text:
Copy pasting sentences from abstracts of other papers for describing related work
This topic has already been described to some extent, e.g. here:
Is verbatim copying several paragraphs of text with citation considered plagiarism?
But I do no think that it has been completely discussed, especially in the context of related work and abstracts.
When I am writing the section about related work in my papers, I tend to describe the work of each other related researcher in a few sentences with my own words and referencing their papers. However, in a current paper that I am writing I have realised that the abstracts of more than a few papers that I want to mention are so well written and are so concise that I cannot do any better. Writing my description would be just a waste of time, and result in a less concise text.
So I am thinking about copy-pasting two or three sentences from the abstract of each referenced paper. And possibly adding, removing, or changing a word or two that may not be relevant in the context of the paper that I am writing, so it's not really a plain copy paste.
I have read that it may be a good idea to put quotes, but I find quotes, especially their immoderate use, as bad style.
Can I get in trouble for this? I would not go that far in considering anything of this as plagiarism, as the work is referenced and I am not taking credit for someone else's work.
Personally if one would do the same with my work, I would not be concerned at all, on the contrary, as long as not more than a few sentences are taken and the work is properly referenced, but you might have a different view.

The purpose of related work is to compare, taxonomize, etc not simply describe some papers on similar subjects. If your related work can be composed of parts of abstracts of papers you cite, you're probably doing it wrong.

I find quotes, especially their immoderate use, as bad style. I find copying and pasting large blocks of text from other sources with quotes as bad style. I find copying and pasting large blocks of text from other sources without quotes as plagiarism.

so well written and are so concise that I cannot do any better — So do worse.

So I am thinking about copy-pasting two or three sentences from the abstract of each referenced paper.

This seems absolutely appropriate, as long as you quote them correctly. Which brings us to:

I have read that it may be a good idea to put quotes, but I find quotes, especially their immoderate use, as bad style.

It is not only a good idea to do that, it is required. You need to make explicit that those are verbatim copies. The semantics of copying text from a paper and summarizing the key points yourself are different for a reader, and you need to make this difference explicit by demarking which parts you have taken in verbatim.

Can I get in trouble for this?

Yes.

I would not go that far in considering anything of this as plagiarism, as the work is referenced and I am not taking credit for someone else's work. Personally if one would do the same with my work, I would not be concerned at all, on the contrary, as long as not more than a few sentences are taken and the work is properly referenced, but you may have a different view.

This reminds me a bit of a few high-profile cases of plagiarisms that were going around lately in the german-speaking areas. Often, the excuses presented by the accused authors were similar ("hey, the text I copied wasn't really that important - it was just the introduction after all!", "I cited it anyway, I just did not make clear that the text is actually copied from there", etc.). These excuses never fly. Be rigorous with your handling of sources. Everything else is just playing with fire.

What if the paper I am citing/quoting is my own paper? For instance, I'm revising the description of a technical set up of a model that I have already used in another paper (already published by myself and the same co-authors, not in the same order tho). In an earlier submission of this manuscript, I just remanded the reader to the published reference, but one of the reviewers wants the description also here (including the equations). How can I rephrase my own description of a model structure? should I quote it in an annex? Would this be acceptable?

@Nemesi, that's a great question, but it is not a comment on this question. Please ask your questions separately. I repeat that it is a great question.

I cannot see that there is any exception to using quotes and providing the full, correct citation. It is honest and correct, anything less just doesn't cut it.

You can quote of course, but if you copy-paste without making clear this is a citation, then not appropriate. The smallest copyright unit is normally a sentence that must be rephrased.


text:
Can I use my blog posts for an academic publication?
It is not very clear in the publication guidelines of journals or conferences whether one can post some preliminary data or results online (blog, twitter, facebook, etc.), gather feedback, and then edit and publish such results in a journal or conference publication (but in other fields it has happened with some embarassement).
Can a researcher post a blog-entry, or use twitter, sharing data and results with a journal or conference paper? Would it be considered self-plagiarism?

You'd need to ask the specific journal if they're okay with it.  I suspect many would be, since many other forms of quasi-publication prior to a paper are acceptable.

thanks: it's this informality that worries me slightly

Discussing your work on social media should be treated no differently than a discussion that happens in the hallway outside of your office or in a video conference. Journals can't and won't forbid all manner of prior communication, otherwise they would never be able publish anything.

should be treated no differently — Yes, it should.  That's doesn't mean it is.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Deferring admission to a computer science graduate program
Background: I have the opportunity to pursue a Computer Science graduate degree at a well respected program (around top 20). I spoke with the professors at the university and I feel like I am a good fit with their research program. My ultimate pursuits are to complete a PhD in CS. I've done research as an undergraduate and it has only confirmed my notion that I want to pursue a research track career.
More background: I applied to jobs (in case I was rejected to all the programs I applied for) prior to hearing back from my respective graduate programs. I accepted a position for an industry job (this was to secure I wouldn't be both unemployed & not in school).
Dilemma: Turns out my top graduate school is very interested in me, and I'm very interested in them. I would rather go to graduate school than work in industry forever. The industry job pays very well. I am split between A) working for a maximum of 1 year(It would only be 1 year, seriously I do not care about the money enough to work past a year) and B) going straight to graduate school.
My concerns are as follows, if I choose A):

Could I potentially defer my admissions?
If I am not allowed to defer my admissions, would I have a good chance of re-applying and being accepted a year later?
Would my potential advisers look down on me for deciding to work a year?

I already made my mind up it would be a 1 year gig if I decide A). I know some people say once you make money, you may not be able to readjust to the graduate salary pay. But I don't think that will apply to because I'm going to live very frugally with or without industry pay.

Well before you need to make a decision, you should ask your target department if deferred admission is even an option.

Hey Jeff, I noticed the school does offer deferment, but it stated many departments only offer deferment for a term only. I guess either 1) I could just go straight into graduate school 2) defer a semester or 3) defer a year and re-apply. The industry job won't strengthen my application (other than saying I worked for a company that I would eventually like to do research in, since they have research positions for those with PhDs). I will talk with the admissions & my professors to make the best decision.

I'm afraid I have contradictory advice.

If you've been offered a funded place, there is no guarantee the funding will still be there in a year.  What you know is that you are good enough to get into a grad school, but there is a luck component too.  The school I went to told us that 1 in 10 applicants was good enough to get in, but less than 1 of 3 of those "good enough" could have places any particular year.  This is both because of funding constraints & because supervisors can only supervise so many people well at one time.  So you are very likely really deciding whether to work before going through the application process again.
Nevertheless, I agree with Sylvain that it is not a good idea to do a PhD always wondering whether you would have liked industry better.  I worked for 5 years before doing my PhD, and now I'm an associate professor.  Two things make this route hard though: 1) getting used to making money (I addressed this by putting most of my salary in savings) and 2) getting used to being treated as an adult.  But there is a big win when you hit the hard parts of your PhD & think "would I be happier in industry?  Nah, that was boring."  Friends that were academically stronger than but lacked that certainty had a tougher time during the troughs than I did.

Awesome answer, but one part is confusing: "being treated as an adult"? A PhD program (or even an undergrad program) that doesn't treat it's students like adults sounds seriously broken to me. What specifically did you mean?

Thanks for the complement Jeff.  Your question is subtle.  It comes down to the mentality of different people & places:  are students kids, or are they peers, or something in between?  Do you just get told what to do, or do you get reasoned & negotiated with? In my experience, the UK largely treats even undergrads as adults, while in the USA I had grad-student peers come in expecting to party like they were in highschool.  It's very much cultural. I do think work experience helps give you give you the knowledge that you can always walk away, and that's a big part of being an adult.

You could defer admission, but it's a little unusual to defer for a year. Check with the departmental grad advisor and make sure everything is absolutely clear on this front
It's a risk: admissions pools vary from year to year, and maybe the professor who wanted to take you on doesn't have funding, or already hired another student and doesn't have room for more.
I doubt any advisor would look down on you for working a year. I don't see why, especially in computer science.

Other questions to ask:

will the job make your application look stronger next time ?
are you ok with not being able to get into this university and having to reapply and get in elsewhere ?

In particular, much to my surprise, my department (university?) does not offer deferred admission.

I will advise exactly the contrary of what bravo just said in another answer : go for A ! If you don't, there is a good probability that you will ask yourself continuously "was my choice to go for a PhD the best one?". With this year of experience, you will know for sure what you want, this is priceless. And this is the best way to be really focused on your thesis, if you finally decide to go for it.

On the other hand, many students who go straight from undergrad to grad school get this insight via summer internships.

Summer internships during the PhD are quite unusual in some countries ;) And maybe an internship and a job do not give the same view of industry.

If I were to make an opinion out of whatever you have said in this post, I will say go for B without further thought :)
Reasons: 1) A one year industry job is hardly helpful as an experience anywhere, let alone for a prospective PhD. There is another question on this forum analysing the worth of job before PhD.
2) You have said you are not too much into money and also live frugally. Bravo, you are tailor-made for the academia! You could surely earn more in the one year after PhD, and ensure you begin graduate coursework at the earliest.

This decision strongly depends on your character and goals, so you should ask yourself what you will gain and loose while working in the industry for a year / going to grad school right away. What skills will you learn while working that will help you with PhD later? Will you have enough motivation to complete your PhD if you do not take a year off school? Will your college wait for you / defer acceptance? Are you a kind of person for who it takes a while to get into a routine (of a job - or of taking classes)?
I guess these are just more questions rather than answers, but I do not think anyone can (or should) give you a definite "A" or "B" answer.

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


text:
References in Executive Summary?
When writing a Deliverable for the European Commission I'm commanded to include an Executive Summary at the top of the document. This Executive Summary includes the main outcomes of the research done for the Deliverable, including what I've read from others research.
Of course anything I've learnt is formally referenced, and by style decision I have to employ APA style. Should I put the cites and references in the Executive Summary as well?
PROS:

If by any reason the executive summary is separated from the real
document, it is stated clearly that I don't pretend to pass any
others insights as mine.

CONS:

The Executive Summary occupies nearly one and a half pages more
(APA!)
Extensive citing makes the reading slower, and more difficult if you're not used to read academic papers.

So I'm worried to make the Executive Summary unuseful by adding too much formalism.
Any experiences on that?

My general answer would be: No. Summaries should summarize the work/report and anyone reading the summary will not need to go to references to check on sources since those are given in the report itself. I can see exceptions from this if one or two references are key to the report by for example, being ground-breaking or by being in conflict. Then it may be important to show from where the key aspects originate and to perhaps list the single r couple of references after the text. But, the persons reading the summary may not be familiar with referencing so make sure you know your intended audience and the style they are familiar with. It may still not be necessary to provide references but to reference the material by stating the author name(s) and the place of publication without reference details. Again, the report summarized in your Exec. Summary will have the details.

Thanks, I'll omit most references and use just the surname for a specific definition. Thus the reader is not deceived in any case and may easily find the actual reference.


text:
How does already having an academic scholarship affect graduate school admissions?
I'm currently applying to Grad school- mechanical engineering-and have a full academic scholarship to continue my education from the government.
Does this make it easier for me to gain acceptance to top schools like Stanford and Carnegie for masters? I'm doing the GRE in 3 weeks, but will I still need a 165+ in the math section to be admitted just like everyone else?
My GPA isn't stellar either. I guess the only stellar thing about my application is that I already secured funding.

Having your own funding may help, e.g. if you are a good match for a faculty member who has an interest in supervising a PhD student, but does not have enough funding to support one at the moment. But no department wants to waste time and resources (e.g. supervision resources, for example) on a student that is not capable of meeting standards in the department. And given that a department's PhD students represent its "brand," no department wants to admit a student whose work will reflect negatively on the department.
So yes, even if you have your own funding, you still need to show the department you're applying to that you're capable of meeting their standards.

Generally speaking, in the calibre of institutions you're identifying, the admissions process does not include financial considerations in its decision.  However, It certainly doesn't hurt to have a full scholarship, and it would be great to mention if the scholarship was a merit-based prize.

Do you have any evidence (e.g. links) to support this assertion for graduate admissions, for the institutions the OP mentioned? Most official need-blind admission policies only apply to undergraduate students. (And even institutions that are need-blind for undergraduate admissions are usually need-aware for international students, with very few exceptions.)

I was dining with a friend who just completed a PhD from Carnegie, she said that money had zero to do with her acceptance.  By all means, mention that you have the scholarship, there's no way it can HURT your chances.

OTOH word on the street is that winning a fellowship like the NSF GRFP can get you off a waiting list at some schools. So I guess YMMV

And as I said in my answer:  a merit-based scholarship award is a GREAT mention.


text:
Is it prudent for new faculty to abstain from voting in a job search if the rest of department faculty is highly divided?
There is a job search in my department. The department is extremely divided on the candidates. As new faculty, should I abstain from voting? Is this a prudent choice?

Is the voting anonymous? What are you hoping to achieve by either voting or abstaining? And what exactly do you mean by "a good move"?

@DanRomik presumably by "good move" the OP means not submarining his/her chance for tenure.

Keep in mind that as a new faculty member, you're going to be working with the new hire for longer than anyone else.  So it could be that some short-term political complications are a fair price to pay for having a say in the long-term direction of the department.

Anonymity-or-not is one crucial issue here...

Is the divide a territorial feud, or is it based on quality/strategy? If you are unfortunate to find yourself in the former, I would be very cautious; if the latter, I would consider voicing my opinion if I felt it could contribute constructively to the discussion. What do other assistant professors do? You give very little to go on--department climate is a critical key to your dliemma.

Let me add that votes on hires as well as tenure and promotion are probably the most important votes cast by faculty. Your department should provide faculty with the ability to cast their vote "safely."

Vote in opposition to the oldest faculty members. They'll be gone soon.

It could be. It could also be a disastrous move. There is no way an outsider can judge just how messy your department is. Your best bet is to find someone in your department that you trust and ask them. I personally think just abstaining for a hiring vote is a little weird. If you go down the abstain route, you may be best off abstaining from all votes.
The keep silent strategy can work, but in really divided departments, at some point before tenure review you are going to have to take sides.

I suppose to some extent, this depends on how new you are.  You were invited in to the department to participate as a faculty member, and that has to start eventually.
I suppose it also has to do with whether you understand the issues surrounding why the department isn't coalescing on a single candidate.  If the reasons concern long-standing departmental issues that you don't have a grip on yet, you might choose to listen, to bring yourself up to speed, instead of talking.
If you feel that you are in a position to have a UNIQUE VIEW that the rest of your faculty can't have -- like maybe you're  the only faculty member in the same professional organization as one of the candidates, and every time the candidate gets up to speak in front of colleagues, the attendees start laughing uncontrollably because the ideas advanced are so silly (this is, of course, an absurd case, before the downvotes roll in).  If this is the case, you have insight that your faculty doesn't share, and you owe it to them to chime in.
If you don't have any strong views, and think you can work equally well with either candidate, you might say so, then sit back and watch how things work out.
Another tack you can take is to not go public, but just send an informal note to your chair summarizing your views, or just a note saying what professional interactions you envision personally for each candidate, without endorsing either, to give the boss some more info to be used for a decision.  Of course, you can't assume that your email won't be shared.  You could also just have a conversation with your chair.
Lastly, consider the environment surrounding the recruitment.  You're a new hire, and your department is making another new hire.  Your department is expanding.  Is the cluster of hires intended to create strength and depth in an area of research in which you are involved??  If so, I think you need to chime in, as this new recruit is being brought in as your colleague, and your opinion may be central for consideration.

It all depends on WHY they're divided.  If it's about the overall direction of the department, then that suggests a different course than if they're divided on the candidates' qualifications and body of work.
There's no real way to give a concrete answer. Is the dispute pedagogical? Ideological? Personal?  Affirmative-action-y?  Is it old-guard vs. young-lions?  Is your future tenure committee firmly on one particular side?
Bear in mind, in candidate searches it's also valid to vote "none of the above."

Perhaps you could elaborate on what the best course of action might be in each of the two cases you mention? Right now, this post doesn't actually answer the question, since it doesn't actually suggest to the OP how to proceed in either case.

@ff524 I was going to elaborate, as you suggest, but realize that we have no information that would suggest which course to take.  Any concrete suggestion I might make could be wrong for a hundred different (but yet-undisclosed) reasons.

I disagree, @dan1111...this is the kind of valid question for which the valid answer is a rubric for selecting among choices, rather than advocating a particular choice.

Every open expression of opinion, can be considered an "investment of reputation". That investment can pay off, or it can be lost. Reputation can be invested purely for political reasons (e.g. to increase your own, which however may be considered questionable), or to improve a faculty-level decision in a strategic way which you consider favourable to you. As a new faculty, you probably do not have a lot of reputation points yet, so you should be sure that you invest wisely.
So the importance of the decision and the quality of the investment should be balanced with your information about the case (departmental strategy, candidate, etc.) whether this is an investment you intend to make. If you do not have enough information, as in a business investment, staying away from it is a perfectly reasonable decision. Just work on acquiring more information for the future.
Note that, also, if you are a very new faculty, some departments may regard that as premature for you to join in with hiring decisions - you would have to find out whether this is the case; as a plausible rule, if this hire takes place essentially in the same "batch" of hires in which you were brought on board, it probably would be good form to not interfere with the hires.

[Note: The OP's original question is extremely vague, so let me clarify that I'm answering the question as it was interpreted by later editors]
In my opinion a key question here is whether the vote on the search is done by a secret ballot. The goal of secret ballots, in faculty votes and more generally, is to allow people to vote their conscience. If the ballot is secret, then I would advise you to vote for whatever option seems to you to be preferable for the future of the department, and not to be influenced by any political considerations. If you are genuinely unable to decide which option is better, due to being new at the department or for any other reason, then you should abstain -- this is precisely what abstentions are for.
If the ballot is not secret, then it should be. Faculty votes on sensitive decisions pertaining to hiring and promotions should always be confidential and anonymous, precisely to allow people to express their honest opinions without fear of repercussions, and to prevent well-known negative phenomena such as groupthink and factionism. What I suggest in that case is to go to your department chair and express concern that you are unable to vote according to your true opinion without fear of being seen as taking sides in a politicized, divided debate, which is untenable given your status in the department. Tell the chair that therefore you will be abstaining unless the vote is held as a secret ballot, and ask for the chair's help in ensuring that the abstention is understood by other faculty members and does not antagonize any of the factions.
I think this approach minimizes the risk of offending people, although it may not completely eliminate it. Furthermore, although I am incredulous that some departments even hold non-secret ballots on hiring decisions, I have a feeling that in some places where this happens there may be a policy that says the ballot can be made secret if this is asked for by one or more faculty. In that case, going to the chair can actually make a difference in ensuring that the vote is held as a secret ballot, thereby resolving your dilemma.

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


text:
Value of an industry postdoc for an R&D career in industry
I see lot of industry postdoc positions these days. I am interested in working for industry (R&D/product development) and not academia. But would a industry postdoc be helpful to find a good job in industry? Or would it be better to get a regular job & get experience that way?
I know postdocs are seen as necessary in biological sciences, even for industry jobs. But is that so for engineering too?
P.S: Industry postdocs are what companies like Genentech, Pfizer have introduced trying to bridge academia with industry.

I am not sure I understand the question. What's the difference between industry postdoc and industry post PhD?

By a good job in industry, do you mean permanent positions such as scientists while by industry postdoc you mean short term appointments such as 1 -2 years contractors? Please clarify. If this is what you mean, I am afraid this is not the right site for your question. We are Academia SE.

Research jobs in industry are on topic here. It might help if you would [edit] your post to clarify what kind of job you are hoping for, what you mean by a "regular" job, etc.

@scaaahu - I have edited the question to make it easier to understand.

I think the connection with Academia SE is that the OP is wondering whether a postdoc of some sort is as necessary/helpful in engineering as he has noticed it is in, for example, biology.

@aparente001 What's the reason for the new tag? We generally try to create tags only when they are unambiguous, it is clear when and why to apply them to new questions, and they are clearly distinct from existing tags. This one is not (to me)

@ff524 - R&D seems to me to be worthy of making a new tag, but if you don't, feel free to delete it.

@aparente001 It's not really clear to me how it's distinct from [tag:research]. (And both research and research-and-development do not seem like suitable tags for this post, which is not about doing R&D, but is more about a career-path)

@ff524 - Perhaps you'd like to pose a question about this on Meta, instead of discussing it here....  Alternatively, as I said, if you feel quite sure, I will not be offended if you want to uproot this fledgling tag before it gets woody.

@SRK - In addition to the helpful answers from Jake and Danny -- I think there are academic postdocs available with groups that have a strong tie to industry.  That would be another way of preparing for a job in industry.  On the other hand, if someone wants to hire you in a permanent position doing something you're interested in -- you'd probably want to skip the industry postdoc, and go for the better salary and job security prospects!

@aparente001- Thank you. The industry postdoc is a new concept ( netherworld between academia & industry). I am finding it hard to get a permanent industry position of liking in engineering R&D. Based on the blogs out there I saw that industry postdocs like at Genentech & Pfizer are sought after (maybe!). I just wanted to get some inputs on whether they would be valuable to for an career in industrial R&D (since I am not interested in academia). The way I see it, companies may want to get the same job done by paying a much lower salary.

There will be no one answer, since there is no standard regulating how companies do things, and typically a great deal of variety from company to company.
If you are looking for a long-term R&D job, however, a postdoc is usually an excellent way to get a foot in the door.  Most big companies are pretty much always trying to hire high-quality new people. Since a permanent position hire is generally a fairly long-term investment, they'd really prefer to only hire known quantities if they could.
A postdoc can thus provide a good "getting to know you" trial run for both sides.  By the end of the postdoc, you'll know if you'd like to work at the company long-term, and the people making the hiring decision at the company will know if they want to have you working with them long-term.

Is this answer generally applicable to engineering companies (not just biological sciences)?

@scaaahu in my experience, yes.

Any industry experience is relevant when you are applying for a job in industry. As a matter of fact, the content of the experience and the depth are much more important than the form (postdoc, internship, etc).
So, if you seek a job in e.g. telecommunication, make sure your post graduation experience is preferably about telecommunication, and not about something less related, regardless of the form.


text:
How to deal with advisor who wants me to submit dissertation on time even though there's a major problem?
I'm on my last month before the deadline to hand in my dissertation.
I found a severe problem with the work that renders it pretty much pointless and I pointed out to my advisor that I would need some extra time to fix the problem and at least achieve the objective of the work. He basically told me to keep writing the dissertation in order to meet the deadline, without trying to fix the problem. My advisor is also going on a sabbatical, so it feels like he's pushing me towards handing in my dissertation regardless if the work is complete or not. This would pretty much guarantee that I'd have to provide bleak explanations to the committee that will discuss the work with me (because telling them that my advisor rushed me isn't an option).
I really don't want to create a conflict with my advisor. Plus, I'm having a terrible time trying to meet the deadline and my motivation is pretty much gone. I'm considering quitting the program without handing in my dissertation and pursue other career options.
Should I hand in the dissertation even though there's this problem that renders it useless? Or should I try to convince my advisor to get me more time to fix the problem (even though he seems reluctant)? Should I not do any of this and just simply quit the program?

The committee isn't a firing squad.  Talk to a sympa member of your committee.

Depende on the deadline - the university I am with gives people a 4 year dedline for a PhD (target is 3 years but you need a well working research group for that....). - If you do not submit, the university considers you to have failed. (Yes, stupid I know, it is what happens when you commericalise academia.) - In this case, submitting is really your only choice if you don't want to fail. Without the details of your university's terms I don't think there is a lot people can advise. In contrast, many places in Germany have no formal deadline but depend on your advisor's availability.

@DetlevCM I can ask for a deadline extention of a year, even if I don't use the full extention and submit the dissertation before the end of that period. But, to get that extra time, my advisor has to be on board. If I don't ask for an extention and don't submit the dissertation, then the university considers I failed.

@J.Harris In this case, if you think you can definietly fix the issue you identified within a year I would look at going into overtime to improve the thesis. But the discussion would be between you and your supervisor really.  It may also be that he does not want to leave you to work on the topic alone when he takes his sabbatical and does not want work to intrudde on it.

@DetlevCM A few of my colleagues are starting their dissertations with the same advisor right in the middle of his sabbatical, so I don't think he's agains having work intruding on it.

@J.Harris I would still stick to my previous statement - if you can fix your mistake within a year I think it shoud be fixed before the thesis is submitted I would say it should be. However the final decision is between you and your supervisor.

telling them that my advisor rushed me isn't an option — [citation needed]

The following is based on my experience in neuroscience. Not sure if this generalizes to other fields.
I think you have two ways to work here, and each is equally "right".
First, you can do exactly as your advisor suggests, working towards completing the thesis even though there's a major flaw. This happens probably more often than you think; I learned halfway through my own thesis that the work I was doing was not generalizable at all due to bad design, and overall was pretty bad science. Oops. The thing is, it's a dissertation, not a peer-reviewed publication. The goal of your dissertation is for you to demonstrate to your committee that you know how to perform research, not for you to contribute overall to science. Your advisor's pushing you to complete your thesis may be him espousing this very idea; namely, your fixing everything up should be saved for your peer-reviewed publications, not for your thesis. Given that (in neuroscience) it is a pretty rare event for someone to refer back to a dissertation thesis when performing a literature search, the fact that your thesis document may be rendered moot isn't such a big deal; mention it in the introduction, results, and conclusion sections and just publish as is. Fix the problem in the journal articles.
The second approach is that, if it has your name on it, it should be publication-worth, and dang if you're going to let something with this obvious an error be in the public record.
Honestly, I don't think either one is wrong. The first one can save you valuable time and advance your career by months/years, and if you're in a field where your thesis doesn't mean much then it's probably the right choice. The second one may make you look better overall, and may be a requirement if your field places more weight on the thesis document itself.
Not sure if that helps, but it may give you some perspective.

"No research is ever useless. At worst, it documents something that didn't work."

+1 For finishing the thesis first and being open about the flaws in it, and then fixing the flaws when you turn it into a paper. You could even write in the thesis a paragraph about future work you plan to do in order to fix the issues. If you have decent publications, your thesis becomes less important.

Science? What if OP is a humanities person? Seems unlikely but still :P

And, of course, ask your advisor why he wants you to finish, and confirm that he indeed wants you to do the first thing.

I had the same experience as the OP - halfway through my work I realized how my experimental design is bad and that I will not definitely solve any "real" problem in my work. I remember the self-doubt associated with this period. Now I know that this simply happens: it is hard to know beforehand whether something will work and it is easy to have unrealistic expectations of your research. Did you consider the option that both your advisor and the committee don't expect your work to be perfect?

Since when does that apply? "The goal of your dissertation is for you to demonstrate to your committee that you know how to perform research, not for you to contribute overall to science." Since academia became a business? - A PhD was always (!!) about making a novel (albeit today often small) contribution to science.

@MartinČerný Yes, I did consider that work doesn't have to be perfect but, without fixing the problem I found, the work is pretty much useless because nothing works.

@DetlevCM The question is tagged masters, so I'm assuming that it's a masters thesis. In my neck of the academic woods, masters thesis often have a stricter time limit than a PhD thesis, but the expectation of contributing something novel to science is not that high. A small contribution like I tried this and it didn't work because X is good enough for a masters. If this was a PhD question and the fixing does not take too long, then I'd be all for fixing it.

@Sumyrda Indeed it is tagged Masters (I didn't see it before). BUT: DIfferent countries, different standards. In Germany, many Bachelor's theses already do useful work - the Diploma's definitely did. And in other countries the Master's thesis already contributes to science. This happens mainly when you have a very active supervisor. On the contrary, my BSc experience from the UK is that it is mainly work to show that you can do it. (No idea about Masters, I went BSc -> PhD, viva soon)

If the OP is unmotivated and considering quitting, it seems quite clear that option 1 is the way to go.

@DetlevCM What you say is true (I'm German, too), but what I meant with my comment is that "I tried X, it didn't work because Y" already is a small contribution to science, and while it won't get you the highest grade in most cases, it is still enough to get you a masters. But that might vary from subject to subject and university to university.

@Sumyrda Of course "I tried X it didn't work because of Y" is a contribution, BUT: Any flaw in a thesis is an "attack vector" - even more so if you know of the flaw. The OP suggests it is a serious prolem in his work. He sounds as if he can fix it, and in this case he should - a serious problem also doesn't sound like "I tried x it didn't work" (there is some of that in my UK thesis actually...) A thesis should be as robust as possible - IF it is possible to fix a problem it should be fixed. I would only leave it, if a fix is truly not possible (e.g. lack of equipment, research funds).

I will begin by offering my sympathies on what sounds like a tough situation.
I think that you need to have a frank talk with your advisor ASAP.  What he's telling you to do might or might not be good advice.  Which one it is depends, in particular, on how serious the problem really is and/or what the prospects are for fixing it by the deadline.  Practically speaking, the first is something that will be primarily determined by your thesis committee.  If you think the work is without value but the committee disagrees, then you will still end up with a master's degree, which is what you presumably want.  Of course it would be better to turn in a thesis that you feel better about and/or is actually better / not flawed but...is that option still on the table?  If you have no motivation, are not enjoying your program and are seriously considering quitting right now, then it may not be.  From a rational perspective it's hard for me to see what advantage there is to quitting a program and getting no master's degree versus getting a master's degree with a thesis that is (either apparently or objectively) rather poor.  You shouldn't try to hide the flaws from your committee -- that would be a form of academic dishonesty -- but it's hard to see why it shouldn't be grudgingly acceptable to you if it's grudgingly acceptable to them.
The worst case, it seems to me, is that you are headed for a thesis that is not going to be acceptable to the committee and your advisor somehow doesn't care to get involved enough to avoid this.  That's what you want to find out.

I really don't want to create a conflict with my advisor.

No one wants to create a conflict with their advisor, but in your situation your aversion to conflict seems not to be what an objective, outside observer would regard as rational behavior.  Always assuming that you behave civilly and that your advisor has no extra-professional leverage on you....what's the worst thing that can happen if you have a real professional falling out with your advisor?  You might get kicked out of the program without a degree?  That's what you're contemplating anyway, so this seems to be a situation where if you can't get what you want without rocking the boat, then go ahead and rock it.  (This could be bad advice if you want to start up a different master's program elsewhere and you need your advisor's recommendation.  But that doesn't sound like it's the case.)
From the vantage point of someone who does not know you or your situation but has seen some pretty shaky work be awarded a master's degree, I would encourage you to avoid the impulse of bailing out on your degree unless there is no other reasonable alternative.  I think it's very likely that N years down the line it will be strongly in your best interest to have the credential in your pocket.  I think most people who don't continue on in academia forget mostly to entirely about their thesis work whether it's good or bad, and I don't know of many mechanisms that would dredge up this past work.
Hang in there, and good luck.

As far as mechanisms to dredge up past works go: random internet schmucks tend to suffice these days.  Depending on the university, your thesis may be made available online.  If so, anyone who, for whatever (potentially random) reason, decides they want to see it can look it up, give or take a paywall.  I don't imagine this would be a problem, unless there are serious ethical violations (such as plagiarism) involved with the thesis.

@zibadawa No plagiarism involved. But, if I have the option to get an extra month and finish it (given that my advisor approves), why shouldn't I be allowed use that time to fix the problem and hand in a dissertation in which the work actually achieves the main goal? For reference: I haven't asked for any extra time until now.

@J.Harris That's definitely something you should have an honest discussion with your advisor about.  Unless you're one of your advisor's first students, they may very well have experience that tells them what is in your best interest: getting a not-so-great thesis done now, or getting a better thesis done later.  One month more may mean a large number of post-graduation employment doors are closed because they started their hiring process already, for example.

@zibadawa: I agree that there are often ways to find master's theses online nowadays.  However, a master's thesis hides rather nicely in the great sea of online master's theses.  The average amount of interest in an average master's thesis is (in my neck of the academic woods, at least) extremely small.  The likely amount of interest in a below average master's thesis is probably less.  Of course one should not put known errors in a thesis, as I mentioned in my answer, but the risk of "public embarrassment" seems rather small.

@J. Harris: You should definitely feel free to ask for extra time if you want to use it and if it seems like that could be helpful.  That sounds like a good idea to me.  Somehow I took from the tone of your message that both you and your advisor want to be finished with this one way or the other in one month's time.  It would be better if that were not the case...

@zibadawa 3 out of 4 of my colleagues had the same advisor and they just quit because they figured they would never finish their dissertations. The colleague that did finish the dissertation did so after he got a one year extention, and his dissertation clearly wasn't complete.

@PeteL.Clark I would love it if I could get the extra time to be able to complete my work and hand in a dissertation that actually has a chance to be accepted by the committee. But my advisor doesn't seem to be leaning towards that... I just feel like it's better to quit while I'm ahead than having the committee not accepting my work due to something that could be fixed.

@J. Harris: Again, sympathy for your situation, but...in what sense would you be "ahead" if you quit now?  Rather you should find out whether you can get from where you are to a master's degree in one month.  Your advisor sounds like he is a bit of a knucklehead if none of his four other students finished their degree on time, which makes me think that it could be more effective than usual for you to take the bull by the horns and have a frank conversation with him about this.  What's the downside to doing that?  (You can talk to the other committee members too, and perhaps you should...)

You aren't doing the thesis for the benefit of your supervisor.  And if they are going on a sabattical, it may make no difference if they are unhappy, because they won't be there anyway.
I would suggest two things you need to do:

Check the rules of your institution about late submission.  There may be something you have to do, such as re-registering for another year.  Don't miss out on a degree because of some minor procedural error.
Discuss the problem with someone more senior, such a head of department or faculty.  They make be able to produce a way forward, perhaps with another supervisor.

It's not possible to directly answer without knowing exactly what the problems with the work are. That said, having problems does not necessarily make the work useless.  If nothing else, the work you've done to date has uncovered a problem, which has value.  There may be  a disconnect between how bad you think the problem is and how bad your adviser thinks it is.  It may well be that its not as serious as you think.
If you choose to go ahead and write/defend, covering up the problem and hoping the committee doesn't see it SHOULD NOT be an option.  Be frank in your discussion, and in the dissertation fairly evaluate the impact the issue has on the interpretation of your data.  Put the best slant on it that you can, and work with your adviser and committee to do so, but a less than stellar experiment is not a reason to put your integrity on the line.

Talk to an expert that is on the committee/advisory.
Chances are it's too late to do serious rework, but as a scientist/student your job is to learn and identity such faults in research (as you now know, the sooner the better) so "operation cover up" is asking for a bit of trouble if you don't say anything.   But going against your advisor is not good so seeking independent help, _since_they_are_leaving_and_cant_help_you_, puts you in the situation of having to act.   A thesis isn't the end of world despite all the work, but it does have to handled professionally, and with academical ethics.
  If it were peer-review then the answer would be different, as would the goal.
  If you were doing corporate sponsored work, your boss would want to know (even though they would probably say, budget constraints fill in what you can - but that's their risk).
  Today you have to show you are professional and can do the work.
But don't go off empty heads on the 'net.

If my advisor doesn't give me the extra time to fix the issue, I'm definitely going to point out the problem in the dissertation.

I think you may need to adjust your perspective on what the requirements of your program is.  You are trying to obtain your master's degree, not produce a publishable work of pure art.  If your adviser's advice helps you to obtain the degree, then they are doing their job.  If you're afraid that their advice will result in failure to obtain the degree, then seek out better advice. If you don't fully understand the requirements enough to understand whether a flawed "dissertation" will satisfy the program requirements, then seek understanding.
For instance, you have tagged the question "masters" but then mention "dissertation" several times rather than thesis.  What exactly does your program require?  Does it merely require you to show that you are capable of Master's level research?  It often doesn't involve novel research - some master's degrees only require that you review the existing research, explore it, and show that you've gained a certain level of mastery over the subject and current research. If you are in such a program and have performed additional novel research, it may not matter that the research is flawed - you've already exceeded the standard.
It's also possible that this is the best way to obtain a needed extension. Meet the deadline with the work you have, demonstrate that you've gained enough mastery over the subject to realize that it needs more work, and the committee may simply send you back to work on it more without failing to meet the deadline. This may seem odd, but the process isn't uncommon.
Regardless, try to understand the bar that is set for obtaining the degree you are pursuing. If you understand what is required, then seek to understand the process.  If you truly believe that your adviser doesn't understand the requirements and/or process, then educate them and try to understand why they are mis-advising you.  You may learn something new, or they may learn something new.  Either way, focus on what you have to do to get the degree, and try to work with the adviser.

Switch  advisors !!! Sure, he's going on a sabbatical, and as above, maybe find a sympathetic committee member to explain the problem as to why you can't get more time.

Switching advisors at this stage is likely to be a LOT more difficult and problematic than requesting an extension. This does not seem like good advice.


text:
How to show special respect to a famous PhD advisor?
I am about to enter a 3-year PhD. Neither my bachelor’s nor my master’s were research-oriented nor very typical for my field, and I had to find a potential supervisor on my own. Due to my background, I also do not have a good grasp of academia’s unwritten rules.
Last year, I fortuitously met a rock star professor, one of the top 5 most cited scholars in quite a large field. He got interested in my project, gave me huge support for my proposal, and wrote a wonderful LoR. We also got very well along on a personal level and would chat about things loosely related to academia. He is someone with a very casual style but with clear respect for boundaries. I admire him enormously, both as a scholar and as a person.
I was accepted under his supervision by a very laudatory committee. Academia being a very hierarchical world, I feel compelled to show "extra respect" to him, partly because he is famous and partly because my unconventional background sets me at a disadvantage compared to others. It seems likely that high-status academics would tacitly expect their students (i.e. without explicitly asking for it) to go to greater length for them, whether in terms of work output or in overall signs of deference. I know that they are "just human", but they are also around the top of a very special system.
I tried mentioning this to my now-supervisor, but he keeps blushing when I remind him of his academic status. He seemed to think that I was worried about my application "not being good enough" rather than about failing to show adequate deference to him. The obvious thing I could do for him would be to submit a paper before the start of my PhD. I have never written a paper before, as it seems uncommon in my field (but not unheard of) to do one that early. But he said a few times that he does not need me to do that right now, and I do not know if he means "don’t do that" or "I politely say no but would be happy if you did it anyway, and slightly disappointed if you didn’t".
I have a half-done paper addressing a recent debate around my supervisor’s main theoretical contribution, and I am confident that it can be a substantial paper if well-executed. Yet I am exhausted, and my supervisor is unlikely to help me on it before I start my PhD. What should I do?

EDIT: To clarify, this is a question about the "extra" that famous professors may expect from their PhD students. In my case, I went for a writing a paper on a subject of my choice, then submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal and hopefully avoiding desk-rejection. It feels like a huge task, but how to do it is not really the issue at hand. I would happily have presented at a major conference instead, but the conference I was accepted to did not manage to move online. A couple editors from reputable journals encouraged me to submit a paper as a master’s student, so I assumed it was a tough but realistic thing I could as that little "extra" for my supervisor.
For context, I studied in France and my supervisor is in/from Northern Europe. My field is in the social sciences.

The question at the end of your post seems different from the question in the title.

I don't understand what it means to write a paper for someone.

Definitely do this, but do it five years after you finish your degree.

I still don't understand what the point of the lengthy discussion about you current supervisor is.  It seems entirely unrelated to your question.

In response to your edit: can you explain why you think a famous professor would expect or demand more from their students than a non-famous one? It seems more like you are placing that expectation on yourself rather than it coming (either explicitly or implictly) from your supervisor.

@astronat it certainly doesn’t come from my supervisor. Given that famous/influential professors are in higher demand from prospective students, and that they have more power to make their students work, it makes sense that their students have to meet a higher bar than most. And I am influenced by my own experience of university. I remember a sociology class where students arriving late had to sit on the floor because they were like "impure" in the traditional Indian purity system (but this is getting off-topic)

@Kalyoo If that story is typical of your university experience, then by Western academic standards your experience was completely unreasonable and it's very possible you've come away with a dangerously warped sense of how things are supposed to be done in (again, Western) academia. So I think it's very important that you edit your question to say which part of the world you're in so answerers know what academic culture to advise you on. Depending on that, it's quite possible you will need a lot more advice than you can get from just this question.

Show respect to your mom, she did more for you than any rockstar supervisor ever will.

I'm not sure but it seems like you might be suffering a bit from what's called "impostor syndrome," where we convince ourselves that we're not worthy of our successes, even though we are. It's particularly common in academia. Your advisor hired you because he, and the committee, saw your potential. He knows what he's doing and you can trust him to be honest with you about what's expected of you.

euh... utilizer 'vous' :D

@astronat academia typically IS highly hierarchical in organization, i.e. typically the professor or the group leader has the final word on what is done and what is not done and what resources their team members can use for what and which not. It's just that (western) academia also has a very casual and ad-hoc atmosphere and very limited intra-research-group bureaucracy. That being said, what OP refers to seems more like an archaic honour codex that I would perhaps expect in Japan or some other Asian countries, but in general and not particularly in academia.

How can your supervisor respect you if you act like such a sycophant? Stop it right now, before he starts to regret accepting you.

I don't know what field you're in, but in mine, writing such a paper would be viewed as unnecessary and perhaps a bit strange. You seem to feel that you don't deserve your place with this supervisor, and so you need to prove your worth, or impress them, by writing a paper. This is unecessary, as you have already impressed them with your project idea and PhD application. They would not have taken you on as a student otherwise. Along these lines, you might want to search the term "impostor syndrome", both on this site and on Google.
"I am exhausted...". The last thing you need to be doing right now is writing an unnecessary paper with no help from anyone. A PhD is a several-year-long marathon, and you will need all your energy and stamina to complete it. Take a break, rest and recharge before you start. This will have a far greater benefit to your PhD, and accordingly to your relationship with your supervisor, than writing a paper.
Once you have started the PhD, show your current paper draft to your supervisor and work on it together. The paper will be much better for it. Again, this is field dependent, but in mine it would be extremely rare for a beginning PhD student to be capable of writing a publishable paper entirely on their own. You may be underestimating the challenge. This is something that your supervisor will help you with.
But for now, have a holiday, and celebrate your success at being accepted for a PhD with a great supervisor!

Great answer and I couldn't stress this more myself. You don't show a supervisor "extra respect" by writing a paper before you start your PhD. That sounds really weird. The best you can do is make sure you're well-rested, and then from day one when you actually start, do your best and impress him with steady progress. But don't worry either if that doesn't happen each week, you will inevitably also have hard moments during a PhD.

Nice answer. It is not an easy task to write an admirable paper for an admirable scholar. Especially for a neophyte Ph.D. student. Keep this work in mind and postpone it to the end of your Ph.D. You will have a far better understanding of what a good research is at that time.

@KratosMath, I would say that it's not an easy task to write a paper with an admirable scholar, rather than for one. A PhD student is a collaborator. Admittedly, they're a junior one, but the goal should be to work together to discover things rather than reinforcing only the PI's glory.

@Matt totally agree!

I have worked with supervisors who are very humble while successful to those who are extremely egoistic due to their accomplishments. In my personal opinion, it is not wise to give Godly status to any person. He is your PhD supervisor, a famous one, but there are thousands of famous people in this world. And fame is subjective. Be professional, be polite and show respect. Do not overdo it as it might cause following issues.
Your colleagues will show distrust in you if you eulogized him, especially if they have a poor relationship with him. By keeping it completely professional you will less likely belong to a specific group in your lab. Same is with other potential supervisors and co-supervisors.
The 3 year PhD journey is not small. There will be ups and downs and without a doubt, there will be times when you will feel poorly treated or exploited. Those time will feel more awful if it comes from the same person who you eulogized.
Most importantly, you must keep your research above person. Write a paper because it needs to be written. Because you want to convey your findings to the community. Not because you wish to impress your supervisor or prove to yourself that you are worthy of doing research. You would end up doing a poor job in your research with that mindset.
You supervisor is just an ordinary human being who did some good research work. There are millions like him. And in a few years, you could be one too.

+1 for your point about why research should be done, excellent answer.

Even though you have not indicated where your Ph.D. studies are going to be, it is clear from your description of your advisor's behavior that he is not expecting special deference to him.
I would say that the way to show him respect is to trust him when he says "don't do that." Then learn as much as you can in the program, and accomplish great things in your career. That is what he ultimately wants from you.

Great answer! If you really respect your supervisor, rather than simply want to "show repect", then believe his statements about what he wants.

Disclaimer: Customs and individual preferences can differ, and this is  my best guess.
I wouldn't recommend that you show particular deference to your advisor, just because he is famous. Be respectful and polite of course, and deferential to some extent, but it's not necessary to be more so than if your advisor was lesser-known.
I wouldn't recommend reminding him of his own academic status. He is well aware of it already. He will be constantly reminded of this, by the large number of people asking him for recommendation letters, for advice, for input on this or that, wanting to show off their papers to him, etc.
When "he said a few times that he does not need me to do that right now", my best guess is that you should take him at his word. If you have time and energy to spare, you might do some background reading related to the topic of your thesis; this might help you get off to a strong start. Alternatively, you say you are exhausted, so a break might do you a world of good.
Congratulations and good luck!

Best way to show your gratitude and respect would be to do good/great work during this program. Show that he made the right choice.

First of all, Well done and Good luck mate! I hope you make full use of this opportunity.
Secondly, don't be that cautious or THAT MUCH courteous. As you have said that your professor does not care much about what others think of him. Actually, most of the high-profile academics (at least in my humble opinion) think that way. This humbleness, coupled with excessive hard work, take them to the high levels.
They are usually highly professional as well. This is evident in your case as he has himself told you not to do any work because you are not bound to him. It is a give-and-take world mate! You will give him good publications and he will give you good supervision. The rest is being HUMAN - i.e. excelling at everything, be it one's profession or be it one's behaviour. If he is excellent in what he does, plus in his conduct and actions, it shows he is a nice human being. What else can you do to a nice human being than return him the respect, and be nice to other humans imitating him!
The few ways you can give him respect is to be humble yourself, be respectful to him, try to do as much hard work as you can, and later guide the junior researchers that join his lab. Maybe write a few research grants in the third year of your Ph.D. for him. Every now and then giving a few gifts, like a souvenir when you go to any international conferences will also be good.

Academics may be prohibited from accepting gifts from students by their university. I would not recommend doing this. Send a postcard, yes. Gifts, no.

I did it myself, whenever I went to conferences or back to my home country, I brought some gifts for my supervisors. It is a kind gesture for what they did to me, i.e. help me learn new skills. Never have my gifts made my supervisors less ruthless when they read my manuscripts or comment on my research work (for which I am graciously thankful as it taught me the way to do research)

For completeness, one might mention that there exists a type of publication venue explicitly designed to have contributions that honor an influential researcher: Festschrift. Festschriften are usually bound to a certain event like the celebration a distinguished birthday, like 50 or 60, or the decease of the researcher (in case of which one uses the term ''Gedenkschrift'' instead).
So, you might stash your idea, keep in contact with your professor's other students, and later dig out the idea when the time for it has come.

I thought about it, but my supervisor’s Festschrift already happened 10 years ago, and his next significant birthday is this September. Handing him a published paper could be a nice birthday present—but a draft he has to comment on, less so...

This is very dependent on your cultural environment (country) and field of studies. In my field and part of the world (Geology, Western cultures) the level of visible marks of respect between student and advisor is very limited - of course, this probably has to do with the fact that during your first field season, you're likely to see your advisor dripping wet half naked out of the shower, covered in mud at the end of a field day or pissed after a beer evening...
This does not mean there is no scientific or professional respect, of course - there is a lot of it- it is not just expressed in very formal ways, and it is routine for geology students to be on first name basis with their supervisor, nearly immediately. And there is certainly a tendency for outside marks or respect to actually decrease with supervisor's reputation (the best do not need to be "Sir-ed" to know that they are respected, those who need the formal respect are more likely than not unsure about their own status).
Now I'm bringing this up as a somewhat extreme example to demonstrate that things can, and do widely differ between communities and countries, so my answer is probably useless to you! :-)
Surely, as Rob Mueller pointed out, the best way is to do good work and good science. At the end of the day (or the career), a top academics will be judged as much by his own achievements than the quality of his students, and the day I'll retire, I'd love to be able to say "yup, I was the PhD supervisor of so-and-so" ....

Congratulations! It sounds like your work has already impressed your new supervisor. And after so many years of working for top grades in your undergrad and Master’s, you naturally want to know how to do the same in your PhD.
Here’s the thing: you can’t, not exactly. In the world of research there is usually no unambiguous "top of the class", no one list of achievements that all the best students are expected to aim for.
As a PhD student you will have a project, and over time you’ll get feedback from your supervisor on how you’re doing. From your description, a committee of experts have already expressed their confidence that completing the degree is well within your abilities. There is no scale to measure "how well" you complete it.
After two previous degrees it's a confusing transition, and it's common for students to struggle with this throughout their PhD. I’m sure that astronat is spot on when she invites you to search for information on impostor syndrome, and to take a break. I would also say you’re already going in exactly the right direction by setting achievable goals for yourself: you chose for yourself the target of working with your PhD supervisor, and you got there!
If you want to set yourself some extra targets now, no-one can stop you. But it really sounds like there is nothing more you need to do except recover from all your effort so far. When there is, someone ought to tell you (and not in code, but in plain language).

One tangible thing that could do is to nominate your supervisor/advisor for an award if you feel they have done an exemplary job. In my field there are awards for mentorship, research, etc. Sometimes these require a reference letter, which is a significant amount of work, and your supervisor would surely appreciate that.
Edit:
I agree with the other answers cautioning against prematurely elevating a supervisor before you actually being working with them. Like @lighthouse keeper's suggestion with regard to Festschrift, just keep in mind the possibility of award nomination as you progress.

he keeps blushing

Simple answer. You are embarrassing him. No-one wants to be embarrassed. Stop doing it and behave normally.

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


text:
Getting back into academia after years in industry
What aspects of one's resume will a faculty hiring committee care about for a candidate who was gone from academia for a decade, but has done good research during that time, including publishing a few papers?
I have always been told that if you get out of academia, getting back in is really challenging. After a postdoc, I spent 11 years in industry and consulting work. I worked on a lot of research topics in that time, but they produced only a couple of papers. I'm currently clearing out my publishing pipeline, and should be able to get a few single-author papers out of that, given a year or two of work. If I apply for a position at a top academic institution after getting those papers published, realistically how hard will the "gap" in my academic work be scrutinized by the hiring committee?

You might find it easier than you think, especially with universities that have strong links with industry.
They welcome up-to-date current knowledge of pratices in industry and students appreciate the “real” stories of what goes right, or wrong, and how problems are solved.
So it won’t be only about your latest papers but how you can interest the students and the knowledge you have.
As an ex-student, it was obvious who amongst the faculty had real experience, once we had a lab using temperature sensors where two faculty were involved. We realised one had done brake testing (for a world leading company) where the sensors were being used at very high temperatures which made the reasons for finding the temperature coefficients so much more understandable.
So, apply and good luck, you may find that you have an advantage over a “pure” academic. All our profs had real experience and PhD’s to match - specialists in tribology, supersonic flow, power electronics etc and students do notice.

Thanks, great perspective.


text:
Why doesn't a master's thesis get read by a PhD admissions committee?
I have heard from three professors internally at my school that my master's thesis will likely not be looked at by Phd admissions committees - these professors are frequently on the admissions committee at our Department, too - and that at most my abstract or graphs / pictures might be looked at very quickly or not at all.
Of course, writing a thesis still has great value for the student - we get some research experience that could perhaps help us develop more clearly defined goals for pursuing a PhD, and we earn a letter of recommendation out of the thesis.
But, I would like some broader information, so I want to ask the question here.
Has any of you who has served on admissions committees actually read a master's thesis before?  Why or why not?  Is it just a waste of your time and doesn't really give any indication regarding the strength of the applicant?
My main motivation for asking this question is to decide whether I should delay my graduation date and ask for an extension on my thesis, since I feel I am just starting to do something decent and want to continue it and not give up on it too early.

The volume of applications is too large to read them all thoroughly, but I think the chances of it being examined increase a lot if you are shortlisted.

wait is there perhaps some kind of nitpick/principle of charity thing here? a master's thesis doesn't get read cover to cover, but it is read in the sense of being scanned (but not skimmed i guess)? to: @Davidmh and anyone else reading this

While I am not on an US-style  admission committee, which I suspect this question implies, I assume that the answer is quite simply that the committee does not have enough time. Or, in other words, the information tensity of taking half a day off to read a single thesis with any thoroughness to better evaluate a single candidate is not high enough.
For better or for worse, any evaluation on any level (PhD admission, faculty applications, paper reviews, grant reviews, tenure, ...) needs to balance thoroughness with time effectiveness. Pragmatically speaking, this is also why we have (for better or for worse) grades, bibliometrics, awards, honours, conference rankings, or journal impact factors - not that the information captured by these metrics is great, but because they give away some information in no time at all.
To what extent time becomes a factor obviously also depends on how many candidates there are to be evaluated. A tenure committee can and should afford great thoroughness because it is evaluating only one (or a few) candidates. PhD admission, on the other hand, usually needs to compare hundreds of candidates. Note that, annoyingly, the importance of the decision to the candidate is usually not a substantial factor in the decision how much time to spend.

That being said, I personally still often use the master's thesis as an important piece in my decision for or against a PhD candidate (I work in Europe, and we hire students directly). However, I am not reading the thesis end-to-end, but I glance over it to find out:

How well the candidate writes, especially how well the candidate writes in English.
Whether the thesis would in terms of contribution hold up in my own university - if this is not the case and I do not know the university that the student graduated from, I will assume that the level is weak. If the contribution is small but I know the university to be good, I will often assume that either the student or the advisor is weak.
Whether the student knows good scientific practice, in terms of plagiarism, overselling of results, truthful reporting of threats, ...
If the thesis is in my field, I will also check if the student has a reasonable grasp of the state of the art by looking at the background and related work section.

All of this can be done in very short time - it is not necessary to read more than two or three paragraphs to figure out if the student is able to write English documents, for instance.

wait is there perhaps some kind of nitpick/principle of charity thing here? a master's thesis doesn't get read cover to cover, but it is read in the sense of being scanned (but not skimmed i guess)?

@BCLC I'm not sure what you mean. What's the difference to you between "scanning a thesis" and "skimming a thesis" in that context?

xLeitix, scan is look for something/s. skim is go through it quickly to get the summary. That's what I remember from English classes. in this case, a master's thesis is scanned for specific things but not really skimmed...or maybe they scan for sections and then skim specific sections...but i don't believe they will skim the thesis...idk. anyway the point is of course the admissions will not read it cover to cover. that's insane. but of course they might look it over like scan or skim or something right? if so, then i think there's some nitpicking here

@BCLC Ok, then I would say I "skim" theses of applicants a lot more than I "scan" them. Because normally I'm not looking for anything specific, I want to know what research method the student used and how their writing is.

xLeitix yeah yeah whatever. the point is people will either skim or scan or both but the thesis will not be 'read' in the sense of like cover to cover. you said 'committee does not have enough time', but you also said you skim or scan. so you're nitpicking (by answering the literal 'read' as in cover to cover instead of the more likely intended meaning which is skim or scan)?

Yes. I head a PhD program, and I look at the Master's thesis or other writing samples. I might not need to read every single word, but they are the single most important piece of information in the application: we need to know whether applicants are ready to do doctoral-level scholarship. Can they write? Can they cite? Do they even understand what scholarship is?

How many applicants do you have to evaluate in a given year, roughly?

wait is there perhaps some kind of nitpick/principle of charity thing here? a master's thesis doesn't get read cover to cover, but it is read in the sense of being scanned (but not skimmed i guess)? to: doctor m, @TomChurch and anyone else reading this


text:
Does being an older PhD applicant for U.S. universities mean there is less chance to be accepted with funding?
I have heard this idea many times.
So, is there any truth to it?
Does an older applicant, say, 10 years older than the typical undergraduate, with equally impressive qualifications, get accepted to PhD positions in American universities without funding?
If so, what is the reasoning behind this decision?
If this idea has some truth to it, wouldn't it be age discrimination?

Some institutions never admit students without funding.

I know of some programs (including my own) that purposefully admit some older students since the diversity in background (having some people with industry experience) can help the cohort grow both academically and professionally. Just personal experience.

In my experience as a grad program director, there is zero truth to this rumor. Funding decisions have nothing to do with the applicant's age. Nor is having worked outside of academia for years a disadvantage -- we often look very favorably at students who bring with them substantial life experience beyond a college education.


text:
How can I find the first researcher who wrote about a specific subject
I am writing my thesis in computer science and I am looking to include some references. I need to include though the researchers who first wrote about a specific subject and not others who expanded the original ideas.
I use Google Scholar for searches but there isn't an option to search for this criteria.
How can I find the first researcher who wrote about a specific subject?

I'm a little unclear about why you might want the very first, but at least in CS you have a limited history to work with.
The most detailed way to find this is to start with current papers (maybe a good review article) on the subject and to track back the references until you find the first one, paper-by-paper. If you already have a few early papers, obviously looking at their references is a better place to start. You haven't given us the topic area, but you might just ask for the earliest papers on the CS Theory Stackexchange. You might also try searching on Google by year if you are certain that you know the right keywords--binary searching the years back to 1900 or so will probably be most efficient.
Finding the right paper might be a little challenging, especially if the topic has changed names a few times since it started.
Edited to add: If you are at a university with a good library system, you might find a research librarian who does this kind of thing for a living and ask them for help.

Better still start with a book on the subject (or parent subject - e.g. if you are writing about decision trees, you can find a book about Artificial Intelligence or Data Mining useful). Many books give a short historical overview mentioning the scientist(s) who first developed the subject. The bibliography sections in a book are also useful as there are short descriptions instead of just a list of references.

While your question was already anwered by Bill Barth, I want to try and answer the question that you should have asked:

How to find the right paper to cite for well established facts / problems / theorems / etc.

If this is what you actually intended, than the first paper ever published on the topic is only one possibility. Often a better option is to look for a good review paper on the topic and cite that. A reader is much more likely to gain knowledge from a good review than a (probably decades old) first publication.
Have a look around, how others cite this specific subject and immitate them if you want to make sure not to violate unwritten etiquette. There are basically three possibilities

No citation: The subject is assumed common knowledge and can probably be found in any standard textbook.
citing the original paper: this is what you intended. Even if the first publication on the subject will likely not include all of the knowledge on the subject that you have and the reader might thus need to look at other publications as well, this is often done to acknowledge the work that the original author put into this. Make sure that you reference any further work that is needed to understand your work, e.g. during your own summary of the subject.
citing a recent paper or review article: a) The subject is likely already well established and almost assumed common knowledge. The citation helps the reader to either catch up on some recent developments (paper) or to get a general overview (review). b) The subject has a long and active history. The subject in the formulation that you use probably has no clear first author. Due to numerous modifications / the natural evolution of notation etc. the original publication on the topic is probably of no use to the reader. In this case either a paper with a good introduction or a review can be cited.

Of course combinations of the above are possible as well. E.g. citing the original paper to acknowledge the first author as well as a review article such that the reader might catch up on any results that are already available prior to your work.
Unless you are currently writing a review though, you are not required to dig through generations of publications to find the first paper on a subject. If nobody in your field cites it, you can safely stick with one of the other two options.

The OP was quite clear in the fact that he wanted to find the first paper on a subject. This does nothing to answer the question. If an idea exists in the literature, there is always a "first time" that it is mentioned.

@Moriarty yes, that is what he said. But I got the impression that he only asked that because he is of the firm believe, that he should cite the first paper on every subject in his thesis instead of any later papers. I simply wanted to give an alternative view in case this is actually his motivation.


text:
How to get the most benefit out of a teaching consultation?
I have requested a teaching consultation from my university's Center for Teaching & Learning. First I'll meet with a couple of consultants, then they'll observe my regular class, and then they'll meet with me again to give me feedback on the classroom observation.
I'm not a very experienced teacher, I don't really know what I'm doing right or wrong, so I don't know what to ask the consultants to focus on. Except for one or two things related to challenges I'm having with the particular class I'm teaching right now, I don't have anything specific in mind to ask them about.
Does anyone have any suggestions for making the most of a teaching consultation? Anything specific I can ask them to focus on that might prove especially useful?

Nice question, +1. Likely the consultants will know better than random strangers on the internet that don't even know your class size... ;-)

I've never been involved in a "teaching consultation" that wasn't in-department, so I don't know quite what this will be like, but one thing you could do is look at previous student evaluations (including midterm ones for this semester if you've done any) to see what issues students may have brought up about your past lecturing and ask they have opinions on those points.

Ideally you want to focus on teaching components that you would not ordinarily notice yourself.
I do not have previous experience with teaching consultations, but I can suggest some facets of teaching that are difficult to improve without others' feedback. Especially when you are speaking, there are things you miss because you are focusing on choosing your words.

Body language and conveyed impressions
Mannerisms, e.g. 'like...', 'um', 'ah'
Volume and pace of speaking
Eye direction (are you looking at the students, or do you look upwards when thinking?)
Students' facial expressions and body language (what do they think of this specific class and why?)

Conversely, there are some facets of your teaching you will notice by yourself in time, and are not particularly benefited by feedback:

The clarity of your material (diagrams, slideshows, images). It may be more worthwhile to review this in your own time.
Which parts of your content are difficult for students
Whether students feel confident to interact
What lesson structures work better
Students' overall feelings about the course (assuming you have course feedback forms)

I hope you make the most out of this opportunity!

As per Kimball's suggestion, I  collected midterm feedback from my students the week before the consultants' visit. (Specifically, I did the one-point raise survey.)
I scanned all the responses and emailed them to the consultants, and we discussed specific steps I could take to improve my effectiveness as a teacher in this course, given some valid points raised by the students.
Then, during the classroom observation, they were able to make a note of whether it seemed we had successfully addressed those issues.


text:
How can I detect a toxic environment while on the interview circuit?
If you are interviewing for faculty positions, how can you find out whether a particular work environment would likely be toxic? (Either generally toxic, or particularly bad for you as a {woman, early career researcher, researcher in a particular subfield, etc.})
Can such environments be avoided?
Can you ask about this during a visit or interview? Who should you ask (faculty, deans, students) and what should you ask that might elicit the relevant information?
Are there other ways to detect a toxic environment, besides for asking people who know to be on their best behavior for you?
This has been discussed here, here, and here for prospective PhD students, but not for faculty candidates (as far as I know). I believe the answers will be different for faculty candidates - for one thing, PhD students are likely to be honest when telling a prospective student about their advisor;  faculty members talking to a candidate about their colleagues, not so much. Also, the interview/visit procedure is different for faculty candidates, as are some of the relevant indicators of toxicity.
[Source: I read this question on FemaleScienceProfessor]

I'd also be interested in how one might detect the opposite: that the smiling, genial, polite interviewee isn't going to be toxic – someone almost destined to be the one who upsets a heretofore cooperative and productive environment. But I suppose that's a different question.

Also see https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115767/if-interviewing-for-a-postdoc-by-skype-how-to-get-a-feel-for-the-lab-culture/115772

What I found useful was to be very watchful of how the interviewers act towards each other. Typically some sort of meal is part of an on-campus interview and you will be eating with several of the faculty members. If they can't make it through the meal without doing something objectionable you probably have a toxic environment. The funny thing is that they know to act properly towards you but will still forget to do so to their colleagues even though you are right there.
As an example there was one such dinner where I was pressured into drinking alcohol the night before the real part of the interview and the junior (and female) faculty member who was present was the target of most of the jokes from the senior male faculty members. Both of these details did not help their chances of getting me to accept their offer. Fortunately I had another offer to take instead.
This is by no means going to catch every situation you want to get away from but the general idea is to watch their behavior. In larger departments where the jerks are kept away from the candidates you may have to be more active in searching for these issues. I was mostly interviewing in small departments where I was able to meet everyone.

A comment on the FSP post offers the following answer:

One tell tale sign at the last university where I worked, was that almost all the research collaborations in the department had fallen apart, many due to personal conflicts. If a department doesn't/can't collaborate I'd call that a bad sign. Lots of collaborations, especially interdisciplinary ones, suggest some rudimentary ability to interact with other humans :)

A couple of suggestions  ...

There should be no "invisible" people.  Do faculty greet students and administrative staff with a smile and words like "please" and "thank you?"  Do they greet janitorial staff?  A culture that values people for being people has a certain energy to it.  Likewise, how do you interact with the secretary making your arrangements, people you see in the hallway during your interview?
Consider the structure of the interview.  Will you visit with everyone in the department on an individual basis?  Does everyone in the department have the opportunity to meet you, even if its not one-on-one?  Departments thrive on discourse, its up to you to find out if its civil or disruptive.  One way to check this is to be in a position before the "job talk" to observe the dynamics of the room as various members enter.  If the room goes quiet when someone walks in, try to observe why.  Do eyes roll when someone asks a question designed to demonstrate their knowledge as opposed to find out about yours?
When hiring (from the perspective of chair, dean, & provost), I want the candidate to know the unit's story and dynamic.  That means a commitment on my part to allow the candidate to experience some of the discourse mentioned above.  If all you see is harmony, then its either group think or a group that's been cautioned to hide the unpleasantness.  You might ask your direct manager what people skills you could bring to the department that would build a stronger team.
Get specifics.  You are interviewing the institution at the same time they are interviewing you.  For example, if you ask what people skills you can bring to the team, and the response is just be nice, think twice.  Productive working groups should be built upon mutual respect for each others' strengths and a willingness to overlook some of the weaknesses.  With that said, a healthy department will have a sense of what it needs to get stronger as a team.
Read "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell and trust your gut.  If you're sensing something is wrong, it probably is.  For this to be effective, you need time to reflect.  If you're being pressured for an answer immediately, you should be concerned.  Not that you need 2 weeks to think about an offer, but you should know how much time you need to make a reflective decision.
It is a very small world in the academy with LOTS of information available, especially in the public setting.  Want to know about the larger faculty culture?  Go look up the minutes from the last 12-24 months of faculty senate and look at the faculty in department/college you'll be joining.  Go to the website of the local newspaper and search for articles regarding the institution.  Have you looked at the faculty satisfaction survey on the Chronicle of Higher Ed?  Looked up articles on the institution on Inside Higher Ed?

One last point - healthy people are attracted to healthy environments.  Think about who you are and take a look at what you want, make sure its consistent with the institution, and don't be fearful of asking difficult questions.  You're worth it!

I know it's difficult to get straight answers out of people, but sometimes just asking, "Are there any politics within the department to look out for?" to multiple faculty on your one-on-ones will provide some insight. People who make a confused face and say, "No, no" or vehemently say, "Absolutely not!" are likely not lying about it. Those who sigh, or those who get wooden, or those who decline to speak about it might indicate some problems.
In my experience most faculty members are rather honest and have a hard time denying problems when asked straight up about them.

"for one thing, PhD students are likely to be honest when telling a prospective student about their advisor"
I disagree. In fact, I have seen the opposite. A PhD student's future is completely in the hands of their advisor in a way that not even TT faculty depend on their chair, etc.
I think the answer to this question is the same for both prospective students and faculty. You cannot ask directly but must read between the lines. I find that staying more quiet than normal during a conversation will sometimes inspire the other to fill in the silence in some very ... revealing ways.

I'm a PhD student and I'm honest when I talk to prospective students about faculty in the dept. (I genuinely like and recommend my own advisor, but I mention aspects of his advising style that may not work for everyone, and I freely share information about other faculty who are best avoided entirely)

Talk to students when their advisor is not in the room.  Or in the building.  Preferably over beer.