text:
Would University Professors be open to teaching short cohort based courses for massive financial upside?
As academics, professors and researchers possess a high level of subject matter expertise. However, many a times this knowledge is not accessible beyond small circles of people.
In such a scenario would academics be interested in teaching highly specific live online cohort based courses to external audiences and be monetarily rewarded for all the work that they put in?

There are companies that sell week long courses to other companies.  For example, let's say there is a demand for tool-X.   Then these companies will organize the logistics of hosting training courses at a location, and invite+pay experts (which may be academics or industry experts), etc.    They may also fly experts in from other other countries.   This can be quite lucrative.

Yeah something like this, but more accessible for learners. Ie- The learning happens online and price point is significantly less than in person events while still being able to interact with the instructor. This would make it easier for more professional learners to have access to top domain experts.

Define “massive”. Everyone has a price, so for the right definition of “massive” the answer is pretty obviously “yes”.

I would say something that helps them recreate their salary and make much more $ over time.

Is there grading involved?

@AzorAhai-him- Grading ?

@AnurajRawat Yes?

@AzorAhai-him- Not in the traditional nope.

What is the difference between what you are describing and at least more commercial MOOCs? Those have been around for at least a decade and there are enough predecessors such as recorded lecture series.

That happens. Two examples of this happening are:

Some summer schools get instructors from different universities and countries together. The instructors get some money from the summer school. This could range from a (partial) reimbursement of costs to a substantial fee, depending on who is organizing and who the intended audience is.
Large organizations, like companies, government agencies, or international organizations have a budget for training their employees. Some hire academics to teach specific courses. This can be quite lucrative. There are agencies that specialize in bringing organization that want such courses and academics willing to teach those courses together, e.g.:  https://statisticalhorizons.com/

Thanks for expanding on this, this is precisely the kind of structure I am curious about. Additionally I was thinking if rather than just being trainers for these agencies the academics could create a brand under their own name.

Yes, a lot of these contacts start with informal networks and reputation rather than formal agencies.

Generally speaking, yes --- academics generally welcome opportunities to share their knowledge more widely than their formal classes, and they are also often under pressure to find external funding for their work.  There are companies that offer professional training courses in government, industry, etc., and sometimes they make use of academics for this training.  The financial upside for academics is not trivial, but it is certainly not "massive".  In my experience, some companies pay enough to attract academics, but some provide a lower rate-of-pay than an academic salary, so they have trouble attracting academic specialists.

Yes I have observed similar sentiments in the financial incentive being decent but nor massive. That's where my motivation lies, can we create infrastructure that enables Academics to instantly recreate or even surpass their salary through such arrangements.

I've heard drug companies routinely pay physicians, including professors, substantial speaking fees.
Examples: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/03/25/colorado-doctors-take-big-speaking-fees-from-drug-companies-data-show/
Many professors will teach a short course for a small fee if the audience appeals to them.  Many would not do it for a large fee if they did not like the sponsor and audience.

I occasionally teach courses in a workshop-like settings and hugely prefer that to more "traditional" ones spanning a whole semester or two. Sometimes it could be lucrative, too - even better!
Some of these offers I still decline if I feel the organizers do it to be able to put a checkmark somewhere, with clueless and unmotivated students and my name attached to it. Or when I am simply out of capacity.
So yes, absolutely, these offers are great as long as they are made sufficiently in advance and the students care about the material at least a tiny bit.

What if we could efficiently curate cohorts of highly motivated learners and not just those that attend such workshops as training requirements. Would academics like yourself run more of such workshops ?

Yes they are, another example is open-source software developed by professors and their departments, there are multiple instances of courses and presentations as well as projects where the professors are the teachers or the one providing support in using the codes.


text:
Cryptology ePrint and arXiv
I'm a relatively new researcher, and I'm confused as to what exactly sites like arXiv and cryptology ePrint are and what people use them for. Are they simply archives where you can upload any research paper related to the field? Does your paper have to be in a journal/conference in order to upload them? Will you have to submit your paper to a journal or conference after uploading to arXiv? What are the incentives for someone upload to these archives? Are papers on these sites considered to be "published"?
Any help is appreciated.

Please ask one question per post.  In the help section, you will see that duplicate questions and questions that do not show research are not permitted.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/133546/13240

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11161/what-qualifies-as-a-research-publication

Indeed, arXiv is a place where people store their preprints. No these papers are not published because these are not peer-reviewed. This is used to announce new results mostly because it may take a lot of time for publication to appear. Some preprints are never published. So people should be careful when referring to them. But if one is sure the results are correct, one can refer to a preprint. For example, it usually is the case when one refers to his/her own preprint.

How about we start saying "no, they're not peer-reviewed, but, literally, they are published, in the sense of being available to the public"? :)

@paulgarrett: No these are not published (which is a well defined notion.) Yes, preprints are available to the public. Before arXiv there were similar storages of paper versions of preprints. After the beginning of the Internet, people uploaded preprints to their Web pages. ArXiv is much more convenient, but the idea is the same.

Wait, so does this mean there could be a bunch of papers in arXiv that where never published but sit around there (i.e. the paper was rejected by a journal or something and the researcher did not continue with the project)?

@eliyablon: There are many texts in the arXiv which contain errors, many texts which have been rejected from journals, and some texts (including pretty famous ones like Perelman's preprints about the Poincare conjecture) which were never submitted to a journal.

@markvs, so, the academic world has permanently hijacked the verb "publish" to mean "peer-reviewed, ..."? I understand that this is conceivably the case, but to me, by this year, it is a bit obnoxious. But, sure, other people have other opinions...

@paulgarrett: You may want to show respect to academic world and not use charged words like "hijacked". In some sense, preprints of Perelman are publication because these were peer-reviews. Same for the famous preprint of Hrushovski.

@markvs, I think I understand your point, but I disagree that it is showing disrespect to want to disavow "published" as meaning what it seems to mean for some academics. I calculate that I'm enough of an academic myself, with enough conventional credentials (if that's what it takes), to have a legitimate opinion. I'm not saying this in an angry way, at all, so please don't misunderstand, but I do think that the status-protecting, tenure-guarding, etc. features corrupt the mathematical-progress aspects. I'd be happy to discuss this in person, if things ever offer that. Best wishes. -pg

... and, in the context of these days, it'd be great to have a civil argument over a glass of wine or beer about mathematical things, etc. Damn friggin' frustrating to not see people in person...

@paul garrett - Tangentially related, but I believe that in the "old days," (around the 1960s) mathematicians did math for fun, as a luxury. But now that it is something we try to make a career out of -- becoming a mathematician has been demoted to a status-seeking, tenure-getting competition.

In the arXiv there two papers (in fact, more then two) proving opposite things, one proves "yes", another proves "no" answer to a famous problem). You consider both papers publications?

@cgb5436: That is not quite correct, https://sueishaqlab.org/2021/03/26/a-brief-history-of-the-brief-history-of-academic-tenure/#:~:text=Tenure%20is%20a%20permanent%20and,legislation%20began%20to%20pop%20up.

The (minority) traditional meaning in academia of "publish"/"publication" is long obsolete - the words do now relate to "being available to the public". Putting work on to a pre-print server is publishing it; hence the accompanying palaver about copyright and licences. With Altmetrics and such now, even a Tweet can be counted as a "publication"!

Before arXiv there were similar storages of paper versions of preprints. Really? I don't recall ever seeing such a library. Can you give any examples? (preprints might occasionally have got left lying on the coffee-room table, and the group/department might keep a collection of those it had produced, but I'm not aware of anyone making a collection of third-party preprints accessible. Ethical issues for a start.) It's been a long time: are you confusing with off-prints (which were intended for circulation, with some conditions).

It is certainly true that there are wildly varying opinions about "putting things online" without being vetted by "authorities".
Yes, due to tradition, "published" in many peoples' minds means "peer-reviewed" (no matter whether it is available except behind a paywall or not, etc.) I have come to think that people should say "peer-reviewed" if that's what they mean.
The word "published", in academic circles, has come to mean "peer-reviewed". Ok, but, well, how about just saying "peer-reviewed", rather than corrupting the "publicly-available" sense of "published"?
There is also the implied sense that without peer-review, things are suspect. Ok, sure, some people with dubious judgement do make things public. On the other hand, passing the gate-keeping aspect of "peer-review" is a bit corrupted, and involves things apart from the intellectual/scientific merits of the thing at hand. As in the explicit question from editors to referees about whether the manuscript at hand is sufficiently ... something ... for the journal. :)
(Also, btw, several journals have told me, as referee, that it's not my responsibility to check for correctness, though I tend to! So, "peer-reviewed" does not promise correctness! More often, the result is completely unsurprising, or completely expected, anyway, ... and, as I've said before, false proofs of true theorems are seldom debunked/corrected, and there's seldom much enthusiasm about it. :)
So, if a person wants to make their ideas public, in math, yes, arXiv is excellent. I look at it every day, as do many. No, the thresh-hold for getting things on there is low, so the mere appearance there has no status points nor certification of anything. But lots of people will see it.
EDIT: and you will establish priority, I think, if that matters!
Similarly, if you've been around for a long time, putting things on your own web-page will reach many people, too. Again, no status-points scored. :)
I gather that high-energy physics has shifted in their way of thinking about "publication" far more than math has...
:)

"peer-reviewed" does not promise correctness. I thought that if something got published, it must be correct! :)

@cgb5436, well, being filtered through some sort of refereeing is an upvote for the plausibility of the result. If it's non-controversial, and anticipated to be a true assertion, then it is probably correct. :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Best tips for writing sessions
I've got a fair amount of writing ahead of me in the coming months and I'm here to ask you all for some strategies for grinding some good writing. I know only of the pomodoro technique, which sometimes works for me, but I'd be curious and eager to hear of any other good tips people here have from their experience. Thanks in advance!

Separate the writing from the editing.

Search for academic writing strategies and find some that match your personality and style. Consider Joan Bolker's Writing Your Dissertation in 15 Minutes a Day. (This comment may be removed by a moderator since it recommends a product. I think that the recommendation is reasonable in this case, but understand if it's removed.)

I think one key to successful writing is to make it a regular habit, to lose the  fear of the white page. The pomodoro method is a good start. But anything that helps you to write regularly, even if it is just a few sentences you write every day.
Setting up weekly writing clubs with peers and colleagues during which you concentrate on writing and discuss your progress or difficulties and support each other can also be really helpful.
When I start writing I usually outline my report/paper and generate very detailed headers and section breaks which I then fill with text. It helps focus my thoughts and reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed by the thought of writing a longer piece of work.

Would add to this that I like the pomodoro method (concentrated bits of focused time with small breaks between), but the alarm from online timers drove me mad. I found a podcast called 'Flow State' where ambient/techno music goes for pomodoro-amounts of time. Helpful for me to encourage focus.

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


text:
Focus on publication during PhD
I'm in th midst of pursuing a PhD and have a few potential papers in the works, but have lots of other analytical work to be done as well. It seems from my discussions with supervisors that there are plenty of opportunities to squeeze papers out of the work I'm doing, but I'm wondering I should balance these ambitions with working on the core part of my project. I'm curious to know how different people here who have done or are doing a PhD balance writing up papers with other work in their project. Thanks!

You seem to contrast writing papers to the "core part" of your project. I wonder what that is... and why writing papers is not "core".

This entirely depends on context (country, university, subject field, your year & PhD length, any other expectations, etc). Nobody will be able to give much specific advice in general, but I assume you're just trying to get a sense for what it's like for others?
Personally (UK, Math/Phys PhD), I've published papers when the opportunity has arisen. At those times, writing them up has been the focus. But in my case, that work could feed into (or at least be relevant enough to mention in) my main project.
My advice would be to trust your supervisor, or speak with others in your peer/research group, as they'll have a much better idea of what is manageable and what is expected for you.

What discipline is it? Are you writing an article-based dissertation, or able to convert your current dissertation to that? If you have to write a monograph, can you publish a paper that can also be used as a chapter in your dissertation without too much revision?
I did my PhD in the humanities in Norway a good while ago, before article-based dissertations were possible in the humanities. My approach was to publish papers and rework them into my dissertation. I think this was the right approach - you need experience publishing and that's how people actually learn about and engage with your research and how you'll get a job.
I think this may be different in the USA as I have seen people get tenure-track jobs at elite universities with NO PUBLICATIONS which baffles me and would be entirely impossible in Norway. Perhaps they had extremely good dissertations and a book contract when they were hired? Or perhaps American academia is corrupt? I don't know.

I'm in Statistics. From my point of view "balancing things" is a good attitude. Having the odd paper (say two of them) when you finish and apply for the next stage is certainly good, however, depending on the field and the place you are in or applying to, digging deeper can be appreciated at some point. This means that taking the time to let certain things mature, to question and revisit them before you publish, and in this way making them ready for a higher level journal publication, can pay off. Publishing early is good but takes some extra effort, and if it distracts you from developing things in more depth, it can become a problem. In some places they count publications but in some (often better) places they have a closer look at what you have done, and may find more potential in people who don't feel they need to get out every small thing as a paper for career reasons.


text:
How to focus on PhD
In my third year of PhD but I started to lose focus. I now focus on other stuff such as learning to code and watching video tutorials on other stuff not related to my PhD. How can I focus on PhD and leave those?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/procrastination

Don't spend too much time on academia.SX :-P

One thing that can help is to have in mind ''today I am doing X'', then you have something in mind as a target even if you don't do anything else apart from X.  Also going to the gym a few times a week.

I VTC'd because this is very much a thing dependent on the individual and details.

You must understand that completing your PhD is the main priority.

One way to discipline yourself is to do some of your work in a library where you have no access to those distractions.
Set yourself daily targets and be consistent.
Have a daily routine and be consistent with it.
I found working amongst other PhDs was a real boost and helped me retain focus.
Sometimes, just taking a break and going away for a few days just helps you to regain your momentum.

It can be difficult if you're also trying to secure a job in industry especially in your final year-a balance needs to be struck. If you're really struggling, speak to your advisor.

There are a couple of possible reasons for your situation - maybe more. How you "fix" it depends on the nature of the problem, not the symptom. But all solutions probably involve other people.
If you are just bored, then you need to talk to your advisor to see how you can "juice" your research.
If you are dissatisfied with your topic then you need to give thought to whether you are in the right place with the right advisor.
If you are burned out (as is pretty common) then you need to find a way to clear your mind for some period(s) of time. I found cycling and other such physical activities to be an excellent way to "relax" so that I could focus better. Get a couple of people together for some joint activity that doesn't involve staring at screens but does get the blood flowing to your brain.
If you are actually depressed (I think that is hard to self diagnose) then you need to talk to a health professional to get yourself to a better place. Since it is hard to self diagnose it is probably worth scheduling an appointment to talk over your life situation. Being overly isolated in your life can have similar issues. Many universities provide a counseling department that can help or connect you with a health professional.
To "focus" on your degree doesn't mean 24/7. Attempting that can make you seriously crazy. Work toward a balanced life. And, IMO, aerobic exercise should be part of that.
Personal note: I went through burn-out and lost performance and focus. Changing universities and doing more aerobic things made a world of difference. Talking to a counsellor helped me see some things about myself that I didn't recognize. Any/all of these or other factors can hold you back.

Neither other answer very clearly mentions the revealed preferences angle: one possibility for why you find yourself spending your time learning to code is that you are just more interested in coding, lately, than in your research. In particular, since learning to code is reasonably intellectually difficult, if you're making serious progress in it it's likely that you're not severely burnt out. Anyway, one option worth at least considering is whether it's really your Ph.D. that you want to focus on, rather than simply learning to code and getting a job in software. As has already been said, your Ph.D. is for you; if you would now prefer to do something else, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you're not shying away from something you truly do want to do out of, say, fear of the challenge.

I would say the opposite: learning to code is easy and fun.

@andy256 Great, then you are lucky enough to enjoy and find easy something that qualifies you for the best job market in the history of the human species. It is of course absurd to make such a claim too broadly, or programmers would have a lot more competition!

Digressing from the OP's issue somewhat: I have been programming for 1/2 a century, taught programming to University Undergrads and Graduates for 20 years, and trained programmers in industrial settings. While I was expressing my personal experience above, here I will give my considered professional opinion: anyone of normal intelligence can learn to program. So I'm afraid I politely disagree with your "absurd" claim, although it does hinge on your definition of "too broadly".

There is no easy way to answer this question. Every person has their own reasons and causes for procrastination and no one can recommend a universal answer that is applicable to every situation. But as someone who has been there* here are some general advice:

Go easy on yourself. You might not feel as ambitious and productive as you were at the beginning and... that is okay. Most people feel this way after spending some time on a certain topic and it doesn't mean they are loosing control over their lives. One of the main causes of procrastination is the stress itself. And the irony is, it also leads to more stress which ends up in a positive feedback loop. So the moral of the story is: Avoid stress! (yes, that's easier said than done)
Take a break. Sometimes procrastination is due to exhaustion. When you are working fruitlessly on something for so long, your brain feels trapped and seeks some kind of escape by forcing you to focus on something else. Although procrastination is itself a kind of break(!) but by taking a break I mean doing something that you feel having total control over it, and absolutely enjoy doing.
Avoid being alone. It is much easier to avoid procrastination when you are doing teamwork and sharing your results and ideas with others. Even if you are doing a solo project, having some friends around and talking to them about what you are doing is often a great help.
Divide and conquer. Our brain needs dopamine for its functioning. The problem with big and lengthy jobs such as getting a PhD is, their award and the resulting dopamine release will be granted much later. So in the short term, the brain seeks tiny doses of the damn hormone by forcing the focus on short-term goals, i.e. distractions. One hack to avoid this is to cut the big job into smaller pieces and rewarding yourself after finishing each piece.
If you tried all you could and still feel the stress and observe a decline in your productivity, trapped inside a downward spiral of procrastination, seek professional help as fast as possible. Talk to a professional therapist or maybe talk to your professor. Most of them will know how you feel and hopefully, help you along the way to recovery.

Good luck and Godspeed!
* In fact, I would go as far to say that this is a universal phenomenon during the PhD years and it's really hard to find someone who hasn't experienced it.


text:
Is reading newspapers good for academic vocab?
As I'm not native speaker and I aim to improve my academic English (spoken and written) i'm asking if reading newpapers is good way to improve academic English? Or they don't use academic English in their context?

It depends on the newspaper. The New York Times or the Walll Street Journal - probably, the Daily Mail - not so much.

What is your level?  In various fields there are journal-type publications intended for undergraduate students.  I think these would be better than newspapers for your purpose.

In your title question you ask about academic vocabulary but in your main text you ask about academic English.  These are different. Also, there is a difference between reading and writing (and also between listening and speaking).  So:
For vocabulary, unless your academic field is one that is covered by newspapers (e.g. politics) then I don't think newspapers (even serious ones such as the New York Times or the Times (London) will be any help. Even if it is one of those fields they will be of very limited use. Those newspapers are intended for educated lay people. They will not use technical vocabulary unless it is absolutely necessary.
For understanding written English, serious newspapers may be of some help, depending on your current level of English. Unfortunately, academic English in many fields has a tendency to be rather turgid and not as clear as newspapers. There are several reasons for this.

Most academics are not trained in writing; all journalists should be.
Many academics are not native English speakers. It is hard to write clearly in your second (or third, or fourth) language. Some manage it, but it's hard.
Academic journals generally do not highly value clarity.

Still, if your current English reading level isn't very good, then reading well written newspapers could help, but so could reading well written books.
As for writing, speaking, and listening, I think that reading can be of some use, but the best way to learn anything is to practice doing that thing.

Reading newspapers has some value, but it should not be your only effort.
Read English translations of literature and biographies that you know well.  Listen to audio recordings of these works. This will allow you to concentrate on the language rather than the content. It will expand your regular vocabulary and improve your grammar. Write your own short stories from scratch to practice your regular English vocabulary and grammar.
Read academic papers written by native English speakers who are also well-known in your field. Translate your native language lecture notes and papers to English to practice your written academic English. This exercise will allow you to concentrate on the language without worrying about the validity of the content.
Engage as many native English speakers in conversation as is practical. If you have colleagues who are also proficient in English, then engage them in conversation and ask for their feedback on your written academic English.

In terms of written English, newspapers are of limited help, because most academic fields have rather stringent requirements on how written communication (mainly journal or conference articles) are structured, and newspapers do not follow these conventions. This especially applies to STEM fields, like the "Introduction-Literature Overview-Methods-Results-Discussion" structure in experimental papers. The vocabulary is also often highly specialized, and limited compared to standard English. It may be better to simply read papers in your field.
In terms of spoken English, newspapers may be more useful. After all, it's quite as important to be able to talk to people at conferences, or in videoconferences during collaborations, and here some "normal" English is helpful. In this direction, you can actually use pretty all the "standard" methods of improving your English: watch movies in the original, listen to podcasts (either one can easily be done while working out, perhaps while doing chores), or simply read English books.

I don't think the structure of articles is a very difficult thing to learn, so I don't think it matters that newspaper articles have different structure

It is not good for learning technical vocabulary. But it is good for improving your English in general and learning how to express ideas clearly. Newspapers almost always explain ideas very clearly, whereas academic papers are sometimes unnecessarily hard to read.
("Unnecessarily hard to read" means some academic papers are hard to read and this is not just due to the technical or academic nature of the content. They could have been more easy to read, if the authors were better at writing.)
As Dimitri Vulis suggested, you should read serious newspapers and not tabloids.

Can you give examples of serious British newspapers?

You should be able to find them yourself very easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Broadsheet_and_former_broadsheet_newspapers


text:
Wrote the paper as a PhD student, it got accepted to a conference, but I am not any more a student. Can I still go and present as a student?
So, basically the paper was written and submitted as student. But PhD is over, so not anymore a student. Is there any way to still attend it as a student. The fee for a regular is several times that of a student.

Surely this is a decision for the conference organisers...

@BrianTompsett-汤莱恩 You mean I should contact them ?

Who is paying your attendance to the conference?

I do not see it as a problem. You were invited as a student, you can attend as such. If you are in serious doubt, ask the organizers.This situation should happen quite often: students submit their papers close to the end of their PhD.

You don't "attend it as a student" --- you just attend it because you were already invited and then you can give your audience an introduction where you update them on what you're doing now.  As to the fee, you should seek clarification from the conference organisers.  If you now have a professional academic position then it is likely the conference organisers will want to charge the full fee, and your university ought to be able to pay it for you.  If not, you might be able to haggle over what fee you need to pay to go.


text:
What is "Title, if not author" in copyright transfer form?
In the ACM  Copyright transfer form what is this "Title, if not author" ?

If you are the author, you should leave it blank.  If you are not the author, you should put your job title; presumably this would mostly explain why you are signing for the author.

In some organizations, researchers are not allowed to publish (and don't own the copyright to their papers) without the approval of the organization.


text:
Does publishing in non-prestigious journal damage your portfolio
Context
A year ago, I had a desire to write my first article for a journal. Since I hadn't had much experience in scientific writing, I gave up writing it. However, I've recently found this work and realized that it could actually be slightly modified to meet the academic writing format.
The work is not a scientific breakthrough but not rubbish either (at least I think so because nobody has conducted such an experiment so far, so, perhaps, it will be novel). I expect that I can be admitted to like Q3 or Q4 journal if I edit it properly.
Question
At this point, I start wondering whether I should try to publish it in, let's say, a "not-very-cool" journal or forget it? On one hand, the more articles, the better for a resume. On the other hand, wouldn't  the fact that people see that I'm published in low-quality journals some how affect me badly?
Note. I understand that the questions needs more specifics to be properly answered, but I'd like to hear maybe from those experienced how academia works...

@Sursula-they-, that's what I need. Thanks

For a first publication don't overthink it. Something is better than nothing as long as you avoid predatory journals.
Among other things you will get experience in the publication process and in responding to reviewers. But only if you submit it.
If you don't take the first step you don't get anywhere. If this were your 15th publication and all were in low impact journals then there might be some issues.
You can also aim a bit higher for a first submission. If your work is really not appropriate for a journal you are likely to get rejected pretty quickly and you can then submit elsewhere.
Just. Do. It.

Thank you for motivation! Btw, how do peolple know that the journal is not predatory ?

Search on this site for "Beale's list" for some ideas about predatory journals. They have some characteristics, though: soliciting articles, high publication charges, poor reviewing, very high acceptance rates. But those are, to some extent, features of quality journals too, though not all in combination.


text:
How do I participate in a major scientific research as a data engineer?
How do I fulfill the following requirements if I have no connection to academic researchers:

Evidence of original scientific or academic contributions of major significance in your field
Evidence of authorship of scholarly works in your field, in major media outlets, or professional journals

I have recently read about "research software engineers". I'm perfectly qualified for this role: I'm a data engineer and a cloud architect. I can make a significant contribution to a research that requires large scale data collection and analysis.
I'm not interested in compensation or employment, just one time project.
Is it possible to help some researchers with their data analysis and be mentioned as an co-author of their research without spending years on building a career in academics?

What are these requirements for?

Do not offer to work for free. There are plenty of people who would like jobs doing this, and you offering to work for free for whatever reason undermines that. If you must, donate what they pay you to something you support.

There are lots of open source packages used exclusively by scientists that have open issues and would welcome pull requests from anyone that resolved them. That's probably right in your skill set too. Is that something you'd be interested in?

The answer seems obvious. Since what you want is nearly impossible to do on your own (major scientific research), you need to get connected to some serious researchers, either in academia or industry, and offer your services.
It would be much more difficult if you also want/need serious funding in order to participate. And, academics are more likely to respond positively than industry people who may have confidentiality concerns.
If you are near a major research university go visit and talk to people. Make an appointment with a department head in a field of interest and suggest what you can do and try to get introduced to faculty that might need your skills. If you have sufficient skills you might want to explore employment with a major company that does serious scientific research, not just product development.
Blind emails to people are not likely to be very effective. It is too hard to establish your skill set. An email introduction from one academic to another is a better bet. Once you have one contact willing to vouch for you you may be able to get more.
But the key, if you don't want an academic career, is to make contact with people who already do serious research. Maybe you can make it work.


text:
Impossible to survive academically without being corrupt?
I am sorry if this question seems offensive, so I begin by reiterating that it derives from my personal perception and lack of information instead of ill intent or the purpose of attacking the reputation of academia.
Taking into account the lack of transparency concerning hiring decisions in academia (a condition which may only reflect legal incentives to being nontransparent), as evidenced by this post, this post or this post, I find it hard to understand which criterion is used to select candidates for academic positions.
Trying to search for answers, I have already read that candidates to tenure-track jobs in the US are judged by how much funding they can get for their department (see this post, for instance). I unfortunately do not see how this would translate to institutions outside of the US whose funding does not depend exclusively on the professors' performances.
Considering the lack of accountability and transparency from hiring committees, how not to develop the perception that practically every hiring process in academia is corrupted? If there are no mechanisms to prevent favoritism or justify hiring choices, then there exists a strong incentive for those in hiring committees to exclusively choose candidates who would support their (the hiring committee's) clique or personal goals.

It may help if you gave an example of a hiring decision that you would consider corrupt. As it is, you mention "clique" or "personal goals." Would you consider it corrupt if a committee refuses to hire a standoffish candidate, or one who works in areas that none of the existing faculty find interesting? Also: (how) do you consider university faculty searches to be more corrupt than hiring decisions for other competitive jobs?

"Lack of transparency" to whom? The committee, department chair, dean, and HR all can see the process (in most places). The general public likely cannot. But that is true for, well, just about every hiring decision in the world.

@cag51 I understand that what I perceive as corrupt need not be. On the other hand, I believe that there are decisions which most people would agree to correspond to corruption. An example which seems possible for me would be if there are candidates which are not comparably proficient and yet the (verifiably) most productive one is not hired.

@anonymous_student I don't think the "most productive" or "most proficient" person is the one who should get hired. That person might be a complete asshole, or a poor teacher, or in a research area that is not current represented in the department, or in an area already over-represented. The person might be ethically challenged and have been fired by the previous university for sexual harassment. There are many dimensions to hiring someone, and there is no one scale where you can easily rank order all candidates.

Let's make your example a little more tractable. OK, so a (hypothetical) corrupt committee has hired someone who is verifiably not the most productive candidate. Why did they do this?

@Wolfgang Bangerth There is no problem in disagreeing with the decision criterion in my hypothetical example. On the other hand, don't you believe that there exists an ethical problem if decisions are made without previously defined (and disclosed) evaluation criteria? In the aren't such criteria or a transparent process, how to ensure the absence of discrimination in the hiring process, for instance?

@anonymous_student I don't know whether you've ever been on a hiring committee. It is, in practice, impossible to come up with a single scale by which to rank candidates and there is necessarily an element of subjectivity. But that doesn't mean that there aren't best practices hiring committees should use -- and do use. For example, one uses rubrics, developed ahead of time. One uses an outside observer (typically an OEO representative) as part of the search committee, etc. Just because you don't document or talk about doesn't mean that you can't be fair.

@anonymous_student coruption is unethical, but not all forms of unethical behavior is corrupt. You seem to use both terms as synonyms. It may be that the committee has made the wrong decision, but that does not necesirly mean it is corrupt, i.e. the candidate paid one or more committee members to make that decision. Your use of the word corrupt is not helping your case, so I strongly suggest that you edit your question to get rid of it. You will probably need to do more to reopen this question, but that is a start.

@anonymous_student unethical decisions are wrong but not all wrong decisions are unethical. Most wrong decisions are just made because incompetence or bad design of the decision making procedure. Almost all people in academia I know want to do the right thing. We may disagree on what the right thing is, but that is another story.

Corrupt means to me that you give money (or other "services") to members of the hiring committee in order to get selected. That may happen, but I don't think that is very common in general. So lets just ignore the word corrupt.
Your last sentence is I think a better description of what you are worried about: "there exists a strong incentive for those in hiring committees to exclusively choose candidates who would support their (the hiring committee's) clique or personal goals." I take that to mean that disciplines are often divided in different "schools" and selection of candidates can depend on how well the school of the candidate fits with the school of the members of the selection committee.
This has happened and still does happen. The committee members selects their own colleagues, and you like colleagues with whom you can easily collaborate, and it is easier to collaborate if you belong to the same "school". To some extend that can be desirable: it is a legitimate goal to make a particular department a center for a particular school. However, this can also happen as a form of "intellectual laziness", i.e. not wanting to deal with people who are too different, and then it would be a bad thing. That is another reason why I object to the term "corrupt"; Whether or not it is bad depends on the goals.
However, this is a known problem and there often are policies in place to alleviate that. For example, in some German states you cannot hire a professor who was previously (and the exact definition of previously allows for loopholes...) employed by that university. What those policies are, how strong those policies are and how well they are enforced differs hugely from country to country, university to university, and department to department.
For example, you mention transparency as one such policy. However countries differ with respect to how they value privacy. That is a legitimate tradeoff. Depending on the local preferences for those two competing values, different countries should come to very different policies. That is what democracy is supposed to achieve (but not all countries are democratic).
Another complexity is that many universities are for historic reasons on a continuum between a full government agency and a private organization. This can make rules of hiring complicated as they are often some mix of rules that apply to government agencies and private organizations. That does not mean there are no rules, actually quite the opposite. But finding out what the rules are in the different countries is going to be hard. For one thing, those rules are often based on laws, and laws tend to be written in the local language, as they should. On top of the laws there are often university policies. Some of those policies will be to a larger or smaller extend coordinated across universities, others will be purely local.
In short, what you mention is often regulated to some extend, but how it is done differs a lot. Those differences are not necessarily bad (but some are).
Even shorter: it is complicated because countries differ.

The logical fallacy in your question lies in this paragraph:

Considering the lack of accountability and transparency from hiring committees, how not to develop the perception that practically every hiring process in academia is corrupted? If there are no mechanisms to prevent favoritism or justify hiring choices, then there exists a strong incentive for those in hiring committees to exclusively choose candidates who would support their (the hiring committee's) clique or personal goals.

You conclude that because hiring committees don't have to explain or justify their actions, that they will make bad decisions. But there are numerous arguments for why this conclusion is not (always) correct:

Most people I know behave in an ethical way, and they try to do the "right thing" even if they could get away with doing something else. Whether that is true is in essence a cultural issue, and how strong the external incentives are. From my 17 years on the faculty of US universities, I will claim that the representative collections of faculty in hiring committees in the departments I've been in have always made impartial and objective choices. Of course, if you were a professor in Sicily in the 1960s, you provide the only income to your family, and the mafia sends you a letter saying that you should probably hire Dr. X or else, the situation might be different. But this is generally not a situation that happens very often in Western countries these days, professors are well paid, and whatever a professor could get in return for unethical decisions is unlikely to to lead them to jeopardize their careers.

There are safeguards, too. It is true that in many countries, search committees may not disclose a lot of information. But their actions are nevertheless guided by laws and university rules. And those who are on the search committee will have to defend their choices and decisions to their colleagues for many years to come every time they have lunch or coffee together.

In other words, the conclusion that "something could go wrong => something will go wrong" is just not valid. As a consequence, most hiring decisions actually are ethically right.


text:
Did my professor act unethically by publishing a paper with a figure from my thesis without any acknowledgement?
Title says it all, but for specifics..
Just found out my thesis advisor published a paper last year using a figure from my thesis. The thesis is in embargo until later this year.
I do have be honest and say that the figure in question is a redraft (with some slight alteration) from an older study. However, it is clear my advisor used the exact file from my thesis work. To his credit, he added a different section on the overall figure, but the part of my redraft is identical and was not altered in any way.
I was not part of the writing process, so it makes sense I'm not an author. However, I thought I'd at least be mentioned in the acknowledgements? Which brings up the bigger question of, are acknowledgements held to the same "ethical regard"? Can you just blatantly use someone's work without giving any credit at all if they didn't do enough to warrant authorship?

What sort of embargo: purely academic because the thesis is so far unpublished, or embargoed because it contains a sponsor's proprietary material which has commercial or intelligence value?

@MarkMorganLloyd purely academic

There really aren't two ways around it: Yes, using someone else's figure is unethical.
The question of what to do about it is of course much harder to answer.

The asker did not inquire about what to do, but I think it is clear that nothing should be done.

Not only that, but even with an acknowledgment it would be unethical if the advisor did not ask for your consent to use your figure.

@AnonymousPhysicist Actually, I didn't want to imply that nothing should be done. It's a much more difficult question because that involves human interactions.

Thanks for the replies. And yeah, not sure what to do from here. Any and all suggestions are greatly appreciated! This isn't new behavior from him. He's also written a manuscript based on my actual thesis. He put me as third author and claimed I never took initiative to publish the results. Since I wasn't part of the main writing process and just edits/reviews (this is currently going on) he has said I will stay third author when I tried to fight it.

Speak to the head of department or whoever has been assigned to represent you.

It’s a bit crass to do this and keep you out of the loop, but he did reorganize the figure so technically it is not “the figure from your thesis”, especially if it’s a redraft from and old study, i.e. not the final data used in “your figure”.
Even if the context is substantially different (i.e. different interpretation of the data), one would think that he would have let you know - especially if it is data you collected - but he didn’t.  The correct way for him to proceed would have been to let you know he was going to adapt or insert (as these terms seem to best describe what he had done) a figure from your thesis, and indicate as much in the text.
Not acknowledging someone is bad manners, not unethical.  If there is too much similarity between “his figure” and “your figure” (or more generally between your work and his work) and you are not a co-author, then it is plagiarism.  The threshold with figures is quite high and it’s not uncommon for people to redraw old, already published, figure and change minor details (sometimes only the font) so they are not technically re-using copyrighted material.

@Trunk I don’t disagree and I would never do this myself but people do and they argue they rejigged the figures to avoid technical plagiarism.   Again I think it’s particularly insensitive to do this to your student, but simply because it’s stupid doesn’t mean it’s unethical or illegal.

@Trunk Clearly here by using the same figure template with an old data set rather than the most recent data, the goal is (at least in my mind) to avoid technical plagiarism, and it will lessen the impact of the thesis once the embargo has ended

If you use or modify another person's nontrivial work (the question author stated it was clearly from the specific file they had) without permission or acknowledgement, then it is plagiarism. The similarity of the end result is not the only consideration.

@Trunk Absolutely!

@Era it’s not so clear.  Here (as I understand), a similar figure using different data but the same template was used, thereby NOT modifying the student original work, but independently producing instead alook-alike.   I still think it lacks decency (to use wording of another comment) and in very poor judgement.

Wrote the following on a different comment, but think it's useful on this discussion too to clear any doubts. Half of the published figure is definitely the figure from my thesis (he has the files, as he asked for them at the end of my time there). Also, to explain further, think of the figure my advisor published as two halves. The bottom half is the exact redrafted figure on my thesis. The top half is a sorta "blown-up," more detailed look at the process that the bottom half is alluding to (albeit, with my advisor's slightly own take on it).

@rowrow what’s the deal with the “older study” then?

Depending on your location, even if you make minor alterations, it would still count as plagiarism and potentially copyright infringement if you do not cite the original source. @ZeroTheHero The figure in the thesis is a redraft of a figure from an older study. The figure in the professor’s text comprises a direct copy of the figure from the thesis plus an extra expounding section added by the professor.

The legality and morality really all depend on circumstances, i.e. on how much work was put into the redraft, is the outcome clearly different, or was your figure a "quote" of the figure in the earlier study. Also, who wrote the earlier study?
Here is a scenario. Your prof or their group writes a study with the figure and looses the original pdf file. You publish this study figure in your thesis by reconstructing it, maybe under guidance of your prof. Your figure and the study figure are difficult to tell apart. Your prof or someone else when writing the paper look for the study figure and finds your version. Nothing wrong in my opinion for using it legally (they still have the copyright to derivatives of their original work) and ethically (they were not able to tell that you contributed to the figure).
Here is another scenario. You truly embellish the figure from the earlier study so that it has changed character and you now hold copyright for your substantial changes, as maybe the only intellectual contribution of the original figure are the data. The prof or the person who wrote the section likes your version, is afraid that you would not want to give permission for use, does not know how to cite an embargoed thesis, forgets to ask you, or just assumes that you are fine with it. Then your rights were violated. Even then, what can you gain by asserting your rights? There is not much you can claim. You cannot become a co-author because your contribution is too low and the paper has already been published. You did not suffer any material damage. You benefitted from the work in the group (you got a thesis accepted so you got a degree, I assume) and some give and take in a group is expected. You might have been owned an acknowledgment: "We thank rowrow for taking the figure from X and colleagues [x] and redrawing it." I could live without that.
To long to read: Assert the facts first, e.g. was it intentional, and was your "redraft" different enough. Even if this would have been bad, you missed out on a small note of thanks. These are pretty worthless in academia and completely worthless in industry.

You're only addressing copyright, but the most blatant offense here is plagiarism.

Using a redrawn figure from the group is not plagiarism. The work is in getting the data, not putting them into a figure. There are exceptions for explanatory figures, but the OP does not claim that. Research is not undergraduate studies and different rules apply.

Different rules than what? I don't understand your comment about undergraduate studies. The OP is talking about their thesis advisor, not about an undergraduate student. Reusing a figure from someone else's paper and claiming it's your own is plagiarism. It's as simple as that. I don't know what "rules" you're referring to.

@Stef … but the thesis director is not using the figure as he has reproduced it using different data.  I still think the thesis director showed very poor judgement here, even if he may be technically right.  Showing different data using a same template as another publication is not plagiarism.  It still in bad taste to do this to your student though, especially if the thesis is embargoed.

@ZeroTheHero Apparently you and I understand the OP's words in two very different ways.

Thanks to all of you. To clear it up, the old study was not from our research group. It was an old study from the 80s not many people had paid attention to. I found their interpretation very interesting and agreed with parts of it, hence the redraft (with slight alteration) on my thesis.

Also, to explain further, think of the figure my advisor published as two halves. The bottom half is the exact redrafted figure on my thesis. The top half is a sorta "blown-up," more detailed look at the process that the bottom half is alluding to (albeit, with my advisor's slightly own take on it).


text:
(United States) Proof that you can get into a Master's program with a Bachelor's degree
I have finished my college studies and am graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree. I have thought about what would be my next step and decided to pursue a Master's degree abroad, namely in Spain. I am submitting my application to multiple Universities, and in a few, I came across a request for some sort of "certificate" that the Bachelor of Science, here in the United States qualifies you for a Master's degree.
I came across the following: "Justificación de que el título aportado faculta, en el país expedidor del mismo, para el acceso a enseñanzas universitarias de posgrado." in a free translation that would be: "Proof that the title held by you, allows in the country it was expedited on, for access to a University Master program" or in another university's wording.
Sounds simple enough right? Except for the fact that everyone I consulted in my university, ranging from advisors to college directors is unsure of where to get something like that, or even how that would look like.
Well, my question can be summarized into, is there some sort of institution in the United States (or Ohio, if this would be a state-level issue) that offers some sort of document saying "In the U.S., Bachelor's degrees work just fine for a Master's program admission"?
Thanks!

In general, I would expect you to need to get your degree "recognized," as described (in Spanish) here. But this is probably not the answer to your question, since your quote asks for a "justificacion" of how things work "en el pais expedidor del mismo." Strange. Are you sure this has to be a "certificate" rather than just a paragraph that you write yourself?

This is the sort of thing a university registrar should be able to do by providing a signed letter for you. If your GPA is especially low they might not want to provide the letter, but if your university also offers a masters they will have an idea about how to respond.
Even a department head could probably provide an acceptable letter.
I assume that the request is to account for the fact that terminology differs around the world and non standard degrees might be offered in some places.
You could also ask them directly what they would accept, providing a couple of examples such as the above.


text:
Is it acceptable to use non-English references in a paper?
I have a paper extracted from my thesis. Since English is not my first language, a few of references are non-English. I have also designed a model based on those non-English references. Now, I want to send it to foreign journals and I think it will be rejected. Is it necessary to use just English references in my paper?

Using references in other languages is very common.

In English papers, we often see references in German, French, Spanish, etc.  But for references in different alphabets, in addition to the original I would include a transliteration of the Author's name and a translation of the title.  (Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Thai, etc.)

You must use non-English references if you use non-English sources. Citing sources is about giving credit where it is due for the ideas you use in your paper: it doesn't matter what language those ideas came in.
Some journals may request parts of the citation to be translated (such as the title), but it's most important that readers can find the original source.


text:
Is it Okay to add another person (except the supervisor, advisor, and the student) to the paper extracted from master's thesis?
I am writing a paper extracted from my master's thesis. A friend of mine helps me a lot during this process. Is it Okay to add his name to my paper?

Why would you not?
Authorship guidelines (see e.g. here, here or here) commonly state three criteria:

Everyone listed as an author has made a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper. The opposite is also true: everyone who has made a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper should be an author.
All authors should contribute to the writing of the paper or, at least, critically review the paper's contents.
All authors claim responsibility for their respective part of the paper, integrity and veracity of the reported results.

A caveat here is that any author should take a part in reviewing the paper draft or write parts of it, and you should not report results obtained by other people without their validation. On the flip side, you do NOT have to include your supervisor nor advisor if they did not contribute substantially to the paper's contents. In some academic communities, it may backfire, but including those and only those who "made the paper happen" is the most ethical thing to do. Keep in mind that substantiality of a contribution is in the eye of a beholder, so the best practice would be to decide on authorship, including both the list of the people involved and the author order, BEFORE you have started working on a project.

Thanks for your response. If my supervisor does not agree with adding another person, what should I do?

@MahsaTmri Unfortunately, it may happen indeed - after all, ethics is something to strive for, and it does not come as a granted. But that is the exact reason you discuss these matters beforehand. Imagine you are building a house planning to sell it to a person, you have done everything and now they are refusing to pay. What now? If you had prior written agreements, you could try to enforce them (but even then, life is not always fair). Sit down with your supervisor and discuss authorship before you set out to work. You know you have no leverage after the fact, so why drag it?

Note that a thesis advisor/supervisor often has intellectual input by guiding your work and setting directions. However if the advisor then refuses authorship you could just acknowledge them instead.


text:
Query regarding manuscript submission
I recently submitted a manuscript to the Journal of Number theory following all its norms. But after submission I noticed a small mistake I made while writing a formula. The proof isn't wrong but I misinterpreted the formula in Latex.(I made a minor typo)
Now I noticed and corrected the manuscript. Can I do something about it?

Yes. Wait till the journal sends it back asking for revisions, and make the correction then. Or if they reject it, make the correction before you submit it to a new journal.

My answer was implying exactly that. Edited accordingly.

We're all been there. Three questions:

Is it really a "minor typo"?

Does it affect the understanding of what follows?

Is it reasonably easy for the reader to figure out the correct formula?

If the answers are yes, no, yes, then I'd leave things as they are, for the moment. There will be plenty of opportunities during revision.

I disagree. If you can correct it, you should. This paper has not been accepted or published yet, so there is plenty of time to make the correction. Leaving things as they are will annoy readers and waste their time. Perhaps "we've all been there" in the sense that we have all made minor errors, but that does not mean it is OK to leave an error in the paper when you can easily fix it.

"This paper has not been accepted or published yet, so there is plenty of time to make the correction." That was exactly my point. There will be at least one round of revision.

Your editor will not be pleased, but you should tell them what you discovered with a profuse apology and the new version.  You are not the first one in the same predicament.

The editor will not be as displeased as this answer suggests, and you don't need to give a profuse apology. You just need to wait till the reviewers' comments come and correct the error then.

I disagree. A referee that is very good will go through all the equations, and needs to make an adjustment that this is indeed a typo. Given that mathematical papers are written in a very dense style, this is not quite trivial. So, as editor I need to send the correction to the reviewer. This can be done manually, or by using the software provided by the editor. Neither is trivial and imposes on the editor's time.


text:
"Communicated by" in AMS
I have seen that manuscripts published in the Proceedings of American mathematical society have "communicated by x" , just below the title of manuscript. I was thinking how to decide which name to write in place of x if we are working on some branch say topology. Is it the name of the referees, if yes then how to know a referee of any particular area?

The “communicated by x” means x is the journal editor who was responsible for the paper. You do not write the “communicated by x” when you submit the paper. The journal will add that line after it is accepted for publication


text:
What is "reference checking"?
I recently submitted a manuscript to the Indian journal of pure and applied mathematics. The submission was successful and the manuscript is under review (As per the shown status). But beside there a option "View reference checking results", and the following is shown there?
I don't know what does that mean?
Does that mean my manuscript cannot be published?

They just check whether your references are correct. For example, did you get the volume right or did you spell the authors correctly.

When submitting an article for publication, it is very important to check the requirements for submission.
In this case, it appears that you have submitted a file in .pdf format, which is not supported by the reference checking system of the journal. In the diagram in this canonical journal workflow answer, you are probably stuck in the "Initial Check" phase and your submission process cannot proceed without further action from you.
You should probably:

Go back and look at the submission instructions again. If they specify that .docx or another format is required, you will need to save your article in a supported format and resubmit it.
For specific questions that are not answered by the submission instructions, there should be a link to contact the journal and/or the editor.


text:
Best way to highlight the main result in a mathematical paper
I am writing a mathematical paper where I (re-)state a well-known theorem, followed by several corollaries. One of these corollaries is my main result and, naturally, it is somewhat lost in the text, while I would like it to stand out to the readers without them reading through all the running text (where it is described as the main result). What is the best way to highlight it? Putting a box around it or make a gray background/shading seems like an overkill, but maybe this is the way to go? Any suggestions?
(Sometimes, stating the main result in the very beginning as a theorem is the best way to go, but in this specific paper I would like keep the order of the statements, since I like the corollaries coming after the theorem they are based upon and they also build on one another.)
Remark: I first posted this question on Tex Stackexchange, where it was off-topic. I am not sure whether it is on-topic here (I did check the help center, where I would argue that it fits the "academic writing and publishing" topic). If I am wrong, please tell me nicely and suggest an alternative. :-)

I think it's on topic here, and is in the same spirit as this question. That said, you may be interested in the question Main statement as theorem or corollary on MathOverflow.

@Anyon Thanks, this helps a lot, especially the second link!

When it comes to visual highlighting like box or shading, you need to know the journal's information for authors, style and formatting guidelines etc. Most journals I know wouldn't be happy to have special highlighting for a specific corollary. They would want to have same formatting for all of them, and surely not more than for a theorem. Better use explanations as in @Buffy's answer to convey your message.

I've once read a paper whose main contribution was restating a theorem from someone else's paper. The theorem in the original paper was extremely abstract and likely to be overlooked, because it was so hard to see its implications and applications. The second paper applied the theorem to a particular problem, and restated the theorem in that context, and that was brilliant.

If it's your main result, don't forget to mention it in the abstract and if possible in the title too. Many people only read those.

If I understand your situation correctly, your paper has a well-known theorem (proved by other people) and a number of corollaries which are your results. One of these corollaries is your main result and you would like to highlight it more.
A simple solution would be to just rename the main corollary a theorem.
Then your paper would have two theorems, one in the introduction and credited to other people and one in the main part which is your main result. A result doesn't need to have a difficult proof to be considered a theorem instead of a corollary. If it is important in itself that makes it a theorem.

Thanks for your suggestion! While the other answers were really helpful as well, I think I will go for this simple solution. I think adding a name to the theorem, say, "Theorem 4 (main result):" or "Theorem 4 (sharp bounds on ...):" can also prevent the readers from overlooking the main result.

One also has to wonder why if you proof one theorem in your paper that is not called theorem 1 (or 2 if you want to call the famous theorem theorem 1 but it probably already has a name if it is famous no?)

You can use both the Introduction and the Conclusion to point out the significance of any part(s) of your paper. Since most mathematicians will automatically jump to the conclusion that if you call a thing a Theorem and another thing a Corollary that the former is more important. But, as you note, it ain't always so.
The Introduction can note that some "apparently" lesser thing is really the "big bang" and the Conclusion can give the consequences of that.
Actually those consequences can also be alluded to in the Intro.
Likewise, if you provide an abstract, while you mention the "main" Theorem, include words that point to the Corollary as more significant.
And, of course, you may be wrong. If the corollary "follows easily" from the Theorem, then it is more than possible that the Theorem has additional consequences that make it especially significant.

Hmm, I've hardly ever seen a paper in pure math that contains a "Conclusion" section. Maybe I misunderstand what you are referring to?

Ah ok, but now I see that OP works in a field which many people might rather count as applied math.

Thank you for your answer, this was really helpful! I mostly agree with your arguments, however, some readers might simply jump to the theorems and not even read the running text. Also, concerning your last point: Yes, the Theorem is most likely more significant, but as I wrote it is well-known and not my own result. I only state it to "set the stage", so the reader can easily follow my arguments. Naturally, I want to highlight my own result. :-)

@IljaKlebanov "some readers might simply jump to the theorems and not even read the running text" No I doubt that. Most people read as Buffy pointed out the abstract and the conclusion. Most readers might stop reading after that, as they understood your paper is not interesting to help with their problem.

I don't recommend using visual formatting to accomplish this (other than the normal formatting that applies to all the theorems and corollaries). I also don't recommend delaying the highlighting of your result until the introduction is finished, as another answer suggests. Instead, use words to explicitly communicate the structure and story of the paper to the reader. For example, at the very start of the paper, something like:
"The Lasser Theorem, proved in the seminal paper [1] and stated as Theorem 1.1 below, is known to have many significant applications in this field. Many of its corollaries are stated below, including the important Corollary 1.8 about the non-semisimple Noetherian case. The purpose of this paper is to provide a (new/shorter/more insightful/less dependent on deep theorems) proof of Corollary 1.8."
Then right before stating Corollary 1.8: "As mentioned earlier, the following corollary also follows from Theorem 1.1; in this paper we provide a new proof of the corollary using (model theory/numerical differential equations/similar triangles)."

Thank you for your answer! I agree with you and will certainly include such discussions early on in the text. However, I am afraid that some readers might jump to the theorems and skip most of the running text. This is why I chose to accept another answer.

If I'm understanding correctly. I think moving the 'well known theorem' part to a section called 'background' would solve your issue, As it removes the extra background stuff from your results. This will mean your actual new/interesting results are by themselves and not 'lost in the text'. Also it just makes sense, since it's well-known it is (nearly by definition) background and your paper is building upon this theorem.
Though with your ordering requirement, I would admit that it may be slightly strange to have a background section immediately preceding the results section. I would just put it in its usual spot though, you can reference back to it if you think it makes sense.


text:
What´s a good source to learn about literature reviews?
I read this: "All types of literature reviews including systematic reviews, integrated reviews, bibliometric reviews, content analyses, hybrid reviews, etc., as long as they are not descriptive, are encouraged". I only knew about descriptive reviews.

Welcome to Academia SE! Although I understand the value of this question, I don't think this is an appropriate question for this site because your question is opinion-based. It is rather subjective what is a good or a best source on introductory material for literature reviews.

That said, rather than giving you an official answer, I will happily write here in a comment the best article I have found that distinguishes different kinds of reviews, in my opinion: Paré, Guy, et al. "Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews." Information & Management 52.2 (2015): 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008

Even though it focuses on the information systems discipline, its categories are fairly universal, at least across the social sciences.

This question might be closed as a "shopping question" (we don't generally recommend books, etc., though I personally would be inclined to make an exception for things like this). That said: a new post here asking what the difference between these five different types of reviews is might be well-received (just guessing, no guarantees).

@Tripartio I don't think it's an opinion-bsed question, as there are objective criteria available to spot good sources. The most obvious indirect measurement of "goodness" is citation count. That said, the way the question was asked could indeed be improved to force objectiveness on the answers.

Wikipedia has a good introduction to different types of review. On that web-page, under the heading of Categories, there are brief descriptions of different types of review, with further links to additional information.
If you have not previously encountered anything other than a descriptive review, the Wikipedia page seems like a good place to begin.

A good source to learn about Systematic Literature Reviews is:

KEELE, Staffs et al. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. 2007.

This is only for software engineering though

@cconsta1 Correct. But OP did not specify which area he will reasearch about, and I know that this source I pointed is good. Therefore, the suggested answer does indeed answer the original question: "What´s a good source to learn about literature reviews?". Any good source would do.

Cool, I upvoted it :)


text:
Who owns a research question and data if a research partnership splits up?
Two people form a research partnership to investigate a specific research question.  Person A comes up with the question draws up a plan.  Person B joins and advises on the approach and assists in data collection (a significant enough contribution to be a co-author).  They both run the analysis together but have a difference of opinion on how to write up the study.  They can't agree and the research partnership dissolves.  Person A and Person B both want to pursue the question independently using the data they jointly collected but neither will consent to the other submitting first.  Does the research question and data dissolve with the partnership or is there a way forward I can't see?

Seems as if Person A and Person B discussed the issue, all sorts of outcomes are possible.

Unfortunately the relationship has deteriorated and no discussion is likely.

In as much as you are asking about "ideas", no one owns them and anyone is free to follow up on them.
But if you are asking about who owns the product of joint work, work worth of authorship, then everyone contributing IP has a stake and that stake can't be claimed by others. If you can't come to any agreement, then you are stuck and anyone can potentially prevent publication or force a withdrawal. So, your best option, if you want to continue, is to come to some accommodation.
It is, however, possible in principle to start over, discarding all previous work, based only on ideas. That is risky, however, as it is difficult to do it "cleanly" without generating complaints from others.

Thanks for answering the question.  I would have thought that there was some IP in the research question but interesting to hear that that's not the case.  That will help in mediating a path forward.

The whole idea of there being any general thing called "intellectual property" is itself debated. Stallman (of the GNU) project, for examples, argues that the term conflates a group of vastly different legal constructs (including patents, copyrights, and trademarks) that have different legal origins and different legal purposes.


text:
Faculty position offer concerns
Say a university is hiring a science faculty member.  Only the search committee interviews the job candidate online.  Then the candidate gives one research presentation online.  The candidate is then offered the job, but they are not invited to visit the campus first or given any kind of virtual campus visit. They are also not given any contact information to talk to any of the other faculty they will be working with.  Are these red flags, or is this how hiring faculty works post-COVID?

Hiring processes vary a lot between countries, so I don't think that there is a general answer here. Maybe add about which country you are asking? Maybe even more information about the type of institution is needed…

You are always free to contact any faculty member yourself -- just like you should feel free to contact people at any other university!

Have you asked whether it's possible to visit?

With "they are not given any contact information to..", do you mean that the search committee actively refused to give such contact information upon request, or that they did not proactively provide it?

You should really give your country or geographic region. I throw something out based on my perspective (I have tenure in the US and taught in Uruguay, El Salvador, and India) assuming that you need some feed-back quickly.
Ask yourself whether you would be confident to take a job as an accountant or software engineer under these circumstances in your country.
If the job is temporary such as for a year, this procedure makes sense. Your duties would be restricted to mainly teaching with maybe a small research / service component. The cost of bringing several candidates on campus would then exceed the benefits for the university. As a candidate, you get one year of teaching at a university out of it, but you would presumably start looking for another job as soon as you get there. Besides a job for a year, you would then have a source of reference letters and a track record for teaching at a university.
I got my first job in Mathematics in the US this way as a fresh Ph.D. from Germany. Apparently, it worked out well for both parties. They would have offered me a permanent job if they could and were helpful getting me another, tenure-track position.
Now, if this is for a full-time tenured or tenure-track position (in the US) or if this is expected to be a life-long position, then they did not scrutinize you well enough. But they are also not fair to you, because they do not allow you to gather enough information. It could be that they have no money allocated for a proper search (e.g. because someone left unexpectedly). In any case, if they offer you the position, you might ask to visit them before you make a decision. If you do not have the money, you might just talk to your future colleagues.

Thanks for the input.  To answer your questions, it's a full time tenure-track position at a US institution.  I have applied to other positions like this before and I have never encountered an interview process like this one.

Wow. You are right, this is unusual. It is tenure-track?


text:
What should I do if I am dismissed from my Physics Ph.D program after my first semester?
I am one month away from finishing my first semester of grad school in a physics Ph.D program. I was admitted to start in the spring semester, as my research advisor was in need of a research assistant for her experiment during the summer. This meant that I had to start with courses offered in the spring, namely classical mechanics II (6000 level) and math method I (8000 level). The rest of my credits are in research. While I believe I can finish the year with a B in math methods, I believe that I am going to end the year with a C in classical II.
For my program, a GPA below 3.0 during your first semester is grounds for academic dismissal.
I've been pushing all semester, but I struggled to achieve the level of understanding and performance that my classical II professor wanted. I might have been able to, if I took classical I, but I understand that My strange start time made that impossible.
Would I be able to appeal an academic dismissal on the grounds that I took classes not typically offered to students their first semester, I've also been dealing with anxiety?
If I am academically dismissed, I know it would be very difficult to get into another physics doctoral program. Would this also prevent me from getting into something like a master program for electrical engineering?
My love is for nuclear and particle physics. In particular, their uses in the medical field. It is my dream to work on linear accelerators or synchrotrons for radiation therapy. I had figured that a degree in nuclear physics would give me that opportunity. Is there another way I can approach my dream job with this academic dismissal.
I apologize for the lengthy question. I don't know what to do and I want to get as much information as possible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

None of us can really help you with this question (i) because you haven't actually been dismissed yet, and (ii) because every program is different, having their own rules and procedures. There is for sure no point in thinking about appealing a situation that hasn't happened yet.
The right approach is to talk to your academic adviser and to the graduate director of your program. They are ultimately the ones who make these decisions, and they are the ones who can advise you about the situation and its consequences. Nobody else on the internet can do better than what they can tell you.


text:
Academic pay post-doc in Germany (TVL13, 75%)
I am wondering if the salary of a postdoc in Germany is sufficient. I am applying to a position which offers TVL13, but is reduced to 75% of the hours. With the cost of living in Germany being significantly higher that in Brazil, where I am currently living, I would like to know your experiences with this type of budget. The position is in the state of NRW.
The position is at the institute/university where I did my undergrad and is thematically a nice continuation of my PhD research. I have put some effort into writing up a 12-page research proposal and am motivated to work on the topic. I am familiar with several of the staff and worked at one of the funders, plus it is close to my family home, which would be a plus.

Since this is about the cost of living, the city/university is quite important. Düsseldorf/Münster/Köln are quite different to, say, Bielefeld or the eastern Ruhrgebiet.

Almost anywhere in Germany, you will be able to live ok with the 13. Many thousands of Germans do so.

"The position is at the institute/university where I did my undergrad" surely you are in the best position to judge the cost of living for a student there!

Apart from the very important point mentioned by @DCTLib, this also depends on what precisely you need the money for: are you alone or do you have a partner? If you have a partner, do they have their own income or will they mainly depend on yours? Do you have kids who depend on your income? Without such info it's almost impossible to give useful advice.

According to this calculator, 75 percent of TVL-13 in Stufe 1 is equivalent to a net salary of roughly €2100 (i.e. after taxes and contributions that buy you a pension and health insurance etc.), plus about €1500 once per year ("Weihnachtsgeld"), so €2100 + €1500/12 = € 2225.
The average full-time gross salary in Germany was €4100 in 2021. For a 75% part-time position this amounts to €3075. Using this tax calculator, we get a net salary of €2083. Ignoring the rather large wage differential (more than 10%, I think) between East and West Germany, this means your net salary would clearly be above average per hour. (It might be just above average in West Germany only.)
Having said that, a lot depends on your tax deductibles (whether you have a family in particular) and Stufe. I've made conservative assumptions in that regard. Most likely, you will be assigned Stufe 2 or 3, resulting roughly in an additional €100 or €200.
For comparisons, the average rent in NRW in 2021 for a mid-sized (80m^2) appartement was €584 plus energy and extra charges.
Brief, your salary won't permit big luxuries, but you will be more than okay outside the pricier stretches of Düsseldorf.


text:
How to choose my first PhD students
I have recently started a position as assistant professor at a Chinese-British university. Now I am starting to get first requests from interested students who work on topics that are similar to mine but not exactly within my discipline/expertise (I am a political scientist and had a law student approaching me).
Do you have any tips on how to

choose good PhD students and
set a reasonable number/cap for students I can supervise?

Related to Q2: How many PhD students are too many?

Maybe you don't need to be told this but first I recommend that you make sure you understand the relevant procedures in your department like how formal admission works, what the admission criteria are, how co-supervision is organised, how PhD students are paid for, whether they have to do courses and exams, what time they have to finish, side conditions like required publications pre-viva, what happens when there are problems; also how many PhD students your colleagues have (ask them for experiences).

Does the research program you have (or in the process of designing) require having PhD students? In some fields of research this is the case (e.g. in most lab sciences) and in some, it is not (e.g. in math, theoretical physics, philosophy). You should probably elaborate on this issue by revising your post.

I suggest that you start small (one student) and then see how that goes. If it works and you are comfortable with the current state, consider accepting another. (see below)
At the start, I'd suggest that you select only people aligned with your own research interest. A law student might fit, or not, depending on their ideas and yours.
Finally, I'd suggest that you evaluate them in a face to face discussion in which you explore their ideas as well as their background. You don't want to do too much or too little for them. If they seem serious and have some idea about a topic, even if not well-formed, then consider them. If they seem excited about your suggestions rather than any idea they might have (as not all do) then consider them. You probably also have access to their academic record. If so, look there for alignment as well as seriousness of purpose.
If neither of you have suitable (and compatible) ideas for a research topic, then you should probably pass them on to a senior colleague. This happened to me as a student and worked to my advantage.
Give them a warning, that as an assistant professor there is some risk to them. You are inexperienced at this and your first order of business is getting tenure for yourself.
However, take some advice from local faculty and administration about their expectations. Try to meet them to enable your own chances for getting tenure.

+1 for "Give them a warning, that as an assistant professor there is some risk to them."

Thanks for the great advice and also on what to do in the case of not accepting them! I think I will pass him on to a senior colleague

"First you are known by who you trained with, then you are known by what you've done, then you're known by who you've trained."
Don't be in a rush to accept students, and then choose carefully.

I wish I could say I came up with this idea, but what my mentor did (not with me, he was my teacher since undergrad) with my coworker is he came up with an assignment for my coworker to do over the summer. I think it was a lit review.
If he could review and summarize the literature well, a show of aptitude if you'd like, then he'd be accepted as his student. I'm not saying you need to do this exactly, but you want to make sure that you'd work well together, both as researchers and as people.
What I do (I'm still a PHD student) before I agree to work with anybody, is I video chat them (or meet in person), do introductions, and discuss our interests, academic and otherwise. So, a little discussion, on top of seeing what they can do on a new small assignment, should go along way. Supervision sometimes takes non negligible amounts of time on top of other duties, so making quite sure that they'd be a good fit BEFORE agreeing to work together/supervise them is a worthwhile investment of time.


text:
What happens if a professor has funding for a PhD student but the PhD student does not come?
I have been applying to some universities for semesters starting in Jan 2024, and I expected that I can receive the decision letter in 2 or 3 months later.
However, 2 months ago, a professor actively emailed me (he knew me because another professor forwarded my Ph.D. inquiry to him) and he wanted me to come in the Fall semester for a project. His offer was really good and I wanted to keep his offer as a backup option, so I said that I'm interested in his offer and promised to send my applications in the future. However, I made the big mistake of not telling him that I was also waiting for other universities.
A week ago, he emailed me again to say that he had finalized the grant for me and was ready to recruit me immediately for the Fall semester (despite that I hadn't submitted the application to him) and wanted an answer from me. I had to admit that I couldn't accept his offer now because I also waited for other universities.
Now I feel extremely guilty and embarrassed because he probably had to do a lot of things to acquire his funding and now I just made him waste a lot of time and effort.
I just wondered if any professors get into this situation, how can they solve it?

Speaking as a research administrator in the US, he should not write any proposal to support a single very special person who is not considered senior/key personnel. Students are considered replaceable and interchangeable, and if he gets the funding, but has no personnel, he may be able to recruit from another lab, get a postdoc instead, etc.  If not, a no-cost extension may be an option as well. He may expend his own effort to complete the work.
This was not how I'd advise you to build relationships with academics (finding funding and personnel stresses people out like crazy), and you left him with a potential issue he will have to resolve, but it's hardly the worst problem to have. He'll be fine.

Your assumption that

he probably had to do a lot of things to acquire his funding

is not quite correct. It is a lot of work putting a grant application together, but most of that work is spent describing how wonderful and feasible the project is and how wonderful and unique the investigators (postdocs, lecturers, professors) are, not how wonderful the students will be.*
In a grant application, PhD students are present mostly as an expenditure item, and grant proposals rarely assume that a specific student or a student with a very particular set of skills will be present (because, after all, these are not usually skills they have acquired over a very long career). A professor who has "lost their student" can usually recruit another student, hire a research assistant, overwork inspire their postdoc, or collaborate with someone who does have a new student.
Please don't feel too bad (although you can, and should, write an apologetic email). This is not a huge setback for anyone. Things will work out.

*(After all, he didn't ask you for any information to go on the grant ... did he? Because that would be really strange.)

Thank you for your answer.
In his email, he actually said that he prepared the details of the scholarship for me and was ready to recruit me immediately. In the previous meeting, we discussed how his ideas could proceed to some meaningful outcomes.
So I thought he could have made a research proposal and received a grant for it. Or maybe I am wrong.

Some faculty do in fact write a grant around a student or postdoc's interests.  That is not that uncommon.  He may have done this "for you", however, until you are an admitted student and formally in the lab, this type of work is at his own risk.

@NoName a researcher can write a grant with someone in mind as a PhD student (I'll be doing that soon too). That doesn't make the student essential to the project (even though I'm sure you'd love to work with each other); the researcher simply fills the spot with someone else. They're very unlikely to have written a grant that they can't do "on their own" with their existing postdocs and PhD students, or that they can't find a new student for.

Are you suggesting that that'll be the end of it; the professor will not look for the OP, they will not pursue them?

If the OP has something else they've decided to do, probably. After all, life happens, PhD students and postdocs do quit their jobs mid-grant, and researchers simply have to fill the role again. OP's situation is the same thing except it's before the grant has started.

Basically they work to find someone else and failing that try to keep the money available for a future hire if possible. I can't say whether that works in any given case, though. Sometimes the money returns to the source. There are lots of possibilities.
But there is no reason to feel guilty. At this point your responsibility is to yourself.
I don't know if you explained that you await other offers, but that would be natural. If you ask, it is possible that he can keep you in mind while searching elsewhere.

You're likely overestimating your particular importance to the project.
Ph.D. students are disposable, and are the first to be let go when grants run out.
You'll likely lose this particular academic's support and collaboration, at least for the foreseeable future, but you have to look for the position that aligns the best for you.
He'll be alright. Look after yourself.


text:
What should I do if I get multiple PhD offers?
I have spread my Ph.D. inquiry to several places, varying from low-rank to high-rank universities (for me, high rank is <100 and low rank is >500). I expected to get admission in the Winter semester because I started the inquiry so late when the Fall admission was over. I got four positive replies, including:

I got replies from two professors from two high-rank universities, which are my priority. They genuinely wanted to accept me in Winter (Spring) semester, but they were unclear about the funding situation for the Winter semester, and they said to respond to me later.
I got replies from two other professors from two low-rank universities. They were so enthusiastic and wanted me immediately in the Fall semester. However, they are only my plan B if my better options fail.

I want to wait for professors from high-rank universities, but it means that I have to make the other professors wait for me. The problem is that all four above professors know each other very well and collaborate quite often. It will be very awkward for me if I make the professors in low-rank universities wait for me, and in the end, choose a professor who is their collaborator and reject their offers.
What should I do in this situation?

"It will be very awkward for me if I make the professors in low-rank universities wait for me, and in the end, choose a professor who is their collaborator and reject their offers." No, not really. Even if that were the case, which it isn't, what do you want to prioritize: your career or not feeling awkward for a short period of time? (Of course, ranking isn't everything, but that's a different question.)

Ultimately, this boils down to individual circumstances and is hard to answer. In German, there is a proverb: "a sparrow in your hand is more valuable than a dove on the roof", meaning it is often better to settle for the secure but (seemingly) inferior option (sparrow) instead of for the better, but less secure option (dove). Yours seems like a similar situation.
The question you should ask yourself is if the (perceived) advantage of going to the top school really translates to better chances afterwards. Maybe you have the possibility to ask senior academicians in your field about it.