even if the affiliation wasn't on there I suspect the paper could still be submitted to the funder as part of the deliverables.


text:
Saw Principal Repeat Key Word from Famous Professor without Citation
I was looking at a principal's Message to the School page on her school website, and I noticed that she repeated a key phrase from a TED talk by a noted educator. This principal is using the key phrase in the same way as the TED talk speaker and is echoing the TED talk speaker, but this principal did not mention either the TED talk or the original noted educator who coined and popularized this phrase. Should I inform the TED talk speaker that she is being plagiarized? Is this a case of plagiarism? I mentioned this seeming case of plagiarism to the principal who tersely "thanked me for my viewpoint" and then ignored my comment. Should I just move on?

Just move on.  Having mentioned it, you've done what you should have done.

Another possibility is that this key phrase did not originate with that TED speaker either, but was taken from some earlier material.  Agreed:  just move on.

Can you please [edit] your question to clarify how long and unique the phrase in question is and whether your principal cited it verbatim or snowcloned it or similar?

Repeating short phrases is not plagiarism. It is very common, natural way of using language.

I think questions about plagiarism are only on-topic for this site as far as they relate to academic writing (scholarly articles and student work).  In this case, although the writers are educators, the writings are not of an academic nature (a message to students, and a TED talk).

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because K-12 schools are not a part of academia.

I think the question of plagiarism is so important to academia that the "K-12 consideration" isn't really relevant.  Besides, the principal is an academic, eh?

Really a little more context is needed here but the term one needs to pay attention to here is "educator". This TED educator has coined a phrase with the intention that that phrase and its related concept is passed on and used for the purposes of education. If the phrase relates to a general educational concept then I see no reason for the principal not to utilise it in the way that it is meant to be. If, however, this phrase relates to a specific original idea which links to original research then yes, citations would need to follow. In such a case, I would mention it directly to the principal. However:
I would assume good faith on the part of your principal and that she has seen the video and used the phrase as intended without surreptitiously putting a crimp in her career if rumbled. I think that when one is in any doubt about another colleague's plagiarism, assume a higher motive.
If I were you, I would just leave it, but if it really bugs you, you can casually mention [in person rather than in writing] that you appreciated the Message to the School and you saw a TED video which mentions the same phrase and you agreed with and appreciated its application. This way the principal should feel that her Message was appreciated, and that you are taking time to view sources around the same field. It may also have the effect of making sure that any future cases of possible 'plagiarism' get thought through a little better, cited or credited if necessary.

Some catch phrases are kind of obvious or just 'fashion'.  If it were me, and it was just a trendy phrase that likely will be replaced  by a different trendy phrase it wouldn't be something I'd obsess a lot about. (And, some phrases or names become common usage. So for example, we don't reference whomever initially coined or studied various terminologies or names that we use in science and engineering. At what point it becomes common usage may be gray area.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mathematically Oriented Disciplines
I am a research scholar commencing my research in the field of deep learning. Deep learning uses lot of tools from mathematics. To name a few : linear algebra, probability and statistics, optimization.
My mathematical background is very shaky. When I read research papers in deep learning, I invariably skip the sections that are mathematically heavy. However, I can understand the higher level details, such as what the research work is about, what algorithm the authors have used, and so on. But I never have the feeling of completely understanding the paper.
I feel that I cannot do original research unless I become really strong in the above mentioned subjects in mathematics. Is this claim correct?
That said, can someone publish papers in deep learning without really understanding the mathematics behind it?

You're starting your research career. So I don't think you should expect to fully understand all the details of papers. You'll pick-up enough of the skills you need along the way.

I suspect you probably can do original research in deep learning without being really strong in those subjects, but learning those subjects better will undoubtedly help with your research. Try to learn them as well as you can.

Look up some courses online and see the level of mathematical maturity expected of students in this area of research
For example, this is an assigment for an undergraduate introduction to machine learning at University of Toronto which has became some sort of a hot spot for ML research
http://www.psi.toronto.edu/~jimmy/ece521/a1.pdf
How well do you think you would do on these assignments with your current level of mathematical maturity? Then fill in the gaps.

I feel that I cannot do original research unless I become really strong in the above mentioned subjects in mathematics. Is this claim correct?

If it is, then what would you do about it?  Probably, take one math class per semester, and in the summer too if possible, and do some additional reading on your own when classes are not in session.
If the claim is not correct... what harm would it do to strengthen your math skills, even if they turn out not to be essential for your field?

Valid point. I guess I should start working on my math background right away. Thanks!

Linear algebra is a great place to start, if you can find the right course offered when you need it.  You'll get to use logic and become more comfortable writing proofs.  (Just make sure you choose a course that does require proofs -- don't take a cookbook version designed for engineering majors....

...Probability will be fun.  That would be a good one for the summer. // If you've already done the calculus sequence and an introduction to ordinary differential equations, then at some point it might be helpful to take advanced calculus -- mainly because it just gets you to a slightly higher level of sophistication, not because you would necessarily need exactly the topics that are in that class.  Don't hesitate to show your transcript to a friendly applied math professor from time to time, to check that you're on track.

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


text:
Is there a website for academic physics jobs in the US like mathjobs.org?
I am in math, and we usually apply to most academic jobs (in the US) through a generic application at mathjobs.org. Is there an equivalent in physics?

In particle/nuclear physics there is http://inspirehep.net/collection/Jobs
More generally, many (but definitely not all) physics jobs are announced on http://academicjobsonline.org.

I am not aware of any physics-wide collection of jobs. The closest thing I know of is the HEP (particle physics) rumor mills, where jobs are linked and results are posted.
Theory:
http://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/rumor/doku.php?id=current
Experiment:
https://sites.google.com/site/hepexrumor/


text:
Does your supervisor have to be able to understand your thesis?
I am currently writing my master thesis in mathematics and for those who are more familiar with the subject, I am more into analysis whereas my supervisor is more into computational sciences. My project is on an application of analysis and there is also a numerical component.
I will soon submit my first draft to my supervisor but I am slightly anxious about how he will react.
To describe it quite generally: my background is very much in the theory of mathematics and I am a relative novice in the computational sciences, thus I am treating that component as an end-goal of my thesis while building up to it rigorously with the theory that I have become acquainted with over the years. Incidentally, in our meetings, my supervisor focuses most of his attention on the "results" of my thesis rather than the technicalities in between.
You could argue that there is a "mismatch" in some sense. However, I am very much interested in this application which my supervisor does, but I would like to do it in my own style. This brings me to my question: do I have to write my thesis in such a way that he is able to read it, or is it quite common for them to seek the assistance of other professors who are better acquainted with the theory?

You need to write your thesis so that others in the general field can understand it. This includes your advisor, the professor next door, and bonus points if you parents can at least get most of the way through it with some idea of what is going on.

By the way - writing is hard. Writing clearly is harder. Your first draft will be neither clear nor particularly well written (opinion based solely on personal experiences dealing with students).

@Jon Custer Why should other mathematicians understand it by default?

@JonCuster I have a friend who is writing his master thesis in category theory. I, for the life of me, cannot follow it. I also think that mathematics is incredibly broad and diverse and many branches are completely unintelligible to me.

The burden lies directly on the writer is to make the article/thesis intelligible to the intended audience. Sure, the audience may have to delve in to the references, work their way through this equation and the other, and what-not, but it has to be a clear exposition of the problem and the path through the solution. If your supervisor can not get the gist of it, then you should not pass, since you have not laid it out so they can distinguish brilliant math from hopeless fluff.

YES most definitely. Obviously, if you supervisor cannot comprehend your project, they cannot supervise it.
This should only very rarely occur. I can only think of a situation in which the student has, from prior qualifications, superior knowledge about certain aspects of the project than their supervisor. In this case, perhaps supervision in the traditional sense is not really necessary, but merely some guidance and feedback.
In any case, if you want to publish your research in the field of your supervisor, then you should speak a language and use conventions that people like your supervisor can comprehend. If you cannot express your project in such a way, then how can you hope that anybody relevant can understand it?

If you write a thesis in a way that even your supervisor cannot understand it, then you have found the wrong level of abstraction.
In general, write a thesis at a level so that a second year graduate student -- i.e., who you were when you started this research -- can understand it. I would imagine that it is a reasonable assumption that every professor in a department is able to understand any second year graduate student material, even if it is maybe not in their immediate field of research.
Of course, a general truism in almost anything related to academia is that that is a question you ought to discuss with your supervisor!

Mathematics is one of the fields where writing theses and papers that only the topic experts can understand is accepted. Some areas would not be able to make progress otherwise.
However, you chose to write with someone who is not method expert, but rather comes from a different field in which you locate your applications. In other words, you ended up writing an interdisciplinary thesis (whether or not your methods are interdisciplinary is not relevant, rather the fact that you chose to pick a field which bridges two areas).
This means that you have the double trouble of making sure that your methods are fine and applicable, and that you now have to communicate to two communities. One of them is represented by your supervisor. This means that, yes, he should be able to follow your work at a reasonable level of detail.

This is a tough one.  You may want to wait to unveil the theoretical underpinnings section of your draft for the time being -- you could say that you want to work on that section some more before sharing it with him -- and give him the results section first.
In the meantime, I suggest you look around for a co-advisor who will be able to understand the theory section.
Otherwise, if you try to write the theoretical section in such a way that you include a primer for all your ideas, such that your advisor can really understand and appreciate them, you might end up with the equivalent of a textbook or two weighing down the first part of your thesis.
But I don't have a crystal ball.  It's possible your advisor will be happy with a strong results section, and just let you write what you want in the theoretical section.
[Worst case scenario: you don't find an appropriate co-advisor, or your advisor doesn't accept the idea of a co-advisor, and your advisor wants you to exclude the theoretical section.  If that happens, it's probably not worth a big fight.  It would not be the end of the world for that section to go on a back burner for now, to be incorporated into another project farther down the road (perhaps in a PhD thesis).]


text:
How competitive are places for PhD positions in mathematics?
I am a master student in mathematics at a university in the Netherlands and am currently applying for PhD positions as I will be graduating soon. Thus far I have applied for about ten positions (in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, etcetera) and although I am still waiting on some of my applications, I have been rejected without interview from the ones I have heard back from (which is the majority).
In brief conversations I have had with academics on this issue, they have generally hinted (albeit rather vaguely) that competition is not so high (say, compared with industry) and that I should be hopeful of landing  a position. This is in spite of the fact that my grades are quite average and the feedback I received from one failed application was that my grades were too low. My academic advisor, however, advised me that the quality of my thesis (which I am currently writing) was of more importance and downplayed the importance of grades due to how they differ from country to country, university to university (among other reasons).
The problem seems to be that positions are seldom advertised and even if only twenty percent of graduates wish to pursue a doctoral position, that means that there are still a lot of people vying for say only one position.
I was wondering what the general consensus on this was and if I should maybe lower my expectations of getting a doctoral position if it is say only intended for the "best of the best"?

I'd prefer a quantitative version of this question: for instance, "what is the acceptance rate of a typical math PhD program", or "what is the percentage of people in maths who would like to start a phd but aren't accepted".

@FedericoPoloni Perhaps you could pose one? I would also be interested

I don't know if my opinion is representative of a general consensus, but I would look for candidates who fit well for the program, in particular those who fit well with the area(s) I'd like to supervise and work on. Research is so broad, that a candidate can not be "best of the best" in all areas simultaneously. If you are trying to impress people and present yourself as the best of the best candidate, you end up writing a generic and vague statement, full of unjustified self-praise with a little evidence. Some of applications I deal with don't even have the University name in their statements (e.g. I apply to your University because...) - guess what happens with them?
I suggest you to really do your homework, research a few Departments you are really interested in, choose the place (or two or three) which suits you and then write your application very specifically for each place, to demonstrate how well your interests and skill set match their interests and research programs. It's all about the right match, not being a jack of all trades.


text:
I'm 2 months into my PhD. When can I ask my supervisor about the rejected candidates?
I was recently accepted for a PhD position after going through the application process of submitting the usual documents (CV, motivation letter,...) as well as an interview.
I have heard, from my now colleagues, that during the application process, my supervisor had mentioned that I had come across as very motivated.
I am curious however, if there is ever a good time (say after one has established a rapport with one's supervisor) to ask about the other candidates who fell short? Or is it something quite taboo?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

You mention 'the other candidates who fell short'. But you could find the answer is 'we wanted someone else but they had a better offer, so we had to make do with you instead'.

So you have just been accepted to a PhD program. Congratulations! Now is a perfect time to learn how to build a healthy distance to your ego. Because now on forward (if you honestly have not noticed it earlier in your life) it will not do you much good but mostly be used as a tool to try and steer you here or there.

You can ask, but it's really none of your business.  Admissions committee deliberations are generally treated as confidential.  Asking about the other candidates and why they were rejected will almost certainly be seen as intrusive.  It's the kind of thing that's likely to cause them to wonder how they made the mistake of choosing you over all those other candidates who would likely have known better than to ask that question.

"You can ask" seems to conflict with "Asking about the other candidates and why they were rejected will almost certainly be seen as intrusive"... (assuming a common-sense definition of "can")

No one has a gun to your head either way.  You can do it but here's what's likely to happen.  There's nothing to protect you from your own poor judgment.  Does that clarify my use of "can"?

Yeah, it says you're not assuming the common-sense definition of "can". Most likely the OP is already aware no one has a gun to his head either way. (But then again, if he does, how would you know better than he would?) I would remove the first phrase in the answer since it's misleading. Otherwise it's a great answer.

Asking about other candidates and about themselves is helpful to know their quality. Science is running with curiosity, and asking questions on hard subjects is encouraged. Why would it be perceived as intrusive? If they don't know their own strengths and weaknesses, how could they improve it?

As a student, you are welcome to ask your instructors or your advisor for an assessment of your strengths and weaknesses and advice on how to improve and it's likely they will try to give you helpful answers.  But that's not the same as asking how you stacked up against the other candidates and the reason is the one I gave:  Admissions committee deliberations are generally treated as confidential and your question will be seen as intrusive.  Which of those words do you need explained?

@NicoleHamilton: I agree. The OP can ask, in that there is no formal rule against it; but probably should not ask, because it will be seen as rude and intrusive. Personally I don't think that phrasing conflicts with common sense.

@Ooker: Science is full of curiosity about the natural world. But science is conducted by human beings, who are entitled to reasonable consideration and good manners from other human beings. That includes respect for their privacy.

@RoyalCanadianBandit I think it depends on the culture.

A lot of things here may be very cultural-specific. If somebody would tell a funny anecdote about one interview or about the number of people who appliyed for the position, this would not be considered disrespectful to one's privacy in my culture (of course, without mentioning names).

Might I suggest editing to say something like "Technically, you can ask...."? I bet a change along those lines would make the answer unambiguously clear for a lot of people to whom it is currently not, without getting in the way of anyone who does currently understand it just fine.

@DavidZ  I like it the way it is, thank you.  I think it's already sufficiently clear and I don't think there's anything "technical" about it.

@NicoleHamilton that’s not what technically normally means... https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+technically&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

@Tim Okay, since we're into the dictionary game:  "Technical" as I used it, means "based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation", c.f., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technical.  I repeat, there's nothing "technical" about  saying you can ask but it's none of your business.  It's just plain language.

@NicoleHamilton (3 comments up): Well, I was just saying that, even though it's clear to you, it's not clear to other people, and I think that could be fixed with a minor edit at little or no cost in overall clarity. But if you'd rather maintain it as is, that's your right as it's your answer.

@DavidZ it's the same manner isn't it? You can ask her to edit, what she does is up to her.

@Ooker Yes, I believe that's basically just what I said in my last comment.

There are two reasons not to do this :

Anything said by the candidates would be confidential.  Would you like other people to blab about your mistakes or just imply that other people were better than you?  Most people would not.  Also, some of the information given is likely to be personal.  Maybe they disclosed a bit of medical information that was not for public consumption, maybe they had personal responsibilities they don't generally advertise but were relevant to taking up the position on offer.
If they tell you something and the candidate hears about it and doesn't feel it's fair or true or that it was confidential, they might call that lawyer and cause trouble.  The most likely sacrificial offering the institute's lawyers would then offer up to deal with that problem would be ... you. :-)  It would certainly make problems for your own career.

There is, however, a correct time to ask about these things: when you're about to start a job where you'll be the one making the decisions.  At that time you should ask peers and mentors about how they generally make decisions on this issues in non-specific terms.  What you should certainly never do is ask about specific candidates and particularly not ones you were in competition with.
Finally note that one thing most employers and institutes expect as a given is that people signing on are discreet.  Asking about things that are none of your business is not being discreet and this would reflect poorly on you.

+1 This answer is more factual and has a less judgemental tone.

"One day you'll be the one making these decisions" is exactly the legitimate reason, and this answer is 100% correct that the advisor(s) will provide experience in evaluating candidates eventually, and not using the set who applied the same year.

I do not understand why is this worth asking/thinking about? It is not a good idea. I can imagine a question about the acceptance rate can give you the insight how good you are, but more that I find it very intrusive and ego-feeding.

I second @None's answer. What's the point in asking, Jason? Will you write a better thesis armed with the knowledge?.
My 2 cents for what is worth of: Writing a thesis is mind sucking and tiresome exercice. A lot of people I know  were able to get to a PhD position but a lot of people were not able to finish...
Best of luck.

I don't find this "ego-feeding" (at least not in a negative way). Knowing that you outperformed a number of people can be a great boost to your confidence (and it can totally help against imposter syndrome!) So, given a good answer, I can totally imagine that this knowledge will make you able to write a better thesis as you feel more secure (@andyk). Of course, this varies much by person. And I can see a lot of answers a supervisor could give which would not be seen as intrusive (at least not in my culture), ...

...e. g. "There were 112 other candidates besides you, even a few from Cambridge, MIT, but your ability in Task A really stood out".

@yupsi Unfortunately, according to my experience, this would not help anyone with imposter syndrome, but often aggravate the case: "Oh my god, I don't know how I tricked them to believe me being much better than those people from MIT and Cambridge, but now they inevitably will find out because I am so much worse and will never be able to fulfill their enormous expectations..."

My suggestion: Ask when you know your supervisor enough to know what kind of person they are.
As you see from the answers and comments, there are many people who'd consider everything as confidental. My impression from academia, however, is that many people like to talk (unless things really labelled top-secred or medical details).
So try to find out what kind of person your supervisor is - do they do smalltalk, and if yes, what is it about? Do they speak about other collegues and tell you department gossip?
If they are open for things like that, you could try to start at lunch a conversation about the interview. Start with small questions and ask more if you feel your supervisor does not feel uncomfortable talking.
However, do of course not ask for really private details and do not inquivise your supervisor if you feel they do not want to talk about a certain topic. What you also probably should avoid is asking about direct comparision of a candidate to you (e.g. whether somebody had more or less points then you in a certain task). Also, if possible, do not ask for names.

But when he knows his supervisor well enough he should not have to ask the question because then he should be able to figure it out himself.

If they are open for things like that, — ...then you can be sure that they are talking about you behind your back as well.

I actually had the same curiosity after I was accepted, it is interesting because I also met the other candidate the day of my interview. I do not think it is taboo to ask but you have to wait for the right moment, it might take some time to get there.
A possible shortcut is, once you are more integrated  with the group, you can ask the phd/postdocs, because the professor might have asked the course of their opinion.
I do not think that your question is just pure curiosity, it is actually useful to hear about how experienced people judge candidates and what qualities are more or less appreciated.

Downvoted.  Asking about the selection process is completely appropriate, but OP wants to ask about specific rejected candidates, which is not.

@JeffE if the name of the candidate is not disclosed, and if there is no way the candidates knew each other, what difference does it make?

@user4050 but how do you know the candidates won't know each others?

@Ooker if the interviews are held in different days or at different times, or even if there were more candidates. The only way to know would be if you have two candidates being invited in the same day and they both stand outside the door.

Yes, you can inquire about your selection process, but you need to proceed tactfully and professionally.

You will not be told the identities of other candidates. Application process is tacitly anonymous.
Your question should be structured as a request for feedback, so that you can further improve yourself. In essence, the feedback you request should be invariant to there having been a hundred candidates of just one candidate (you) during the selection process.
Knowledge of other candidates is almost immaterial since you will not be directly competing with them for the next stage of your professional career and certainly not for another few years. In fact, my first impulsive assumption as supervisor on hearing your query is that you want to leave and join another PhD program, wherein you may likely meet some of your previous competition.
If you must ask, discuss it from a perspective of further improving synergy with your supervisor(s).
(Example) A candidate from a non-English speaking background can ask supervisor about the influence of their English communication skills towards your selection and further growth. In this scenario, the supervisor might advise you to audit language development courses, as the case maybe. You might also use this discussion to request more opportunities to speak in the lab, discuss papers and improve your skills.

--
Aside: I liked the question as a good example of the difference between random thoughts and curiosity and structured thought. You will learn as a researcher that there are numerous open questions related to almost anything you are researching. The ability to identify and narrow the set of questions most pertinent to your focus and even sequence them will distinguish you as a good researcher. You'll also learn about resource efficient planning, since you can't delve into every curiosity.
Lets say you want to know X.
The things you should know a priori. Why do you want to know X? What is your present best guess about the answer to X? How will a different answer to X from an expert change your process? How will you benefit from the answer to X and employ this benefit towards helping your career and the scientific community as a whole?
If I were your supervisor, I might not actually answer your question about other candidates, but if you structure your inquiry properly with prior due diligence then at least I will be happy that you are on the right track to a successful PhD program!

Don't ask about others, but feel free to ask about yourself. For example:

What were my strengths compared to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th candidates?
What weaknesses did I have compared to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
candidates?

Or you can even be more specific, as in:

Did my traveling experience in South-East Asia set me apart from the
2nd, 3rd and 4th candidates? What about my motivation, did it set me
apart from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th candidates?

All the above questions are strictly about you, but they are logically equivalent to:

What are the weaknesses, strengths, experience and motivation of the
other candidates?

which would be highly inappropriate, so just don't do that.

Of course no-one disrespects other's privacy, and sure this is none of your business, but curiosity is also natural, and for some their curiosity on other people is stronger than others. For those, they might don't understand why a natural tendency is perceived as intrusive, and they will be confused. For me in the past, this confusion invokes more questions, and the cycle will begin.
I still don't think curiosity on other people is harmful, but my life lesson is that it's also natural for others for not having strong curiosity. In their natural point of views, this might be perceived as intrusive. Knowing their personality is crucial, and with time you will know when and how to ask to satisfy your curiosity.
Think of the people you will ask as a small Stack Exchange community. There are two kinds of question that get popular. The first kind asks from curiosity, but it evokes controversy. They're still good questions, but some will disagree with it. The second kind not only asks from curiosity, but also shows the desire to really understand what's going on. The curiosity is not anymore peripheral, it is indeed the one that everyone wants to see it. And this will evoke their curiosity.


text:
Who can be my third reference for doctoral applications?
I am a postgraduate student in mathematics (if it matters) who is now also applying for doctoral positions, some of which require three references.
It was a logical enough decision to select my academic advisor and my thesis supervisor to be my first two references, and they gladly accepted. However, attaining a third reference is proving much trickier.
There was no immediate choice, so I decided to contact a lecturer of mine whose course I am currently following with whom I have quite a good relationship (as the class size is also small). Much to my disappointment, he wrote back to me only to decline and say that he does not know me nor my academic achievements well enough to provide a serious reference for me.
Now I am at a loss, because the only people who really know of my academic achievements are the two people who already agreed to be references for me; so where do I go from here?

Who did you use as references to get into your current program?

@Buzz My academic advisor and thesis supervisor from my bachelor programme. Not every programme requires three references; some are content with two.

Is there any reason you can't get a letter from one of them again?

@Buzz It has been more than two years since I graduated from my bachelor programme. I don't know if they would even remember me; plus my bachelor thesis wasn't particularly outstanding and I have improved a lot since then.

That's okay, two years is not too much.  Make sure to send an unofficial transcript to jog the person's memory. // If you have two strong letters, I wouldn't worry too much if the third is not as strong. // You might want to ask your references for advice.

Don't be shy. While this advice works in a million context, it is especially relevant here. The only way to know if you will get a good letter, is to interact closely with senior people in the field, gauge how much they liked your participation in their classes/your work in their lab, ask them the letter, gauge their response, choose the one that answers more enthusiastically. Your first two choices were the most obvious, now you should try with other lecturers you had. You certainly did not have just one lecturer in your studies!
I was assistant professor in a research institution in my previous job, and can see several reasons why a lecturer might decide to write or not a letter for a candidate. You will never know them, you just have to ask, and use your social skills to predict whether it will be a good one.

I especially liked the part about gauging for enthusiasm.

Thanks aparente001. That is the most important predictor in my opinion of how good will be the letter. There will always be someone out there that will write a letter for you. But you don't want just a letter - you want the best letter you can afford.

I think you mean, the best letter you can get/obtain.  But yes, I agree completely.


text:
Should I become first author of a paper for which I did the statistical analysis?
I am a statistician working at a research institute. We work with data from patients with a certain disease. I am getting paid by the institute, but a part of the money comes from a research grant a doctor brought in. The doctor does not work at the registry, but at a hospital and is working closely together with statisticians of the institute (including me) on research questions.
Together we are doing research on a project. I am doing 100% of the statistics, but all the research questions and ideas come from the doctor. She is also the one writing a manuscript for a paper currently.
Now she wants to put me as first author and herself as last author (as supervisor). The idea comes from other researchers who do something similar, but they usually have medical PhD students and not statisticians as first authors. So basically the reason she wants to put me as first author is to put herself as last author.
I feel uncomfortable being first author and would prefer being second author. I am probably the one putting the most hours into the project by preparing all the data, doing the statistics and explaining the results to the doctor. The statistical analysis will be a big part of the paper.  But the research question is not my idea, I have no medical background, the doctor is writing the paper. I am basically getting paid to do the analysis. While I think it is interesting research, I do not identify with it and I do not agree fully with all the conclusions. So far I worked under the assumption to become co-author and the idea of making me first author came up recently.
My opinion is that I should only be first author of my own research, which would be in statistics, not medicine.
I guess it is very odd to reject being a first author =).
My next step will be to talk to her about it, but I was hoping for some perspective or opinions from the community. Is it harsh/unusual to insist on being co-author only?
Who would you suggest should be first author in this case?

Note that in medicine, the leading author is typically the last author. By insisting to change the order, you are trying to force the doctor to put you, in his/her fields standards, as the main author of the paper.

Agree with Nick. The senior author/grant procurer usually puts their name last - at least in my experience. However, in cases where the only contribution to the project was statistical analyses, I've also seen the statistician receive acknowledgement and not authorship. If you're uncomfortable with being listed as first author, you could always ask for the second option.

Would a Contributions paragraph solve your uneasiness? - it would take care that there is no misrepresentation of what you did/didn't contribute to the paper. Obviously, in a 2 author paper there is no middle author position...

Can you clarify: you say "First author," "Second author" and "Last author." Are there only two of you? Or more?

There are more authors, but with little contribution

In medicine, as in most biological fields that I know of, the first author is the person who did most of the hands-on work, while the last author is the one who had the idea and planned the project.  From what you've said, then, it would be appropriate for you to be first author and the doctor to be last.
That said, if you don't feel comfortable being first author (and especially in light of your comment that I do not agree fully with all the conclusions) it's also appropriate for you to request to not be first author -- some middle position (second author, or whatever) is also perfectly suitable for your contributions, from the sound of it.

Great answer. I would also suggest that the MD be listed as corresponding author. Most questions about the paper would likely be medical rather than statistical. That way the statistician would avoid medical questions that might arise from the publication.

Answering this from the perspective of a biomedical researcher who is often in the position of "We had this question, and this data...can you make something of it?"
First, the conventional view of authorship positions":

First author: The person who did most of the work
Last author: The senior author on the paper. Usually a conceptually guiding force, and the type of person who could be summed up as "Without X, none of this would have been possible..." even if they wrote no code, swabbed no samples, etc.
Others: Everyone else.

From what you're describing, it sounds like there are only two of you. As such, it seems like the logical ordering is you as first author and the doctor as second author. Both of these are relatively prestigious positions in terms of authorship, so putting her last isn't a negative drain on her career. It indicates exactly what's happening - she's running a lab and directing research.

So basically the reason she wants to put me as first author is to put
  herself as last author.

Her reasoning is correct.

I feel uncomfortable being first author and would prefer being second
  author. I am probably the one putting the most hours into the project
  by preparing all the data, doing the statistics and explaining the
  results to the doctor. The statistical analysis will be a big part of
  the paper. But the research question is not my idea, I have no medical
  background, the doctor is writing the paper. I am basically getting
  paid to do the analysis.

If there are only two authors, her reasoning is entirely correct, and first author is the logical place for you to be.

While I think it is interesting research, I do not identify with it
  and I do not agree fully with all the conclusions.

This is marginally more concerning to me than whether you are first or last.

So far I worked under the assumption to become co-author and the idea
  of making me first author came up recently. My opinion is that I
  should only be first author of my own research, which would be in
  statistics, not medicine.

I would be extremely confused if you were last author on this paper, and would make assumptions about what that meant regarding the project that were much more inaccurate than the ones I'd make if you were first author.

Is it harsh/unusual to insist on being co-author only?

This would only make sense if there are more people on the team, and even then...

Who would you suggest should be first author in this case?

You.

As a reader of scientific literature, I will think that either is your work or that she is your advisor/mentor. Now, I agree that If you don't feel comfortable don't do it. However, It would be a waste. Probably this doctor has more publications so he doesn't care about 1st author publications.... but for the sound of it, you are new in this world of publishing.
Also, it is your research "line or agenda". If you don't want to be strongly associated with the output maybe is also a good idea to put you in a second. But, if it is our you considered it "your research" and you plan doing things on this subject in the future maybe is good that you put yourself in the first place.
Good luck with the article!


text:
How to avoid plagiarism if I am learning from other's code?
I am taking a class that gave us a broad assignment: apply effect to a series of pictures via python. It did not include any lectures on the underlying principles of effects as it would be too broad to cover all.
I am trying to apply focus stacking, but as I didn't know the underlying principles of it (always done it in photoshop). I have looked up the technique of how it is done and landed on a GitHub repo that demonstrated how to do it. I followed along the code and learned the steps of doing it. But in result my code looks very similar to what I just learned.
I didn't copy and paste any of the code, but I did follow along the steps, I would assume this is still plagiarism? Do I just need to pick a new subject and don't look at any code during the learning process?

You could add a (conspicuous) comment to the code explaining how you wrote the code and that you used the tutorial from GitHub. If you credit your sources and explain how the code come about, it can never be plagiarism.
You could also ask your lecturers in advance whether they think what you did is acceptable. When it comes to programming assignments, there is some variance from lecturer to lecturer in what they consider acceptable.

As an instructor, it makes a big difference to me to know that students are being thoughtful/aware, and that they're trying to learn from online sources rather than just using them to get through the homework somehow.

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


text:
How to cite this quote "The whole is other than the sum of its parts" in an article
I am preparing the draft of a scientific article which greatly benefits from the well known quote:

"The whole is other than the sum of its parts"

However, I am unable to find the correct citation for it.
According to Wikipedia:

This principle maintains that when the human mind (perceptual system)
  forms a percept or "gestalt," the whole has a reality of its own,
  independent of the parts. The original famous phrase of Gestalt
  psychologist Kurt Koffka, "The whole is other than the sum of the
  parts" is often incorrectly translated[4] as "The whole is greater
  than the sum of its parts," and thus used when explaining gestalt
  theory, and further incorrectly applied to systems theory.[5] Koffka
  did not like the translation. He firmly corrected students who
  replaced "other" with "greater". "This is not a principle of addition"
  he said.[6] The whole has an independent existence.

To the best of my understanding, since I am using it as a quote, I am required to cite it. I have tried finding the source of the quotation using Google, but have been unsuccessful thus far. In such a scenario, is it appropriate to cite the 6th citation from the Wikepedia page, i.e,

Heider, F. 1977. Cited in Dewey, R.A. 2007. Psychology: An
  introduction: Chapter four - The Whole is Other than the Sum of the
  Parts. Retrieved 4/12/2014.

?

Citation in scientific publication is required so that readers can source and verify statements of fact. Unless the exact source of the quote is important to your article, you can probably use it as a well known saying.

But, is it well-known enough that I do not need to cite it?

Well, that concept dates back to Aristotle: "[...] the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts [...]".

It sounds like you are effectively asking if it is OK to cite a secondary source, if the primary source is not able to be located or retrieved. This varies by publication style guides; for example, in IEEE secondary sources are (at least in theory) prohibited, though as far as I'm aware there are no Grand Inquisitors enforcing this rule, so if you do it I don't know that anyone would think that an adequate reason to suggest rejection of your paper...but I haven't tried it.
As you mention Psychology, I'll note that in APA format, the answer is: yes, it absolutely is OK to use secondary sources, so long as you keep them to a minimum. However, your use of the brackets makes me think you might be using an ACM/IEEE style, in which case you are not supposed to use secondary sources; either you find a primary source, or you simply do not cite it at all.
If ACM/IEEE is your style, I would tend to suggest you just say something along the lines of, "in the words of the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka, the whole...". And then you just don't cite it, because it's clear you are using someone else's words, you don't have a primary source, and it would seem weird to me for a reviewer to object to there not being a citation to that unless your work absolutely depends on Kurt Koffka having said those words (which would make no sense in a field that uses ACM/IEEE).

The quotation I used in the question is from Wikipedia. It is not my own work.

It is possible to find the quote on Koffa's book "Principles Of Gestalt Psychology", page 176:

It has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful.

Here the link to the digitalised source

I've been looking into this as well.
And despite Jan's answer being plenty adequate to your question and extremely informational beyond, I may be able to add this;
The first mention of this saying was supposedly by Aristotle, but he said "greater than the sum...". Where Koffka's version is "other than the sum..."
I believe the key here is that Koffka's way of seeing things was distinctively different from how Aristotle phrased it. Thus wanting to change that one particular word to make it fit his vision. The subtlety probably made him feel real clever about himself.
To this conclusion, I'd suggest researching the difference between the two versions and decide which one is more for you. Quote that.
Then again we are 2 years, 9 months further from your post - so this information now only matters to whom it may concern.
Godspeed, or whatever fuel you're on!

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


text:
Deferring an NSF postdoc?
I am wondering if I get an NSF math postdoc will I be able to defer for a year in order to spend a year in a one year position somewhere other than the host institution I applied with, and then go there after that?  What if I am willing to forfeit the first year of NSF funding to do so?
More specifically, the place I applied for NSF has offered me a postdoc and is open to me spending a year at IAS before going there, and I am wondering if should I get the NSF that will still be possible.

Might be worth contacting the NSF for information on this.

For planning purposes you'll want to carefully read the program announcement from the NSF to see if they state a policy on deferment. For instance, in Instructions for Preparing and Submitting
Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (MSPRF):

The postdoctoral appointment must start between June 1 and October 1
  of the year of the award.

The GRFP guidelines (for graduate students - not a post doc), just to show another example and outline the NSF's typical policies, has a similar provision:

May I defer my Fellowship?
No. There is no general Fellowship deferral - only approved Military
  or Medical Deferrals. Deferrals are different from Reserve years.
  While on deferral, a Fellow's clock stops, i.e., the remaining time
  available for Tenure or Reserve periods is not affected. Reserve years
  are counted in the 5-year period allowed for the Fellowship.

Regardless of published policy, "you can always ask", as there may be some special exception granted because of your particular situation and proposal. But the official policies will give you a reasonable expectation of what to expect - if they say you can, you can, but if they say you can't, you might not be able to (but it's not utterly impossible - just less likely).
If someone who has been in a similar situation and requested a deferral (even against stated policy) could share their experience that would be even better, but the official printed guidelines is always your best starting place.


text:
MAster's Thesis: How to find the way collaborate and consult multiple people about my work
I am having couple issues here. First I am an International student and English is my third language. I am very shy and having tough times approaching people for help. I am writing my Master's thesis (in Art History) and I am still in the beginning and while I struggle in formulating my thesis and question, I know what is my topic going to be about. There were two academics who have written about this topic and I do not know how to connect with them and perhaps ask for a help with literature or advice and perhaps discuss my topic for ideas. My thesis advisor hasn't been responsive to my emails and last semester she was on sabbatical which slows me down significantly. But he is a wonderful advisor and have given me great direction regarding the topic and what arguments would have been possible to discuss.
I would welcome any suggestions on how best to approach a professor/ academic from a different university/ organization to help me with literature choices, give me  a feedback on my topic choice, and with general help to work on a research topic.

Could you send them an e-mail?

... a professor/academic ... to help me with literature choices, give me a feedback on my topic choice, and with general help to work on a research topic.

From the last part of your question, the tasks you describe sound like the responsibilities of a supervisor or co-supervisor. If you need that much assistance in your research you should talk to your current supervisor about getting a co-supervisor to help you with topics in which your current supervisor isn't knowledgeable. Also, it is helpful to have a co-supervisor when one supervisor is away for any reason (conference or sabbatical). Usually a co-supervisor would come from within your university, but I have seen cases where professors from two different universities supervised a student together.
Another option, since you're a Master's student, would be to have a PhD or post-doctoral researcher in your department help to mentor you in your research. They won't necessarily have all the answers, but they could help point you to helpful resources or research methods that they have used.
Either way, you really need to talk to your supervisor about whatever is preventing you from progressing with your research. It's your supervisor's job to make sure you have access to the right resources and that your research is moving in the right direction. If you can't reach your supervisor, talk to your graduate coordinator or department head about getting someone to help you while your supervisor is away.

I am an International student and English is my third language. I am very shy and having tough times approaching people for help.

If you're uncomfortable approaching people for help because of a language barrier, then look into language resources at your university. Many universities where English is the primary language offer language lessons for non-native speakers. Hopefully that will improve your confidence in speaking with others. In any case you should be very proud to speak three languages!


text:
What are the impacts of implementing a hot-desking model for grad student workspace?
The Dean of my faculty recently made the suggestion that we change the graduate student office spaces to a "hot-desking" or "hoteling" model. This is only being suggested for office space, not lab space which obviously has certain safety/operational requirements that would preclude this model.
In a nutshell, hot-desking involves shared office spaces (normally open-plan) where no individuals are assigned specific seating. Instead, individuals can pick any available desk whenever they enter the office. It is generally expected that individuals do not "claim" certain desks by leaving personal items on the desks.
The current state of the graduate student offices vary from department to department: from small offices shared by a pair of students to open-plan offices with around ten students. Current indications are that the Dean would like to have less desks than students, the rationale being that most grad student offices are half-full at any given time of the day (instead they would be working in the lab, performing TA duties, or working from home). My faculty is Engineering and Applied Science so most students have laboratory/experimental components in their research that take a significant proportion of their time.
The argument that I have seen for this model are that it encourages collaboration, but the more likely explanation in this case is that enrollment is up and space on campus is limited. I have found some articles online about implementing this model in a typical office, but I think there are many ways that graduate schools differ from a typical office environment.
As I said, this was a suggestion by the Dean, so he is looking for input from the students and faculty before they begin drawing up floorplans for renovations. I've taken part in a committee to investigate attitudes among faculty and students towards switching to a hot-desking model. The general feeling is between "not enthusiastic" to "downright hostile". I'm personally on the fence about the idea.
So my question is, what are the impacts of implementing a hot-desking model for graduate student workspaces? I am looking specifically for answers from students, staff and faculty in the sciences, applied sciences and/or engineering who work at a university that currently uses a hot-desking model. Can you say whether there are tangible/measureable benefits or drawbacks to more traditional office models?
I am not looking for an opinion on hot-desking is good/bad, I already have lots of those from my own colleagues, thanks!

"...before they begin drawing up floorplans for renovations." It sounds to me like the Dean has already made up his mind regardless of any benefits or drawbacks.

@astronat I think the Dean is still considering. We will be undergoing renovations to modernize our buildings and classrooms regardless of office space layouts, that's why the topic came up.

Would there be some other facilities for grad students to securely store and access personal work materials (books, papers, student exams to grade, etc)?  The space required for this stuff can be significant - "gym lockers" aren't going to cut it.  And in some cases it might include confidential records (you can play the FERPA card perhaps).

@NateEldredge Yes, I forgot to mention that the plan would involve 2m tall lockers to securely store personal work items. It's very "high-school" I'll admit, but it's something.

Note that the flip side of "encouraging collaboration" is "encouraging distraction".  And I think that in an academic environment, particularly in specialized fields, the potential for spontaneous productive collaboration with random office-mates is much slimmer than in industry (where perhaps everyone in the office has been assigned to work on a single project).

I just do not see hot-desking working in an academic environment, especially STEM-related disciplines. All of my colleagues and I have loads of papers/books/notebooks/gadgets/etc on and around our desks that I cannot see how anyone can move all their stuff to a new desk every day (or even every now and then). Plus, there are whiteboards and whatnot which will also need to be moved around. I cannot think of any way how this massive overhead is worth it...

@101010111100 Indeed. You bring up many of the points that appeared during the committee investigation. That is why I am interested in seeing if anyone has already tried it, and what the results were.

Is this planned for teaching assistants, research assistants, or both?

Looking at my desk right now (and all the stuff) - there is no way a hot desk model would suit me or my work. I'd spend more time every day setting up and taking down my stuff then getting work done. Perhaps the Dean should be made to hot-desk as well if it is so useful...

@CuriousFindings: "the plan would involve 2m tall lockers to securely store personal work items." - but those are not locally at (or even near) the owner's desk, right? It's one of those tiny drawbacks that can add up due to sheer frequency of occurrence.

@NateEldridge: "I think that in an academic environment, particularly in specialized fields, the potential for spontaneous productive collaboration with random office-mates is much slimmer than in industry" - I'm really not convinced of that. In academic environments, talking to random other researchers just to find out what they're doing and see whether any synergetic ideas come up usually appears legitimate and even welcome to me, especially in interdisciplinary contexts. In the industry, OTOH, people get their rather clearly defined tasks, coming up with new ideas or even projects ...

... can easily be out of scope of one's position, and autonomously talking to colleagues just on the chance of having an interesting idea (rather than approaching them with a concrete, narrow request for assistance) can easily come across as wasting time instead of completing the assigned tasks within the schedule expected by the one who assigned them.

@BrianBorchers It is planned for all graduate students in the Faculty, regardless of TA or RA positions. So any PhD or Masters student.

@O.R.Mapper There are no "owner's desks" because no desks have owners in this system. The lockers would likely be in the office area along a side wall or in the hallway just outside the offices. To be clear, I am not advocating for this system. I'm just curious if anyone has tried it and what the results were.

How will undergraduate students meet with teaching assistants for courses that they're taking?

@CuriousFindings: "There are no 'owner's desks' because no desks have owners in this system." - I know. I was referring to the temporary owners for the current day or session.

@BrianBorchers I think the idea is to have many separate bookable meeting rooms for TA's to meet with students. At my university TA's are expected to hold office hours at a regular time and place as opposed to taking walk-ins.

As someone who likes having his own space, I probably wouldn't enjoy a hot-desking model. Then again, I also find open-plan spaces annoying to work in when I'm trying to do things that don't require direct interaction with others, so I'm already at a disadvantage there.

@DSVA: "well if I'm at my PC working I don't want to talk to anyone" - at least in the academic environment I got to know, one wouldn't get very far with that stance (if you can't be talked to while at your desk, how do you even get into collaborations within your own group, how do you get alerted about upcoming opportunities, how do students get in touch with you, how are strangers supposed to find and identify you?). That notwithstanding, my comment applies no matter whether "talking to random other researchers" occurs at their PCs or in a kitchen with a coffee machine.

@DSVA: Oh, by no means did I intend to promote an open floor plan office. I was merely commenting on the available chance of spontaneous cross-team collaboration in academia vs. industry.

I have seen hot-desking (or the equivalent) work well with undergraduate researchers. In the particular incarnations that I have seen it, however, it wasn't a large-scale formal hot-desking model like you're talking about, but rather a sort of "pool office" that was the shared space of a bunch of undergrads.
With the undergrad researchers, this worked well because the number of hours each student typically spent in the office was quite small, and they tended to work on projects for relatively short periods of time.
Graduate students are a different matter. They tend to be around for a much larger fraction of their time, and you want them to be in the office more and to develop professional networks and commitment to the group. Thus, I don't see the advantages of hot-desking for undergraduates translating well to established graduate students in most STEM environments.  Here is a report of a personal experience that seems to corroborate the problems.
That said, there are some environments where is seems like it could be appropriate, in which one does indeed expect an office space to be transient and sparsely used.  For example:

If students spent most of their time in lab, then their "home base" is their lab bench, and a hot-desking space for non-lab tasks could be workable.
Some graduate programs start with a year of "rotations" in which students work with a number of different groups before committing to one, and since rotation students are inherently transient, hot-desking might work for them as well.

This all seems to point to some potential metrics, along the lines of measuring how much time is spent working in the hot-desk space vs. how much of the tasks done in that space are being done elsewhere.  If students are elsewhere because they are doing different types of tasks, then it might be guessed to be succeeding; if they are doing the same sorts of tasks in coffee shops, libraries, etc., then it might instead be driving them away.

I am a graduate student in computational neuroscience and the "hot-desk" model has worked for me personally. Here are the reasons why it works for me:

I do all of my work on my personal laptop which I can cary from office/home as needed (code, manuscripts, grant applications, PPTs). I use a cloud service for backups.
Majority of my communication is done via email, TXT, phone, Skype/GH. For in person meetings I usually go to wherever the other party wants to meet.
All my grading/teaching materials are online (Blackboard, PDFs, PPTs)
All my papers are digital/online (PDFs, I use school VPN to get library access to papers)
I have all my textbooks in digital format (again PDFs)
If someone gives me a "paper" paper, I usually find its PDF online and recycle the original. I use apps like CamScanner to digitize to PDFs most of anything else.

I personally like the model because I am free to work from wherever convenient (lab office, home, library, cafe, etc...) and can control the level of interaction with others more easily (difficult for others to walk-in and interrupt me when I'm not in the office). One downside is that my laptop is not as powerful as a desktop would be at the same cost level. However, remote login to a desktop/cluster at the lab alleviates this somewhat. Another downside is that this model makes it too easy to work from home, resulting in reduced socializing. I personally find it be usually distracting, but have committed to being in the lab during certain times in the week, and take an active role in creating idea-exchange opportunities with others.
I can see the following barriers to wider adoption of the above approach:

Funding for laptops is problematic. I understand there are restrictions/prohibition of using grant funds to pay for laptops, but not for desktops. Your Dean would have to address this problem somehow, as not all graduate students can be expected to own a laptop, esp. a high-performance one, which might be necessary for research. I urge influential readers to use their positions of power to lobby federal agencies to loosen this restriction. The argument that every researcher needs a laptop to present one's work at conferences or seminars might be persuasive.
Path dependence on earlier paper-based methods. If you already have stacks of papers on your desk, it would be difficult to digitize them, and remove all sources of them. I started at a time where being "fully-digital" was a possibility. In that respect my situation is unique. However, trends in academia, and outside, point to increasing cultural connectivity and digitization. So this model might work for incoming students, but would likely be difficult for existing ones.
Requirement for some technical sophistication. I have a software development/computer engineering background, which has made it easier to be fully-digital. So the above approach might work for students in CS, engineering, or other computationally intensive fields. In less computer-dependent fields, students might need additional support for the transition. Your Dean could consider hiring a department level "all things IT person" to provide such support. But again, with cultural trends in mind, it seems that students across many other fields appear to be becoming more technically sophisticated, so this problem might disappear over time.


text:
What are the arguments in favour of making the PhD defense open or closed?
While it appears to be standard practice in all the examples I've heard of for examining committees to conduct their deliberation in camera, I've noticed that the rules regarding who can attend what parts of a PhD defense vary significantly around the world and even between institutions within the same country.
What are the justifications/arguments for greater/lesser restrictions on who can attend which parts of the defense?
There doesn't seem to be a question about this on SE already, though I've seen some answers on other forums. The answers to this related but not applicable question do provide some insight. I found a blog post that seems to indicate that in the US the method by which defenses are conducted is a legal matter.
Example
At my institution (Canadian, public university) the list of people who can attend what we call the Final Oral Examination, or colloquially the PhD Defense, is highly restricted. There are multiple steps to completing the PhD degree requirements here:

A Department Defense, where the PhD candidate gives an open seminar at their department. The examination committee does not need to attend this one. Usually it is just attended by your supervisors and some fellow grad students. Supervisory committees can, and often do, vote to skip this one entirely.
A Final Oral Examination, which is conducted entirely behind closed doors. The examination has three parts: the presentation period (20 minutes), the question period (60-120 minutes), and the deliberation period (10-30 minutes). The candidate leaves the room during the deliberation period, and then returns for the committee to give their decision (pass/fail).

The only people, other than the candidate, allowed to attend any part the Final Oral Examination are the members of the examining committee, a chairperson appointed by the faculty, and any member of the faculty at the university (upon the invitation of the chairperson). The one exception are "qualified observers" which must be approved in advance by writing a letter (in hard copy) to the Vice Dean of Graduate Studies. The deliberation period is attended only by the committee and the chair.
My understanding is that this is highly restricted compared to other institutions, even within Canada. On the other hand, when I defended my Master's degree at another Canadian institution, I invited my best friend to attend (he wasn't even a student at the university). These other attendees were allowed to be present for everything except for the deliberation period. My understanding is that this is very open compared to other institutions.

Seems very broad - as noted many different institutions have different rules for different reasons.

Heh heh. At my oral, during the part they kicked me out to talk about me, I was down the hall, around the corner, and in the bathroom. But I could still clearly hear what one of my committee was saying about me. He's famous for speaking very loudly.

Your "supervisors" are not on a "supervisory committee"? I am quoting because I use different names for these

@Azor Ahai -him- At my institution we colloquially refer to the PI in our lab as our supervisor. Some students are co-supervised by two PIs if they collaborate between multiple labs. We also have supervisory committee members, who don't take part in regular week-to-week supervision but are responsible for reviewing our yearly progress reports.

I think these things are mostly determined by tradition rather than specific arguments for or against. There's a lot of variation by program even just at my own institution.
Reasons to be public would include that universities are ultimately intended as institutions that benefit the public - a thesis defense is an opportunity to share the work done by students at the institution with the public. It's also an opportunity for the student to share their work.
More personal reasons include a recognition that successful graduate students are supported by more than just their PI - it's an opportunity for family and friends to both show support for the defending student and get recognition for their support. It seems common at least in the US for students to celebrate after their defense - that's usually a more important moment than any formal school-wide graduation ceremony, though that also differs by program, but inviting the people who you'd like to celebrate to the defense seems a natural extension - come for the event, stay for the party.
Public defenses also benefit other students, who can see what a defense is like before they have their own defense, and helps to (lightly) standardize the process a bit - by making the defense open, it would be noticeable to others if a particular defense was conducted unusually.
In my experience, public defenses are always followed by a private session, which likely includes both questions directed at the student and deliberation among the thesis committee. The private session allows for honest sharing of opinions among the committee and it takes takes some pressure off the student to perform or be criticized openly in public. I think a closed defense is simply recognizing that the most concrete purpose of a defense - determining whether a student has passed - is this private examination, recognizing that the other benefits I described above can just as easily be achieved through other means. There's no need for a student to present their work only at their defense, for example. There are other ceremonial opportunities to recognize and be recognized by family and friends, like in a formal graduation ceremony after the defense.
I think there is also perhaps more of a stress on the rigor of the process in a closed defense - if a student doesn't pass, suddenly the open defense seems to be quite an awkward affair.


text:
What can I do if one coauthor tries to prevent a journal paper from being published?
I was a PhD student and was supervised by one bad supervisor. Our relationship broke up at the time when I tried to graduate. After a "fighting", I successfully graduated. But I left 10 unpublished paper to him. I had no time to publish these paper before I graduate. I put my supervisor's name there because he was my supervisor. I didn't really contribute to the paper.
I'm sure the 10 paper can be published as high quality journal paper because I'm currently working as a staff in another University. I've published a lot paper expect for those 10 so I know what paper can be published. But as the coauthor, my ex-supervisor "refused" to publish these paper. He always told me he needed to have a look, and nothing else happened. Every time I contact him, he would propose some unreasonable questions or tell me to wait for some time to put off the publication and no reply at all after that. It has been 2 years up to now. None of my 10 paper has been submitted yet. He obviously doesn't need the paper as a professor, but I need them desperately as a new lecture.
I've waited for 2 years for the first out of the 10 paper to be submitted. I couldn't wait for 20 years for the 10 paper to be submitted. He doesn't say he want to delete his name from this paper but I have sufficient reason to believe that he doesn't want me to publish these paper. He warned me that I couldn't submit the paper without his agreement otherwise he would withdraw the paper. My question is can I kick him out from the coauthor list and publish the paper by myself? Or is there any other suggestion say contacting the University about this situation to solve the problem?
I'm quite annoying as if I couldn't get rid of him even after I graduate and got my own position. Can anyone help please. Thank you in advance!

You wrote "I put my supervisor's name there because he was my supervisor. I didn't really contribute to the paper." The second sentence seems to be at odds with the first. Did you mean "My supervisor didn't really contribute to the paper"?

I do not wish to be pessimistic or something similar, but are you sure your advisor is not stopping the publications because of the quality of the paper? Finishing a Ph.D with 10 publications is  a very rare fact (at least in North America), so I am quite surprised that someone could have publishes and have 10 unpublished, fully written papers, just laying there waiting to be submitted...

In the present case it seems clear from the author question that he is first author. Obviously if this is not the case then yes, 10 papers is doable. Still, this would be for a limited number of fields...

oh my, dealing with peer review on ten papers at once seems like a nightmare....

@BlaisB Finishing a Ph.D with 10 publications is a very rare fact (at least in North America) — Not in computer science.  Not even in theoretical computer science.


text:
Paper used the wrong title but correct arxiv id, citation is not reflected on Google Scholar
A few years back I wrote a paper with a collaborator. We never formally published it but put it on arxiv. Later they wanted to pursue this idea further (get it into a more polished state + add some new work on top). I had other priorities but we spoke and I said that as long as my work was cited, I would be happy. They did, but unfortunately with the wrong title (an early placeholder title we used but changed when putting it on arxiv). However, the arxiv id in the citation is correct. I was hoping Google Scholar would match by the arxiv id but it doesn't seem like it. Now the citations isn't being picked up by Google Scholar (or semantic scholar).
I read this:
Citation of an article is not reflected in Google Scholar database
To address some of the points raised in that question

The citing paper is on the ACM Digital Library and has been indexed by Google Scholar
If I pick any other reference from the paper and check their citations on Google Scholar, the citing paper shows up there.

So I think the title mismatch is preventing the citations for my paper from registering.
I am curious if there is anything I can do get the citation to show up. Should I change the title on arxiv? Contact the journal? Try contacting Google Scholar (which I hear is hopeless)? Something else? I am a very junior researcher so everything counts

A hint: Don't expect Google Scholar to get much of anything right.

I suggest that you work with your co-authors on this and come to a decision on the "correct" title. Then talk to the editor of the journal to see what they suggest.
As you have found this may be a very difficult problem to solve, but get the others involved. Once that is done, try to see what Google can do for you, but I'm not hopeful.

Thank you for your suggestion. For now I changed the title on Arxiv, since it was the "least effort" path. I will give it a week or two to see if it reflects. Generally speaking, I think altering a paper once it reaches the digital library is a difficult task to alter it but certainly possible. I will contact my collaborator to see if they can change the citation if nothing comes out of the arxiv title change. Then it becomes a question of google will actually capture that small change... Hopefully this gets resolves :/

You are worrying about a single citation. It may be aggravating, and perhaps a citation you actually care about, but it's not worth your time or emotional energy. Both are better spent on creating more publications that will garner far more citations than that one.


text:
Labmate copied my portfolio website
I'm a PhD student (very early on in my degree) in a relatively small lab. Over the last few months, I've spent a significant amount of time and effort designing my personal webpage to show my CV, publication preprints, etc. I tried to give it a unique style, and I'm proud of what I achieved.
Today I visited the personal website of a more senior PhD student in my same lab (same PI), and noticed that it was essentially a copy-and-paste recreation of my own website -- same HTML/CSS/JS, just with the name and details (publications etc) edited. My website is credited in an HTML comment, but few if any people will see this.
I feel a bit violated -- I never agreed to this, and there are lots of freely available templates for websites -- I don't know why this student had to use mine. I don't want visitors to think now that my website design is plaigarized from the other student's. That said, I don't want to sour my relationship with my labmates or PI or create conflict unnecessarily. Am I off base -- is this sort of thing acceptable in academic circles? How, if at all, should I navigate approaching this colleague?

Did you make the code of your website public, e.g., on GitHub? Any chance that the student forked your repository as a starting point for their website and will keep working on updating the style to be different than yours in the future?

@kamilazdybal OP is most likely using client side JS, so assuming the website is accessible online, so is the HTML/CSS/JS.

@Anyon is correct -- I don't have the code anywhere in a public repo, but anyone who visits the site can access the frontend code in their browser

Is it possible that the other Ph.D. student may have thought you simply got the web page design from somewhere else, in the same way he/she got it from you?

I get that you feel violated. But ask yourself what your options are. Your first option is to get your lab-mate to change his/her website design. I do not see any way that would not create friction, as your lab mate can argue that simple designs can be copied without violating your rights. Your lab mate is probably wrong on this as you spend a lot of time on the design. But you would argue this point. I do not think that you look good in this scenario, even if you are in the right. The second option is to accept the copying as a form of flattery and publicly express that you feel flattered. Your lab mate might feel a bit embarrassed at having been exposed publicly but cannot complain since his/her website contains a reference to your design.
I cannot see any negative consequence of your lab mate using your work, other than the feeling that you should have been asked for permission. I do not share your fear that casual visitors will feel that you were the one who copied. If I were to see an instance of this, I would assume that Ph.D. students in this lab are working together with a common template for their websites, which would reflect well on both of you. In fact, without digging, I would assume that your website was done from a free website template floating around the internet, since Ph.D. students should spend their time more productively. (I am hypocritical as I played a lot of xconq and multi-user games with other students in my time.)
You might even talk to your supervisor telling him/her that since people are copying your website, maybe your's should be the template for the whole group. Even if the supervisor does not agree, I think you would look good.

Love the suggestion in the last paragraph. This kind of thing can be great further down the line if you want to demonstrate that you showed initiative/made a positive change/contributed to a team.


text:
Is it possible to use Mendeley to produce chapter notes without a citation?
Is it possible to use Mendeley to insert sequential text chapter notes without a citation?
For example:
Chapter text
Lorem ipsum dolor [1] sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod [2] tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore [3] magna aliqua.
Chapter Endnotes

Dummy Citation One. (2024). Dummy citation report. Retrieved from http://www.dummywebsite.com
Text without a citation
Dummy Citation Two (2024). Dummy citation report. Retrieved from http://www.dummywebsite.com

I don't undestand the question. What is [2]?

Do you simply mean you can add your own explanatory text in a footnote? Or is there some restriction in Mendeley that forbids footnotes for other than citation?


text:
Feasibility of a partially remote postdoc
(This question is somewhat related to those answered here and here, but is different in the "partially" remote aspect, and in a few other details I list below.)
I am currently finishing my PhD in theoretical physics in the UK, and have received a funded offer for a 3 year postdoc on the US east coast. I also have at least one postdoc offer from the UK. Both positions come from individual PIs, and are not tied to e.g. teaching requirements.
At the individual group level the difference between the offers is not huge, though I do slightly prefer the US position. However, in my field the US is very strong and active, and I have been advised by my supervisor that it can be a significant advantage to my later career prospects to have exposure to the US scene, especially early on in my career. Ultimately I would be aiming for faculty positions in the UK.
My dilemma is that I have significant ties to the UK (e.g. two-body issues, though no children), and I am not sure whether it is worth disrupting this for the potential long-term benefit of being in the US. One possibility my partner and I have floated is a "partially remote" postdoc. By this I mean something like spending ~2/3 of my working time in the US, and ~1/3 of my working time in the UK. In practice that could mean spending, say, 6 weeks in the US and then 3 weeks in the UK.
I am asking this question because I am wondering whether anyone here has done something like this, and how they found it personally and professionally. Other answers about the balancing of long-term benefits of exposure to the US vs personal situations would also be helpful.
A few notes:

Since my field is theoretical in nature, it is in principle possible to work remotely. Of course there are still significant benefits to working in person, but the hope is that being available in the US ~2/3 of the time would provide enough time to do this, and also get most of the other benefits of "US exposure".
This question is conditioned on my potential supervisor agreeing to this. They have mentioned that many of their collaborations have been largely remote (even pre-Covid), so they may be used to this mode of working. However, I think this has mainly been with US-based collaborators, so the 5 hour time difference may present an issue.
I have worked out the personal finances of this, and think it would be doable.
I am not sure about the visa and tax implications of this arrangement. My initial impression is that if I am on an H1-B visa then there shouldn't be any visa issues. If anyone has any idea about the tax implications that would be very helpful.

Too specialized and individual for a good answer here. But you need buy-in from the PI, of course. And the pandemic is going to make the travel a nightmare.

As a postdoc you would likely be on a J-1 visa, not a H-1B visa.

Ask the PI or recruiting HR department
I think the main consideration will be what the PI thinks of the plan. Some PI's want to be able to chat face-to-face to post docs every day, whereas others are happier with a more light touch interaction. This can also vary for the same PI between different projects with different aims. This will be quickly resolved by asking the PI. If you have a job offer there's nothing to lose here.
There may be other issues such as tax, insurance and other employment law things. I'm not an expert but our university has raised issues about staff working in another country even though most staff haven't been to the university buildings at all since March last year. This will be quickly resolved by asking the recruiting HR department. They should be able to give a relatively quick yes/no depending on their own current working pressures.
In long form,

explain as you do here what your constraints and motivations are.
have a concrete plan of how the remote part of the work will go. For example, are you able to shift your working time to be available for meetings during US working hours.
be prepared for the answer to be no.

You seem to have a reasonable fall back plan so I see no harm in simply asking.
Edited to add: You should also be realistic about how travelling will work during the current on-going pandemic. How will quarantine affect your plans? What if you are not able to travel for a prolonged period of time.

Thank you for your answer, +1. You are of course correct that it is not at all a given that the PI will agree to this arrangement. However, my question was conditioned on their agreement -- ideally I would like to hear about the personal and professional experiences of people who have gone through a similar scenario (though perhaps this is too niche). Your answer does provide a helpful perspective on the logistics, so I will wait for 24 hours for any potential answers about the personal and professional aspects of this question, and otherwise accept your answer.


text:
How to decide when it's worth investing the time to learn something new
Background
I am 3 months into a 3 year theoretical physics PhD in the UK. Since I am fairly early on in my research career, there are many new ideas and techniques for me to learn, as well as the need for me to work directly on my research questions.
Either through reading papers or attending seminars, I often come across new ideas which seem interesting and conceivably applicable to my research. However, I find it difficult to decide whether to further study those ideas to more deeply understand them.
On the one hand, my impression is that it is important to deeply understand ideas to be able to apply them to one's own research. On the other, attaining good understanding usually requires a significant investment of time, and this is time taken away from working more directly on the details of my current research. In some sense, this could be seen as balancing short- vs long-term investments of time and mental energy.
My question is about how one should decide whether to invest the time learning new ideas now, or wait until they come up more directly in later research. Of course, the difficulty with research is that one is often not sure if or when a new idea will come in handy.
Question
What thought process do you go through to decide whether to spend time now in learning a new idea?

First year PhD students must establish their problem. That problem may be defined by the supervisor, or the student may have to define it themselves. Regardless, a thorough understanding of the problem domain must be established. Hence, it is not only important to "deeply understand ideas to be able to apply them to one's own research," but a requirement. So, such an investment isn't really "time taken away from working more directly on the details of my current research,"  it is part of research. Establishing whether a topic is essential is more problematic and probably something that should be discussed with the supervisor. Students should study topics beyond their immediate research and the first year of a PhD is an excellent time to do this. Perhaps by committing less productive time to, e.g., the last day of the week, early evenings, or ... Again, this is something that can be discussed (and possibly even negotiated) with the supervisor.

First of all, good luck on your PhD!
The way I was explained it, the point of a PhD is to become super good at something. To do so, a shallow understanding of lots of things is oftentimes less useful than a deep understanding of one thing. This is just practicality: you need to graduate in X years with a PhD certificate. I would say 80/20 ratio in favor of deeper understanding of a topic vs reading something new, at least.
I would attend seminars anyway to keep abreast of what’s going on, and to learn how to speak about one’s work.

The trouble with this approach is that you don't know, at least during the first three months of a PhD program, what that something is that you want to become super good at and gain deep knowledge of. You need to gain a lot superficial knowledge about a lot of other things along the way.

You've already answered this question.
How did you become a PhD student in the first place? You had to have made a decision about how to invest your time.
You are proficient in mathematics. If you're not any good with the numbers, then you've got skills you've both not mentioned and using just plain wrong. You have a 3 year project on your lap that you just cracked into. Make a math problem of this. How much time per week do you have to work on your PhD to complete it on time? How much time can you afford to "new ideas" and not miss the goal?
Now you know how much total time you have to play with the new ideas. Use that to help determine how many of them and how deeply you want to pursue them.
Keep in mind that interesting ideas are not your research. Your research will be an interesting idea to someone else.


text:
Letter of Recommendation Etiquette: Asking Only for Certain Schools
I have looked around at some of the questions regarding letters of recommendation and can't seem to find one specific to my situation. I am currently applying to graduate school in math, and some of the schools I am applying to require 3 letters of recommendation, while others ask for more. Is it considered rude to ask a professor for letters to the schools which ask for more recommendations and not for others? I don't want it to seem as if he was my `fourth choice' so to say. If not, what is the best way to phrase this to the writer? Thanks!

There is no need to explain to the LOR writers that their letters will only be used for programs that require more than three letters. Ask them for a LOR as you normally would. Provide them with the info they need to write the letter: a list or the programs they need to send their letters to, your transcript, your resume, what you hope the writer will emphasize in their letter, etc. as usual. You do not need to tell them the other programs for which their letters will not be needed, nor do you need to elaborate on where they stand on your "ranking system."
Also, it is perfectly okay to have someone as the "fourth choice", as you put it. When you need four letters inevitably some potential writers will know you better than the others. The fact that someone doesn't know you the best is in no way a judgment of your (or your professor's) ability, and I'm sure your letter writers will understand this.