text:
Supervisor submitted without consent of co-author postdoc. Postdoc also submitted to another venue with consent of supervisor. Plagiarism problem?
My previous postdoc supervisor submitted our work to a conference venue in December last year. He was the first author in this submission while I was the second author. It got accepted in March 2020. He did not inform me about this submission. The conference will be held next month; however, they already put this accepted paper online in IEEE Xplore last week. I get to know about this submission when I was searching for some of my papers online in the IEEE Xplore last week.
Now the problem is we have also submitted the same work in April 2020 to another conference (me as the first author, and he as a second author). He was fully aware of that submission, however, at that time, he did not inform me that the work is already accepted in another conference venue in March. Now I know that my work is accepted in one conference while it is in the review at another conference. So there is a clear plagiarism problem.
In this situation, when I informed him, after some argument, he now suggests withdrawing the paper in review with some excuse, and go with the accepted one.
Kindly suggest what should be done? Should I inform everything to both the venues and withdraw from both the places. Other options are to withdraw the accepted paper citing that it was submitted without my consent, or should I go with my supervisor's suggestions? I do not want to face any plagiarism related trouble.

This isn't plagiarism. But dual submission is not an acceptable practice and normally leads to rejection and other bad things.

Your first step is to improve communication between you two.

And the second step is to withdraw one of them. Quickly, before it is noticed.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Are we talking about publication in conference proceedings? I don't think they are that important in comparison to proper journals. I am not sure people put too much weights on conference proceedings. But that is just my 2 cents.

@stackoverblown That is highly field-dependent.

It depends on the field, but submitting already published results to a conference or talking about similar results on two different conferences are acceptable (and common) in many fields.

What is your field?

I cannot really judge any behaviour, but a couple of things popped out for me:

Your advisor submitted an article without letting you know
He put his name as first author
He is now suggesting to keep the one with his name as first author and withdraw the one with your name as first author

I personally would write a letter informing the first conference that the submission was without your consent and ask for their policy. I would then write a second letter to the second conference informing them that the same article was submitted without your consent to another conference and attach the first letter. I would also write a third letter to your advisor with a copy of the first two letters.
Note, this is a "nuclear option" that will likely destroy any relationship with your advisor. But, if your supervisor truly stole your work as you describe, I assume this relationship is already ruined.

As a bit of warning: it is a pretty serious accusation to say work was submitted without your consent. While your suggestions follow what happened, they set up a major conflict. Approaching it this way would be a substantial bridge burning. I worry this answer makes it sound like no big deal.

I agree with you, but I think that the bridge was already burned (assuming this is what happened) when the work was submitted without consent and the authors order switched. But yes, I did not mean to make it sound as no big deal.

Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions. I withdrew the paper that was under review.

I hope you are happy with the outcome


text:
Coauthor wrote a small part of the paper then ghosted us
Me and my coauthor are writing a (math) paper with a third person who initially has been very active, mainly in the form of conversations and planning, and then after writing some parts, disappearead and proceeded to ignore every attempt to get in touch with them.
Let me note we are aware they've been in contact with other people we know (and active on social media). So, as far as we understand, they simply chose to ignore us.
Everything was running smoothly and we didn't have a fight or a discussion so we are very confused (and annoyed) by this behaviour.
But anyway, we carried on writing our paper.
Now we are very close to submission (on arXiv, for the moment) and we are pondering what to make of the third author's name. We thought of removing their name from the authors list since their behaviour has been quite unacceptable. We ended up doing the great share of the work ourselves, and there hasn't been any reasonable motivation from their part on why this is so.
On the other hand, they provided valuable input and even wrote up some parts which, even after some revisions, will end up in the paper, making up, say, 5-10% of the content. These are things they wrote before disappearing. So it seems correct to attribute authorship where due.
On a more pedantic note, they don't know the state of the paper we are going to submit so, as far as we know, we might not have their permission to put their name on it. We are going to ask them but, at this point, it's unlikely they are going to reply.
Hence, what shall we do? Is there a middle ground like mentioning their contribution in the 'acknowledgments', perhaps indicating they have been closely involved in the writing of some parts?
EDIT: after some pondering, we changed the paper to remove the small written contributions (which were proofs) made by the ghosting coauthor and replaced with alternative proofs (using a completely different approach) written by us or referenced from literature. We plan to still acknowledge them in our paper, for the parts they've been involved to, but not to have it in the coauthors list anymore.

I'll mention, based on recent experience of mine, that it's worth making sure emails didn't end up in the spam folder. Microsoft Outlook tends to do this and is routinely used by many universities (including mine).

@Miguel we've tried many different mediums which have worked before, and we're sure they engaged with most of them during the time we tried contact. Also, they were actively involved in the paper, so they should have contacted us or at least expected some contact. It is not a random email we're sending to a person who's clueless about our existence.

That's not what I meant. Recently I've seen important emails from collaborators replying to my emails randomly sent to the spam folder by Outlook. I also got a funding decision (positive!) sent to my spam folder. My colleagues are experiencing similar issues. Even if it's not directly applicable to your problem (because as you say you've tried different channels) most people use email most of the time to communicate about research, so it can be applicable in some cases where seamingly one is being "ghosted" but it's just a technical thing.

Hence, what shall we do? Is there a middle ground like mentioning their contribution in the 'acknowledgments', perhaps indicating they have been closely involved in the writing of some parts?

You are including content that can be directly sourced to someone other than you to substantiate arguments put forward in your article. You have bound them as co-authors by this action. That they wrote something and then disappeared does not change this fact. That you may have made modifications to their source content before adding it to the final document does significantly not change this fact. That the relative amount of the contributed content is by some measure quantifiably small does not change this fact.
The possible choices are demonstrated as below.

Remove all content from the other person. Remove and/or revise all ancillary content that leads to or derives from that removed content. Make the article self-contained such that it demonstrates only what you and your other co-author have written. Make the contribution from the other person only relevant for how it guided your work rather than relevant in its own right because it supports the assertions being presented. Submit the article with just you and your other co-author. State an appreciation for helpful discussions from the other third party in the acknowledgments. Send the submission to the other person by email.

Do not change the article. Put the other person on the article only in the acknowledgments. Send a hard copy of the article by return-receipt registered mail. Include a cover letter asking for confirmation within a respectable time before the article is submitted. State that a lack of reply will be taken as acceptance to the article as written. Be prepared to learn that the other person insists on co-authorship.

Keep the other person on as coauthor. Send a hard copy of the article by return-receipt registered mail. Include a cover letter asking for confirmation within a respectable time before the article is submitted. Be prepared that the other person must also concur electronically as a coauthor at the time the article is submitted.

These are drawn somewhat to legal or official courses of action. Independently, from professional standards, you will want to reference your discussions with the other person at the start and throughout the project. The hard question to answer is this: Were any statements made by you or your other co-author, verbal or otherwise, at any point during the collaboration that in any way promised or even implied co-authorship in return for having contributions to the project? If the answer here is not a resounding no, you may appreciate that the respectable, professional approach is to accept the other person as co-author even with the reservations you have. Lesson learned. Next time, be clearer at the outset on how you anticipate the rewards to the project (a published journal article) will be divided.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Yeah it was clear we would share coauthorship equally, though not explicitly written anywhere. It was the classic 'let's write this together'.

You cannot list them as a coauthor without their concurrence. Include a substantial acknowledgement of the contribution - perhaps with explicit credit for the proof of Theorem X.
Send them the draft. Tell him politely that you plan to post this to arXiv and ask for any corrections.  You could say that if you don't hear back you'll assume  what you've written is OK.
If they reply that they would like coauthorship then I think you should do that, even if they do not resume work on the ms.

In the current frame, instead of "if they reply that they would... then you should ...", the proper response is more likely "if they reply that they would ... then you must ...".

"You could say that if you don't hear back you'll assume what you've written is OK." I am not sure equating silence with acceptance&acknowledgment is fair, nor sound.

@EarlGrey If they can't reach the unresponding person does that mean they can't ever submit? I think in that case the acknowledgement is fair.

Thanks for the answer, Ethan.

@seldon You're welcome. Come back and tell us how this resolves, when it does.

5-10% of the content of the written paper does not mean 5-10% of the intellectual contribution. Conceptualization, design, and planning are often the most important parts of a project. Although being uncommunicative is unusual (although not unheard of), senior scholars in my field often help conceptualize and design and project, and leave it up the juniors to manage data collection and analysis, and write.
To me dropping them from the paper or posting the paper without their consent are both very bad professional behavior---at least as bad as them going AWOL, if not worse. Their bad behavior is private, between colleagues, you would conducting a public misstep on the academic record. I think you need to push harder to contact them. Call them, write again with "IMPORTANT, TIME SENSITIVE" in subject line, ask a colleagues of theirs you know to check in. I would not proceed without a response from them and, importantly, I would not work with them again in the future. But for this project, they are a co-author until they tell you they want out.

This is a solid answer.  Contacting a colleagues is critical.  Active on social media does not imply email is getting through.

@TerryLoring Ha yes, there are exceptions. If they were in a coma though, I expect I would keep them on as a co-author and submit the paper..

Sorry, I edited my comment after recalling the bit about the coauthor being on social media.

@TerryLoring As I said to Miguel above, we've tried many different mediums which have worked before, and we're sure they engaged with most of them during the time we tried contact (since they replied to other people there). Also, they were actively involved in the paper, so they should have contacted us or at least expected some attempt to contact them. It is not a random email we're sending to a person who's clueless about our existence and that might have slipped in the spam folder.

Thanks for the answer, Dr. Beeblebrox

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Interacting with Non-academics: How to Not Compromise One's Rigor?
This is a question about interacting with other people (in particular, non-academics). Hopefully, this is a common-enough problem that it is appropriate for this community.
I consider myself an (aspiring) academic, and I have very strong beliefs (about my academic field (mathematics), how one does work, etc). At the same time, I acknowledge that everybody is different, and that people have ways of doing things that "work for them." I am also aware of my own ignorance (or at least, I think I am).
A.) That being said, I have a very hard time listening to people who (I believe) are wrong (or at the very least, are using very, very bad arguments). By being complacent with their opinions, I feel like I am compromising my own integrity. I am also worried that this complacency will condition me to condone such ideas, and ultimately, make me a less virtuous person.
B.) On the other hand, many people do not like to be told they are wrong (either factually, or that they are using faulty arguments). Many self-help books, psychology articles, and people around me suggest that often, one must "agree to disagree" with such people. Moreover, I am told that likable people can provide information that other people want to hear. (This makes a lot of sense in view of human nature.)
I feel very conflicted in engaging in the behavior described in B, as I feel like I am compromising my own integrity (in the sense described in A). Indeed, the people in my life who I respect the most (many of whom are academics) are those who are capable of telling me bad news, and who help me have a better understanding of the world and reality.
My Question. How should one engage in conversation with other people (in particular, nonacademics) while not compromising academic rigor (too much) and still being reasonably likable? (Here, "reasonably likable" means not losing the most important people (family, close friends, etc.) in one's own social circle.)
I find it hard to believe that I am the only person who has this problem. Many academics I know are as adamant about their opinion as I am (if not more), and many of them seem to have  trouble interacting with other people. Thus, I would like to ask for the community's thoughts.
One possible answer to my problem is, "choose carefully who to pick fights with," i.e. if one's audience is not someone who cares about academic inquiry, then I should not try to engage in a rigorous discussion with said person. However, I am dissatisfied with this solution because, as I said, I am a.) concerned that this compromises my integrity, and b.) I would condition my self to be complacent with bad arguments.

"By being complacent with their opinions, I feel like I am compromising my own integrity."  This is wrong.  You are not responsible for other people's opinions unless you taught them.

Maybe try https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/

"Academic rigor" has nothing to do with what you describe as such.

So you like to argue and feel you have to be ‘right’? Nothing to do with academic rigor.

I mean, in your profile you state that you like to be an internet troll (“like to ask dumb questions to generate discussion,” or such). First part of that mission accomplished.

It seems like people are concerned with the exact terminology I used here. ("Academic rigor.") Without attacking my particular word choice (I will try to be more careful next time), can people try to address the core of my question? (I think it's clear what I am trying to ask since I got some good answers from people.)

@gnomertorule I mean, what I meant in the profile is "I like to use Stackexchange to ask questions I am too afraid to ask people in real life." My intention was never to be an "internet troll" as you say (although yes, I see how it can be misinterpreted now; I will change it).
The term "dumb question" is not used pejoratively, as one can see from the quotes in my profile.

Don't get into arguments about mathematics at parties.  For everything else, remember that you're no more an expert than they are.

It seems like you have an issue thinking of yourself as being wrong and others as being right. Everyone in my department doesn't have "trouble interacting with other people." I'm also confused about what you mean by "opinions," do you mean opinions about scientific things, or harmful opinions like opposing equal rights?

Rigor is not the same as pedantery. It is a category of thinking, not of using formalism. The argument of "integrity" is pure smokescreen. It's hard to communicate with the appropriate level of simplification to non-scientists without compromising the essence, but it does not mean that one should not try.
One special facet of this issue, which is particularly salient at present times, are superstitions or conspiracy theories (which may be quite harmless if annoying in general, but can cause extended damage in the case of vaccinations, ecological or economical decision-making but have more to operate on because of the associated uncertainties in the fields). These are again a separate category of thinking. These have a lot to do with ideological thinking. This is territory where opinions are agenda- and attitude-driven and factual arguments won't get you very far. Usually, there is little one can do here, especially if a debate is laced with rhetorics and political slogans devoid of factual foundation, but full of innuendo, identity groups or dog whistling.
As a scientist, if one wishes to persist in such environments, the main lesson is a Socratic one. Let go of the desire to educate these people of your scientific knowledge and begin learning: why do they have this opinion, what can you learn from that? Not about reality, but about the picture of reality that these people create for themselves and where it comes from.
Maybe you can sow the seed of scientific thinking, namely the idea of doubt.  Doubt as a method is central to science, and a scientific statement always (ok, almost always ;-) requires qualification (I am aware that in mathematics it's less so, but see the various discussions on axiomatization). If it's not qualified (at least in principle), it's a belief, not a scientific statement. This is in the same category as falsifiability, but the latter is harder to explain.
I recommend reading Feynman. He discusses these issues at length. He tried precisely to bridge this gap and loved interacting with non-academics. He is well known for his successes in communication to nonscientific public. One thing he emphasizes is an almost Socratic method of "thinking and experimenting for oneself". One of his legendary demonstrations was the inflexibility of the O-ring of the Space Shuttle when cooled to freezing temperature.
Other than that, there is nothing virtuous in imposing your (even scientific) belief on others; it's tolerance that is a virtue. "You can only show them the door. They are the ones that have to walk through it." [adapted from The Matrix]
As long as a disagreeable opinion does not cause harm to people, you can just let it go.
If it does, it ceases being a scientific discussion and becomes a political one. But that's a separate story.

I agree with your answer. One caveat about doubt, though: Conspiracy ideologues "doubt" all kinds of things a reasonable person believes or has trust in. Of course, they are highly biased in what they doubt and what they believe in. It's probably a good idea to try to make them see that a) in fact they hold a lot of unquestioned beliefs, b) skepticism "all the way to the bottom" leads to an infinite regress, so some reasonable assumptions (shared by people outside their own belief system) are indispensible.

@henning--reinstateMonica You are of course right. There is the "doubt" that serves to pave way for an agenda, and there is the philosophical doubt of infinite regress (which is different from the agenda-driven doubt) and they are different from my list; I might think of how to rephrase it more carefully. Basically, I refer to the Cromwell-type doubt.

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


text:
Statement of purpose imposes word limit, but I already have a significantly longer version. Can I submit it as it is?
I am currently in the process of applying to a PhD program at a university in Canada. As part of the application, I need to submit a statement of purpose. The prompt for the statement of purpose is as follows:

A statement of purpose (maximum 500 words) that discusses your career goals, why you want to do research, and the areas of research that interest you. If you have done any original research, please describe the results, their importance, and your particular contributions. If you have specific research plans, outline them here.

I have already written my statement of purpose for other universities and all of them required a maximum of 2 pages. My statement of purpose is currently 2 pages long, with a total of 1,249 words. I have described everything that the prompt mentions in these 2 pages, but I do not think I can do that in under 500 words. Is it ok to submit it as is? If not, how do you suggest I proceed?
Thanks for the help.
Update: I emailed the University in question about the length of the statement of purpose, and it turns out that their application form was not updated. They in fact allow a 1-2 page statement of purpose. I think this is helpful for future situations.

Does this answer your question? How to condense a 2 page statement of purpose to 500 words?

@GoodDeeds This is not a duplicate of that one: this asks if one can submit an SoP longer than the limit, the other how to shorten it to stay within the limit.

+1 for the update.

I would think that two and a half times the maximum would be a bit extreme and leave people less than pleased.
A few extra words wouldn't hurt most likely, but what you suggest seems unreasonable.
Factor out the most important ideas and express them concisely. Consider it a test that you don't want to fail.

A note on the SoP. Don't use it to reprise what is in the CV or other materials. Don't use it to explain past problems/issues. Make it entirely forward looking. What do you expect to accomplish in doctoral study and thereafter. You are wasting words if you try to use it for other things.

Would explaining your contribution in previous published research be a negative in this case? A large portion of my SOP is a long the line of <I published paper x. My contribution was y. I explored z which didn't work. This led to a publication>. Would this count as wasting words?

Probably, if it puts you over the limit. But talking at all about already published papers is talking about the past. Talk about the future. The CV already shows your publications.


text:
I misunderstood an assignment, how to write to the professor apologizing and asking for extension?
I am a final year student in India and have been selected to do my final year project abroad in a German university. The professor sent me a programming assignment to do 3 weeks ago; the assignment was to be on JSF (Java Server Faces). Instead, I misread it as JSP (Java Server Pages) and have been working on that ever since.
So recently I re-read the initial email detailing the assignment and I realized my blunder. I have to submit the code with JSF but I will need an extension from my professor. I want to write a professional apology letter but I am unable to find the right words.

Don't worry about a "professional apology letter." Just write an email (or meet in person) and say what you've said here.

The only thing that should be in the e-mail but is not in the question is what you intend to do to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

While it doesn't mean all is lost, be aware (and consider while writing your e-mail) that the assignment may be just as much about your capabilities to adhere to stated requirements as it may be about the actual programming skills. As such, you may want to approach the apology (no matter in which form in comes) with a stance of "I did a part of the assignment wrong." rather than with a stance like "I did the whole assignment correctly, I just used another framework."

@O.R.Mapper If the requirements were really written as acronyms, with only a small difference in one letter between the two, I would consider that a pretty harsh assignment.

@JessicaB: I cannot agree with that; acronyms/names for distinct technologies are often very similar. Likewise, I wouldn't say that accidentally using C++ is a less severe mistake than accidentally using Java when C# was requested, just because "C++" is lexicographically closer to "C#" than "Java" (in fact, the Java code will probably be much closer to what was expected than the C++ code). In a non-CS example, I wouldn't say getting erroneously flown to LAH when you wanted to go to LAX is a lesser mistake than getting erroneously flown to CGK, even though "LAH" and "LAX" are much more similar.

The first key question that I think you need to consider is the reason why the professor has asked you to do this assignment.  Is it for your educational benefit, or is it so that the professor can evaluate your capabilities as a programmer?  Often, when dealing with students, especially foreign students, a professor will pose assignments as a way of gaining more insight into the students actual as opposed to "on paper" knowledge and skills.  You are also in a situation where even if you have been working hard for the past few weeks, the professor has no way of observing that, and may gain an impression of you as a person who slacks off and makes excuses.
Given these two statements, my recommendation would be to send a short email containing the following three items:

A short statement of your mistake, just as you gave here.
A short polite request for an extension, including an estimate of how many days you will need to finish the assignment correctly.
An attachment of all of the work that you have produced thus far (or link to it, if is is more an ~1MB in size, to avoid possible email bounce problems)

Attaching the work that you have done will allow the professor to make use of it in deciding how to interpret your mistake and request for extension.  Assuming you've been doing solid work, they will be more likely to a) not evaluate you as a slacker and b) actually grant the extension.  Moreover, if the specifics of the assignment was less important than the quality of the work you produce, the professor might even change the assignment to match what you have done.

For 3), I'd say the link is better in all cases, and say something to the effect of "In case you wanted to see the (virtually finished) work that I have done, it's located at [url]."  That way it's included, but it's less pushy then going ahead and sending it directly.

@guifa I would much rather receive a 100K attachment that I can ignore if I choose than have to redirect through some random third-party website that I may not trust and that might require me to do a bunch of stupid login crap just to download a file.  If you can avoid the third-party site, though, a link is likely OK.

@jakebeal Personally, if possible I'd always prefer a link to github or something over an attachment.

I'd suggest that instead of asking for a number of days of extension, provide a concrete date and time. It's one step fewer for the professor to figure out if your extension is earlier/later than the grade due.

Lieber Herr Professor G,
ach, meine Güte, after working intensely for the last three weeks on the interesting assignment you gave me, I just realized I misread JSF (Java Server Faces) in your instructions and thought it said JSP (Java Server Pages).  If you would like to take a look at what I did in JSP, here is a link: [link].
I apologize for my mistake. Would you like me to re-do the assignment in Java Server Faces, as I believe you originally intended?  I estimate it would take me about two weeks.  May I send it to you on [date]?
Sincerely,
Student

(Don't wait to hear back before you get started.  Prof. G will most likely say it's fine, go ahead.  Or Prof. G might say Don't bother, I like what you did.  But I can tell that you'll want to re-do it anyway, for your own satisfaction -- so go for it.)

Is this answer serious?

@JessicaB - What don't you like about this sample email?  Would you mind starting fresh and posting a sample email yourself, to show a better approach?

@aparente001 you lost me at "oh my goodness"

I feel that not knowing how well OP and the professor know each other, the suggested tone in the letter may risk to be too informal.

@Phil Actually, the original went wrong before 'oh my goodness', as the greeting would have been too informal in many contexts (although admittedly it might be suitable in some cases).

@JessicaB - Thanks for explaining.  I left the "Dear Professor" part off by accident, not by design.

@Phil - Thanks for explaining.  What is the formal for "Oh my goodness"?  (When I want to be informal, and I'm writing an email to explain a major boo-boo, I say "Aack!")

@aparente001 You aren't a native English speaker, are you? There is NO formal version of 'oh my goodness'. It is plain out-of-place.

@aparente001 Actually without this phrase the first para of your draft letter looks ok to me. I would probably rephrase the second para along the lines of "I think that it would take me another 2 weeks to complete the task in JSF - would it be possible for me to attempt this and send it to you on ?"

@Phil - Do you mind if I incorporate this suggestion into my Answer?  Also, can you propose a substitute for "Oh my goodness"/"Aack"?

@aparente001 please do! you don't really need to substitute it. Just start the sentence with "After working intensely..."

Why does this say "Ach, meine Güte"?

@cag51 - Are you asking why I started the email out in German?  Because OP wanted to write to a German professor.

Ach, jetzt verstehe ich!

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


text:
How do I check the ranking of an engineering conference, and determine whether presenting there will be useful for my CV?
I am a final year student of engineering. I have submitted a paper for presentation at IEEE Power and Energy Conference 2016 - Illinois USA to be held on 19th and 20th February 2016.
The paper has been accepted and I am excited about the same. I am in the planning stage of going and presenting the paper at conference. My departments HOD and most of my teachers are supportive and have encouraged me to attend the conference.
One of my seniors has however commented that I must check the ranking of conference before deciding to attend.
How do I check the conference ranking?? If I find that the conference is not ranked how does it affect the importance of presenting at IEEE conference and addition to my CV.
I am planning for a career in research and in the process have applied to some US universities for PhD. Will this addition to my CV be useful??
Awaiting a reply before proceeding to book tickets and apply for visa.

One of my seniors has however commented that I must check the ranking of conference before deciding to attend. — To be more specific, you must check that this is is a legitimate conference, and not a scam that allows people to exchange money for CV bullets. I don't know anything about this specific conference, but the mere fact that it's being held at my university—one block away from my office—makes me think it's legit.  Bring a coat; it can get cold here in February.

Side note: Usually it isn't the presentation that goes on your CV but the publication, and in most fields you are required to register and present for it to be published.

Does the ranking really matter that much?  Why do people obsess over minutiae?  As JeffE says, it's an IEEE conference, so it's not just junk.  And you'd be better going and presenting a paper than not going and not presenting a paper.

It is a legitimate IEEE conference organised by the local IEEE section in Illinois and its proceedings will get indexed to IEEExplore. Also the University of Illinois is well-known for its Power Engineering - Power Electronics area so you will get to meet some people in the area.
On the other hand, it is not one of the major PES conferences for the year so do not expect many sessions or huge audiences in the conference. you might want to consider that especially if you plan to travel from abroad and need to pay flights - accomodation - registration. Last year's table of contents is available here so you can judge for yourself:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7064877
(Probably you should have searched these before you submitted the paper and not after it has been accepted!)

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


text:
Can a professor grade students based on what she "remembers" with no proper record?
I was graded unfairly in a communication class. I participated more than some students yet the professor said she couldn't remember me speaking out in class. I asked her if she has any record on that and she said it would be hard for her to record if everyone speaks out
Some of the students who were less active were given better marks than those who were more active, it was inconsistent.
There were 23 students in the class and 13 classes in total. By the end of the class, she could not even remember the names and faces of each and everyone.
How should I approach this?

One thing you haven't mentioned is what portion of your overall grade this participation grade counted for. If it counted for say, 20% of your overall grade, this would be a serious issue. If it's a much smaller portion, the inconsistency may not be quite as big a problem.

Yes, 20% of the total grade. I was downgraded from an A+ to a B+. It is just so digusting

That does not answer your question but quantity is not the same as quality: a student that sparsely makes very interesting comments may receive a better grade than one that just say the first thing coming to its mind, correct or wrong.

@Taladris Without a proper record, how could she remember who said what?

Short answer: Yes, the professor can do this. Even though it admittedly sounds totally capricious and unfair. Austin has a great counter-strategy below.

Check if your school has a grade appeal process.
Many schools in the US have one. It will bring in some other administrators (e.g., chair of the department or dean) to review your argument and assess the professor's rationale for giving you the grade.
You might have a good chance with this since she has no written justification for your grade or other student's grades and relies only on her memory. Additionally, if you can remember what you spoke about during the class on specific days (and the students who spoke immediately before/after you), you might want to go ahead and write that down so that you can bring it up with your appeal.

She used a certain mark based on the frequency a student spoke out in class, for example, 5% if you only spoke out in half of the classes, 10% for speaking out in 3/4 of the classes etc. I mean  if she has difficulty in remembering faces and names, how could she be possibly be accurate and objective about the marking?

@StudentX Exactly. Bring that up in in your appeal argument!

@StudentX: This is tangential to the case at hand, but I cannot help but think that counting how often someone said anything is a truly nonsensical way to measure participation. Maybe it is suitable for measuring whether students are indeed awake at some point during class, but unless the impression of the content of what was said goes into the mark (and maybe putting it into relation with the general personality of the student), this leaves a really bad taste of we-measure-something-because-we-can-not-because-the-measured-value-is-helpful.

She readjust the grade so because the chair of department asked her to because she gave everyone very high mark (some assignment she gave everyone a full mark), so that there will a normal distribution in the class. 40% of the final grade was from attendance/participation which I think is ridiculous. How would that reflect on our works?

Great answer. Best path forward is for @StudentX to stop complaining here and start preparing for this appeals process (e.g., investigating how to file it at their school).

I would be careful in this respect! A regrade can have disastrous results if the professor decides to regrade everything scrupulously for the student, which may result in either a lower or a higher grade.

You are right, a mere statement like I couldn't remember you speaking out in class is not a solid remark to make by a professor in this particular case. But your statement I participated more than some students have no objective basis too.
First check your institute policy on exam evaluations. In general, your institute will less likely to allow a re examination based on a student response which is individualistic at the same time based on subjective grounds. Your professor's word is probably going to be final.
But, if the bulk of the students feel the same way that marking is unfair, then things are different. If that is the case, the best way is to bring this issue up together to a competent authority.

But your statement "I participated more than some students too" have no objective basis. So what? It doesn't need to have an objective basis. It is not the student's job to assess accurately how much he/she participated compared to others. The student can make any claim he/she feels is reasonable to make based on his/her recollections (as long as it is made honestly and in good faith), and it is the professor's job to be in the position to refute it if it's incorrect.

@DanRomik I absolutely agree with you. The problem here is that if the student wish to submit a complaint, the judging panel (if any) demands some real evidence. If there are none, IMO professor's decision stands final. Now can such a statement by a student can be given any value? Yes in a democratic setup. But if there is going to be an investigation, objectivity triumphs. In this particular case, the professor will be granted benefit of doubt. Note, the situation is different when many students felt the same way as OP.

I don't know if the professor would be given the benefit of the doubt. that would allow too much room for open discrimination, especially when her grading is entirely based on memory.

There are several issues to address in this story.
1. Is the grading really based on what the instructor remembers?
Remembering who contributed during the lectures is like remembering who answered the questions right in the midterm. The latter seems foolish since there is a hard proof that you have attended the midterm, written down the answers and there is an answer sheet. However, the former can also be kept as a document (for instance, putting a mark near the student's name on the attendance sheet), and can be checked later on just as a midterm exam paper.
In this case, it is unfortunately your fault not to keep track of participation points. You should have appealed against the method your instructor follows from the beginning and made sure that every contribution you have made is recorded.
2. Your instructor might be giving marks on the worthiness of the comment made
Not every comment during the lecture is a contribution. For instance, in a math class, an instructor tells that two plus two is equal to four. A student who says "Oh, than two plus three equals to five!" might not have made any contribution, but a student asks "Why is two plus two is equal to two times two?" might have asked a good question that improves the course flow.
3. You might think that the other students were inactive but they were actually more active than you
Inline with the second issue, some of the students -- who got more participation marks -- might have asked really interesting questions for the sake of the course subject, but you might have missed them.
4. There are witnesses
If you truly believe that you desire the participation grade, then you should talk to the other students that also think just as you. A bunch of them will probably be at your side when you appeal to the grading.
5. What is the university policy?
Remember that an instructor can always tear apart a midterm paper with the attendance list, and claim that the student has never attended the midterm, and the attendance sheet is lost.
Is there any rule against this situation? If so, then there should be a rule against "remembering the contributors".
What I am trying to point out that reading a story subjectively would be misleading. Since it is you who takes a low grade, you as well might be over-subjective about the issue. If you are not a senior student, then you can always take the course for improvement and take a lesson out of this incident.

I trusted in my instructor, trusted that she would do the right and just thing. By the way, the participation marking came up only after she was instructed to readjust the grade because she gave everyone a full mark in most of the assignments and also the participation initially

She did not have a proper record for comments and contributions made by her students, so how could she be so explicitly mark everyone of their participation. What more remembering the answers given by  the students in the class.

Unless I was delusional during the whole class, I am pretty sure I participated more than most students.

Yes, there is a fellow classmate who is willing to testify

I am not sure than if a prestiged university would allow its instructors to be the kings and queens

"I am not sure than if a prestiged university would allow its instructors to be the kings and queens"
Oh, trust me...especially a prestigious university.


text:
How to evaluate the skills that students build while getting to the answer?
We are running a hands-on laboratory that is part of a larger electric circuits course.  I've been doing a review of our lab manuals and am realizing that there is a large discrepancy between what we are asking students to submit about the lab and what we hope they will learn in the lab.
For example, one of the key skills we want the students to gain in lab 1 is to be able to look at a circuit diagram, identify the physical components on their bench that correspond to the symbols in the diagram, and appropriately wire up the circuit.  In the lab manual, we just ask them "what is the voltage across X?"  The problem there is that whether it takes them an hour or a minute, or whether a TA gave them excessive help or they did it on their own, is not captured at all in the evaluation.  However, asking them to describe their process or something like that often results in vague answers that aren't much help.
It seems to me that we need a way to evaluate the skills as much as the end result.  What are some strategies for doing such an evaluation?

How involved are TAs in this? If they sit with the students for all or most of the time, they should have a good insight on which students needed more help, which maybe helped others, which were slow or fast (and how good their results were relative to that) and so on. When we teach practical courses, it is for example also taken into account how they treat problems (asking for help too early, trying for a while then asking, never asking but spending a lot of time on trying,..) and similar stuff.

Typically, activities like wiring up a circuit are for the student's benefit, to help them see / feel / touch physically that which is otherwise analyzed on paper.

Have the students evaluate each other's work
This is focused on the specific example you gave of identifying components in a circuit, but I believe the same applies to most scenarios.
The problem as I understand, is that you are giving them tasks for creating circuits - but without a way of evaluating that they really understood what they did, other than whether the circuit works or not.
One option would be to create a number of circuits and have students draw up circuit diagrams based on what they physically see. While this would allow you to see how well they can identify the components - it will be an enormous amount of preparation for you.
Instead, I'd suggest you have the students make the circuits in one lab lesson. This gives them the initial opportunity to learn how to convert the diagrams into a working circuit and get a physical idea of how the components look and interact.
After this, redistribute all of the circuits to other students and have them evaluate their given circuit. This can include drawing up a circuit diagram as well as evaluating any problems they've found in the circuit or changes that should have been made.
Ideally, you will be able to provide a selection of different circuits diagrams initially, so everybody will be creating something different from what they end up evaluating (e.g. ensure everybody who made circuit "A" evaluates a circuit "C" etc.)
As the circuits will be varying quality, it obviously would not be fair to use this for grading. But it will allow you to evaluate how well they are achieving the outcomes you set, in general. It will also push them to think more about what they are doing (i.e. avoiding pure memorisation) as they are being given potentially badly-made and faulty circuits by their peers.

That's a fantastic idea!


text:
How do I find a journal's type (e.g. SCI, EI)?
I'm filling out a form with information about my publications, and one of the fields is "Type of Journal." I'm not sure what this means, except that SCI and EI are possible values. I'm guessing the former refers to Science Citation Index, but I can't find what EI is. It seems this is something they are expecting me to know so I can only assume it is common knowledge among academics.
What are the possible types for a journal (if a comprehensive list exists), and most importantly, for any given journal how do I find its type?

Why don't you ask from where you take the form? Because even if you find a complete list, nobody can specifically tell what do they expect and mean by "type of journal" except themselves.

Consider editing the title to include abbreviations in question.

EI stands for Engineering Index.

@Parsa I already asked, but I didn't get much useful information - all they told me was basically "SCI or EI, etc." I posted the question here because I thought there was a standard classification and that having this information here would be useful to others.

I have set up a webpage (click here) which provides links to the list of journals that are SCI, SCIE, ISI and EI and also let you check the impact factor of a journal. You can follow the links on that page to find out if a given journal is EI, SCI, SCIE, etc. Hope that it helps!

I get internal server errors when trying to access the lists.

Hi @davidZ . Thanks for the comment. I have fixed the issue.  You can now click on the link.  Then click "view journal lists"  then click "Format for print A-Z" to get a convenient list of the journals. Let me know if there is some other problems. Thanks.

Just wondering if those refer to ISI (and/or  other organizations) list of journals

SCI: Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters or ISI)
SCIE: Science Citation Index Extended (Thomson Reuters or ISI)
SSCI: Social Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters or ISI)
A&HCI: Arts & Humanities Citation Index (Thomson Reuters or ISI)
EI: Engineering Index or Compendex (Elsevier)

You can find the list of those journals in their perspective sites or just by searching their search engines.

I suppose it's something like that, but then the rest of my question (which I understand that you may not know about) would be: how would I find which type a given journal is? Just go to each of these sites and search for the journal to see which one it comes up in? What if there's more than one?


text:
How can I avoid this unproductive pattern with my PhD supervisor?
I’m currently a PhD student in electrical engineering in the US, and I changed supervisors after the end of my first year as a PhD student. There were several reasons for this, but the main one was because I would fall into the following cycle with my previous supervisor:

Supervisor proposes an idea (e.g. a way to solve a problem).
I express my concerns that this idea will likely not work and will need fundamental adjustments.
I am told by my supervisor to not ask too many questions and to just follow orders and implement their idea.
I do as I’m told and implement their idea to the best of my ability and, as expected, it does not work.
I am then blamed by my supervisor that the idea did not work, even though I expressed my concerns before. Another consequence is that time is wasted during my PhD.

I saw no way out of this cycle with my previous supervisor, so I decided to change supervisors in the hope that this wouldn’t happen again. However, with my current supervisor, I feel that I’m falling into the same cycle again. My new supervisor does not read too many papers in the literature. He simply sent me an initial paper to start with, and I continued reading the literature from there. Because of this situation, my supervisor often proposes ideas that sound reasonable at a high level, but don’t really work when I look at the details.
The difference in this case compared to the situation with my previous supervisor is that I purposefully resist my new supervisor more in step 2 above to make sure that their idea has a very low probability of failure, so that I don’t get blamed for its failure in the end.
Unfortunately, this has led to the unintended side-effect that my new supervisor sees me as argumentative. They’ve hinted at this on some occasions.
I’m not sure what exactly I can do at this point. Changing supervisors again is clearly not an option. I’ve also tried saving emails from previous conversations as proof that it’s their idea and that I expressed my concerns. However, these emails don’t persuade my new supervisor otherwise and I still get blamed.

What happens when you propose an idea? Or when you start off your supervisor's idea and propose a modification that might work?

@Roland the age difference between my advisor and I is relatively large. They are also a tenured professor, so this could contribute to the clash in culture as you suggest. Regarding step 1: I’m only given liberty in deciding the research direction at the details level and not the big picture level that I should ideally be able to decide.

@StephanKolassa as I mentioned in the other comment to Roland, I can only decide what to do at the micro level and not the macro level: the overarching goal of the research is up to the supervisor, and often times, how we go from one point to the next is also up to them. I’m often only able to decide things such as how to implement a specific idea that my supervisor proposes. I think this might be the source of my problems, since it seems that I should be able to make higher-level decisions about my research. However, I’m not sure, and would appreciate any advice.

The advisor and student should share a common research area, so the ideas they propose should at least be interesting even if they don't seem very useful. If you don't share a common research area then they aren't a good fit.

You’re overlooking the research opportunities this presents. Why not dig into why the idea, as presented, didn’t work out and what it would take for something different, but similar, to be successful?

@Aruralreader yes, that is what I do in the "express my concerns" step. I think about the details about my supervisor's idea, and try to understand how it can work. It as at this point that I sometimes find flaws in their idea. I try to explain these flaws to them, and propose a different path forward, but I'm often met with resistance.

And how do you react to your advisor’s resistance? We all hit resistance in our careers.

@Aruralreader I back down and just follow their idea, which eventually doesn't work and I get blamed for why it didn't work even though I explained in the past why it wouldn't work.

Keep in mind that this is subjective, but here's my advice moving forward:

Point 0: Reframe your expectations

As a PhD student, you want to do independent research, with some guidance from your supervisor. At the start, it makes sense for them to steer you a bit in terms of the big picture; later, you'll just want them to support your line of inquires. To get there, you want to build trust with them. Assuming good faith on all sides, the best way to achieve this is successfully completing tasks, and some niceness.

Point 1: Find a big-picture idea/problem you both like

It sounds like your supervisor is already sending you suggestions (papers) and the like. Find something that you want to work on, and that they seem supportive of. This is a threefold objective. Scientifically, you should have some big-picture direction (even if it's not ideal, you'll learn a lot). Logistically, you want your supervisor's blessing to work on X (you can expand your degrees of freedom from there). Socially, you've been struggling to agree with them. Thank them for their contribution to finding X idea, and celebrate this win. Try to err on the side of being collaborative and agreeable.

Point 1b: Take their ideas on board

Your supervisor might have more detailed ideas about how to do project X. Don't dismiss them out of hand; write them all down, thank them for their input. Once you've built more trust, you can argue again: for now, assume that they know what they're talking about and are trying to help you.

Point 2: Debug, do science

Go through their ideas and your ideas, and come up with a reasonable plan of action to work on project X. If you're unsure about the implementation of some details, talk to a postdoc or some more experienced lab-mate. You might need to put some token effort into your supervisor's ideas to show that the approaches are unwise. The key point here is that you agreed to work on project X, and this is your positive attitude moving forward. Changing the implementation details along the way as the need arises is within your wheelhouse, so do it. Document what you're working on, what you tried, what worked so far (or didn't).

Point 3: Update supervisor

Keep up a regular meeting schedule: let them know how project X is going. If you needed to fundamentally adjust their suggestions, frame it positively, e.g. "I did some reading and [Y paper] suggested that [Z method] is more efficient, so I implemented that..." or "I tried [dumb idea], but [obvious problems] happened, so I asked [trusted postdoc] and followed [N approach] instead.". As long as you have reasonable results and used a reputable scientific approach, they should come around in time.

Point 4: Be nice, build your reputation

Keep working on project X, but don't forget the long game - you want your supervisor to trust you, and help you grow into a mature collaborator. Don't gloat if your approach works (over your supervisor's), give them credit, try to stay positive when problems arise and avoid the blame game. Right now you're "argumentative": at the end of the project, you're aiming for something like "well mhdadk sure is opinionated, but they get things done". It's probably also a good idea to try to build positive relationships with postdocs and other senior scientists around you.

Point 5: Feed into the positive pattern

Once you're completed project X, propose your own ideas for the next big-picture and see how your supervisor reacts. Ideally, they'll give you more freedom once you've shown that you work well with it. Always try to find some common ground, but as you get more experienced, treat their recommendations as suggestions.
A positive anecdote: I had a similar, but far less extreme problem with  my masters supervisor. They were a big-picture person, trying to give me specific advice (since I was starting out) but this was not their forte. A kind PhD student explained to me that when Prof A. said "do X to get Y", they meant that Y is a cool topic that they're interested in, and I should aim for a simpler, attainable rephrasing of Y with whatever method seemed most appropriate (often somewhat related to X). This was a bit confusing at first, but worked out well in the end.

Thanks a lot for the positive anecdote. It actually explained a lot for me.

+1 for building relationships other than that with your supervisor. Such situations feel a lot less "trapped" if you have career eggs in many other baskets. It might also provide comparison points so you can gauge how reasonable/representative (or not) the specific relationship with your supervisor is. IDK whether you intend an academic career, but the ability to be gregarious and then selective seems crucial. Rarely will you be quite so beholden to a single other individual again

Obviously I'm not in the same room, so all I have is your description and interpretation of the (indeed unproductive) pattern/cycle. Here is my interpretation, especially since this is now the second time this seems to be a problem between you and a supervisor:

Supervisor proposes an idea (e.g. a way to solve a problem).

=> IMHO that is exactly what a supervisor is supposed to do. Obviously, the more experience you gain as a PhD student, the more independent you will become and the better your own ideas and approaches will be. I think it is important to realize that especially at the start, your supervisor will have years (sometimes decades) more experience in doing science and at having these macro-level hunches of why something may or may not be the right direction approach. I do recognize your frustration, having been there myself, but trust that your supervisor is not just throwing stuff around that won't work. Unless they are a horrible scientist and supervisor, but there's no indication of that here. In fact, I think you should prepare yourself for a future in which your supervisor will hardly ever run out of new ideas or new suggestions and will keep throwing them at you, and it is your job to carve out the best way forward. Especially in engineering it will ultimately be about coming up with something that works and when you are successful, a good supervisor will be happy regardless of who came up with what suggestion when. All these interactions and discussions were needed to get to the final stage. Remember that.

I express my concerns that this idea will likely not work and will need fundamental adjustments.
I am told by my supervisor to not ask too many questions and to just follow orders and implement their idea.

=> If this is what always happens then indeed you will come across as argumentative. Of course it is good that you see all the pitfalls and problems. In fact, smart and fast thinking PhD students will often see that. But it is your job as a PhD student to learn and overcome these obstacles (ideally together with your supervisor) - and all of that starts with you at least being open and willing to try something they suggest.
Also: if during your discussion you come up with alternatives that will improve on the idea of your supervisor because of some obstacles you foresee, then a good supervisor should recognize those. Maybe not right away, but if you try their idea/approach and it doesn't work (see 4) and you come up with an alternative or a solution and that does work (and you can show them the data/results next time you meet), then I still need to come across a supervisor who wouldn't be excited and happy about that.

I do as I’m told and implement their idea to the best of my ability and, as expected, it does not work.

=> If you do this grudgingly, without coming up with possible alternatives then that's probably not what the supervisor intended. A good supervisor would hope that a student will explore their direction (macro-level idea) and then come up with work arounds where stuff fails (micro-level idea). It seems like you've never actually gotten to that point because the argumentation and discussion wins out.

I am then blamed by my supervisor that the idea did not work, even though I expressed my concerns before. Another consequence is that time is wasted during my PhD.

=> There is no such thing as wasted time during a PhD. I don't know how this works in electrical engineering specifically, but very often most of what you try fails. It's about overcoming these failures that is part of the learning process during a PhD. You learn problem solving skills. You learn to stick with something if you truly believe in it and care about the topic/problem you are working on. You learn to hone your argumentative skills so that you are not perceived as a a nay-sayer but as someone who never runs out of new ideas and alternatives. It's all about having a constructive discussion and this is something you need to learn.
I would try to bring this very point up with your supervisor as it will show signs of maturity: Tell them that you get the impression that you come across as argumentative. That you don't think this is productive for either one of you and you want to improve on that. Then ask them how you can work on this together. Truly listen and take it from there. Are you sure you are being blamed? Is that what your supervisor intends to communicate? Is this the same reaction you got from your first supervisor? Ask them what they really mean here! This will also take time and practice, so be patient.

‘Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.’ - I tried using the Doohickey method as we discussed but the data wasn’t very good, so I switched to the Whatchamacallit process and started getting these preliminary results. I think a slight tweak to the Thingamabob will really let us get good data.

wasted time during a PhD is too much discussion and argumentation of why it won't work and not enough doing

(+1) "Maybe not right away, but if you try their idea/approach and it doesn't work (see 4) and you come up with an alternative or a solution and that does work (and you can show them the data/results next time you meet), then I still need to come across a supervisor who wouldn't be excited and happy about that." My only concern about this approach is that this can waste a lot of time if my supervisor's initial idea almost always contains flaws. At the start, I used to implement their idea with no questions asked, but this changed when I saw that their initial ideas often lead to a dead-end.

"There is no such thing as wasted time during a PhD. I don't know how this works in electrical engineering specifically, but very often most of what you try fails." I completely agree that most of what I do will fail, but because I do not have much time left during my PhD, I would prefer that the failures happen on a low level (details) rather than on a high-level (research direction). Failures on the low level, in my experience, often require much less time spent than failures on the high level.

It sounds like you need to listen more and talk less. Done is better than perfect.  You aren't getting things done because you are trying to be perfect. Do the task.  Maybe you are supposed to do it wrong for a reason.

It appears you are always trying to challenge your supervisors points of views that's why you think you are trapped in a cycle. As a PhD student, look at your supervisor as parent and give them that respect and a listening ear first. Take their suggestions into consideration and combine with your own ideas. Never go and tell them their ideas didn't work only yours worked out. That's telling them they are not qualified to supervise a genius like you.
Your main issue is PRIDE.


text:
Should I mention on my resume that I've been enrolled in a PhD program when applying to a new one?
This question is related to, but slightly different from, this one.
I'm currently in a PhD program in electrical engineering in the US. I've been in this PhD program since 2021 (3 years). After passing my qualification exam, I've decided not to continue in the current PhD program, and I'm currently applying to new PhD programs in the US starting in Spring 2025.
When applying to these programs, I will need to attach my CV/resume. My current resume includes the row "PhD student" with the dates "2021 - present", followed by a row containing "MS, Electrical Engineering" with the dates "2019 - 2021" that describes the MS degree I finished back in 2021 before starting my PhD.
I'm not sure if including the row "PhD student" with the dates "2021 - present" is a good idea, as it may confuse graduate admissions officers who do not expect to see applicants with previous PhDs. Only including the row "MS, Electrical Engineering" with the corresponding dates seems like a better idea.
On the other hand, during the past 2 summers in 2022 and 2023, I worked as a summer intern at research labs, and the experience I gained in these labs is highly relevant to my current and future research aspirations. This experience is mentioned on my resume.
So, if I don't mention that I've been a PhD student during the past 3 years, I feel that these summer intern positions will seem "out of place" on my resume (since it will look like I worked only during the summers but not the rest of the year).
I'm not sure whether to go one way or another with this, so I would appreciate any feedback I can get.

Generally in the US you are required to divulge such things and provide transcripts of all prior higher education. If the choice to withdraw was yours then there is no issue with this, just mark the program as withdrawal in your CV. Most places will make the rule explicit, actually.
If you were asked to leave then you have some explaining to do that may affect your chances or not. But even failing to pass comprehensive exams isn't an absolute block in a transfer, even to a higher rated place.
"Unforeseen circumstances" is a bit too vague, I think. Be honest.

Thank you for this answer. It was my choice to not continue. Since you mentioned comprehensive exams, would mentioning that I passed my qualification exam before choosing to withdraw be of any help for me in my application? I forgot to mention this in my question.

It can’t hurt to mention it.

@mhdadk "I forgot to mention this in my question." You can edit your question to add whatever further information you like.

Just to add that it is not all that uncommon for students to leave a PhD program in order to enroll in another. I bet the admissions committee are familiar.

@xuq01 thank you for the insight!

@AdamPřenosil done, thanks for the tip.

Changing PhD programs is more common than you actually think. I changed as a PhD student, and I have seen similar CVs as associate professor. On the other hand, empty spaces in your CV do raise a set of questions, and you will be asked about the reasons of the deletion.
Instead of deleting it, you can write 2021-2024 (resigned), and prepare an answer to the question why would you like to start a new PhD. Sometimes you can even benefit from having started another research, and you could see if the two projects might be complementary.
Finally, you'll be better off if you're honest. It doesn't take more than a query in Google scholar to check if you have some outputs, and the academic world is small and highly connected.

As a suggestion: Did passing the qualification examinations come with an interim award you could add to your CV instead? Could you rename the section according to any interim award or similar (i.e. MPhil rather than PhD, or postgraduate research programme, including xyz examinations)? This might make it clearer what you have got in terms of qualifications, without being misleading or missing off important information.

As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

Interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, I didn’t get an award due to passing the qualification exam. I just have a letter stating that I did so.


text:
Is going straight from undergrad to a PhD program cheaper than doing a Master's degree first?
I've been led to believe that it's much easier to get money (assistantships and fellowships) as a PhD student than as a master's student, and so it's cheaper to go straight to a PhD program if you know you want to get a PhD. This is supposing that you spend the same amount of time in grad school with both routes. Is this correct? And are there other significant factors in determining whether or not it's cheaper to go straight to a PhD program?
Edit: I'm hoping to study computer science, if that's relevant. If I do a master's, it'll be in the US, but I'm not sure if I'd want to do a PhD in the US or in France. You can just assume the US for this question.

It can be harder to get accepted into PhD programs straight from undergrad since you've had less time to do research.

Anecdotal - Some PhD programs accept BA/BS students and have them earn their Masters along the way (e.g., after two years defend a Masters thesis, after four/five defend PhD thesis).

Also, you ask about "cheaper". Not sure what you mean (most graduate programs pay you a stipend... are you referring to opportunity costs?), but even so I don't think that's the proper metric to gauge. I recommend thinking about likelihood of acceptance instead.

I am referring to opportunity costs, assuming the stipend received is large enough to cover the costs of attending, but I don't know if all stipends are that large. Likelihood of acceptance into the program itself or the likelihood of getting a stipend in the program?

The program, institution, and field will all influence the answer to this question. In biology or the biomedical sciences, an MS degree may include teaching assistantships, though these may be quite limited and competitive. Master's students may even compete with PhD students for funding (again, that's program-dependent).

@DarylBagley I think this question is very field (and country)-specific. In some fields, in the US, you essentially get a masters degree on the way to the PhD, and might not need to do hardly any extra work to obtain the degree, besides maybe writing up your partial results or having some sort of examination. In that situation, if you start out with a masters sometimes it is trivial to switch to a PhD. In other fields, it is very very unusual to get a masters degree at all if you will eventually pursue a PhD; in other fields, a masters degree is more or less required for PhD admission.

@BryanKrause I'm intending to study computer science in the US, or possibly in France. I'm going to go ahead and edit my question to include that information, since lots of people are saying it's relevant.

Most CS PhD programs in the US are fully funded, in the sense that the university will pay you a tuition plus a small living stipend.  If you do a CS master's beforehand, you are likely to pay tuition, although some masters students are also fully funded.  So I would say it is definitely cheaper financially to go directly for your PhD.  However, it is also a lot cheaper to go straight to industry after a BS than to do either a masters or a PhD, so if money is your main concern, that might be what you want to do.

Some CS MS programs in the US (like mine) are also partially or fully funded.

This is supposing that you spend the same amount of time in grad school with both routes.

PhD programs in the US are 4-5 years (and some are starting to last typically 6 years, even for good students). The first two years are mostly coursework (like in a master's), the rest is dissertation work.
PhD programs in Europe, except for the schools that follow the American system (I think it's mostly business schools), are supposed to last 3-4 years, and you're supposed to enter there having already completed a master's program in that field or a very similar one. if you have a 5-year bachelor's from certain countries, it may count as equivalent to a master's in some European universities, but not in all of them, and not for sure if your bachelor's is 4 years.
So, before taking into account any financial consideration, I would take care of knowing the length of the master's and doctoral programs you are considering, and the admission requirements.

Many PhD programs in the US, for example in engineering, only last 3 years but follow a ~2-year masters, which may or may not be from the same institution.

Caveat: I only know one CS department well.  However, I will answer based on that, to get you started.
It doesn't matter whether you apply for the Master's or the PhD, and you can change your mind along the way; you'll start with the same coursework regardless of whether your intention is to stop with a Master's or continue for a PhD; all the learning you do as part of the Master's will get you that much closer to your PhD; and most grad students are funded; whether you wanted a Master's or not, I think you would be given one regardless, after completing enough coursework.  The initial driving force for a PhD is to pass your basic exams, and this might be done in your third year; the driving force after that is your research.  The coursework prepares you for both of these hurdles.  If you stop with a Master's you don't have to do the exams; if you go somewhere else for a PhD after a Master's, you'll have to pass their exams, but hopefully the coursework at Department #1 will have prepared you fairly well for them (even though it's a different program), and you won't lose much time.

you'll start with the same coursework regardless of whether your intention is to stop with a Master's or continue for a PhD — This is not true in all departments; in particular, it is not true in mine.

@JeffE - As I based my answer on the only system I know well, it would be helpful if you posted an answer based on another system(s).


text:
Duplicate publication by the co-authors
July 2015 : We four authors (Fabio, Alex, Haris and Mark) have submitted a paper in July 2015 and transfer of copyrights to the Journal A. Alex was corresponding author and I am Mark the 4th author.
October 2015: The paper got accepted and published also appeared online.
June 2016: I suddenly came to know through Google search that same article has also been published by three authors (Fabio, Haris and David) in December/January 2016 in Journal B. Fabio is corresponding author, I was not aware of this and also I am not an author in this duplicate publication.
At the time of submission in July 2015, as per my knowledge this paper was not submitted/or being published anywhere else.
This duplicate publication was accepted in December 2015 and appeared online on January 2016 in Journal B
In this whole situation being the 4th author in the first publication (Published in Oct 2015 in Journal A) where do I stand ? Are authors of duplicate publication guilty of plagiarism or copyrights violation ?
What are suggestions for me ? What should I do ? Does it all effect my authorship ?

This is a little hard to follow. Can you try and clean it up to make it easier to follow and remove unneeded information? Among other things, I'm having a hard time figuring out which of the two journals it supposedly removed from.

@Ric I have edited it and modified it in chronological order. Please I need your guidance and advice.

When you say "same article", do you mean that all the words are the same, or that the same thing is being said but in different words?

It has 59% similarity index as appeared in turn it in.

July 2015 -> October 2015 Accepted. Too short time for most reputable journals. Also, does the 2nd paper cite the first? This is the most important criterion. If it is not, you may be almost sure that there is something fishy going on.

Both are local journals with limited audience

Based on these suggestions I have just sent an email to the Journal B with a CC copy to Journal A.
Copy of email
Editor in Chief
Journal B
An article published in December 2015/January 2016 in your esteemed journal appears to be a duplicate of an earlier one (already published in October 2015 in "Journal A")  — or appears to be closely based on the earlier one which it does not cite.
It is requested that please examine the situation and take a necessary action for the integrity of scientific literature.
With Regards
Mark
CC.
Editor
Journal A

That sounds reasonable. Let us know what happens!

@martin I always prefer ethical work and integrality of scientific knowledge, I am very upset with this situation. Am I still accountable being the coauthor in the earlier publication ? Have I done enough as for as my responsibility is concerned ?

@Science_Student Reading some of the articles/blogs at retraction watch  (at retractionwatch.com) , is a useful way to quickly see a variety of cases. This  can give you an idea of the what might be considered reasonable actions and responses in your situation.

If the article is substantially similar
Your course of action is essentially the same as if it had been an exact duplicate. All that is different is that you tell the editors that the article appears to be a duplicate of an earlier one — or appears to be closely based on an earlier one which it does not cite.
As before, do not recommend any specific course of action. Merely recommend that the editors examine the situation to see if the public is being misled and, if so, what should be done to correct any false impression.
Again, take care to refuse to answer any question about who was responsible, what their motives are, and so on. That risks becoming nasty, and in this case it is not necessary.
The three authors may come up with an innocent explanation of the whole thing. ("It sat in David's drawer for months and got sent in by accident"). If that happens, it is not your job to comment or to express belief or disbelief. If asked, refuse.
And at the end of the day, you are a co-author of the earlier paper.

Based on these suggestions I have just sent an email to the Journal B with a CC copy to Journal A.
Copy of email
Editor in Chief
Journal B
An article published in December 2015/January 2016 in your esteemed journal appears to be a duplicate of an earlier one (already published in October 2015 in "Journal A")  — or appears to be closely based on the earlier one which it does not cite.
It is requested that please examine the situation and take a necessary action for the integrity of scientific literature.
With Regards
Mark
CC.
Editor
Journal A

If the article is an exact duplicate
Journal B has published text which is owned by Journal A without Journal A's knowledge or permission. In that case, write to the editors of Journal A and Journal B, purely to make them aware of the situation.
It is up to the editors of the journals to decide what steps to take. Journal B has claimed that what it has published is the original work of the three authors, and this is not true so it needs to un-deceive its readers.
Do not recommend any course of action to either editor. This kind of dispute can get nasty, complicated and damaging very quickly. And people detected in fraud (if it is fraud) will want to punish their victim. That is human nature.
But do write. If, believing that Journal B has published a fraudulent paper, you remain silent, you become part of the fraud.
Never accuse your co-authors of anything. Not to their face; not to the editors; not to your friends. If asked, report the facts only. Do not express judgements of those acts or those people. If asked to do so, refuse.


text:
Is it commonplace for students to feel anxious about graduation?
So, I am but a semester away from graduating from college as a Computer Programmer in Canada. All is well in the grades department - I've completed all assigned work and maintained a ~4.0 GPA throughout the course of my studies. However, I still feel anxious and have a sense that I'm entering the workforce without the base skill-set requisite for success.
Is it commonplace for students to feel lost and/or potentially inadequate prior to graduation? Are these types of thoughts and feelings common among new graduates?

Probably such feelings are common among humans in general. If it makes you feel any better, I have met very famous scientists who seem just as insecure and anxious about their own abilities, even after reaching great achievements.

@DanRomik That's interesting. I suppose there's always further knowledge and competency to be had no matter your level of success.

There is a natural letdown after a large exertion, such as finishing a degree, playing a recital, or killing a mammoth.  Maybe that is starting a little early for you. // If you can fit it into your schedule, this would be a good time to do some organized career exploration.  You shadow someone for, say, half a day, who is working in a job in your field.  You can take the initiative and reach out and set these up yourself if your institution doesn't offer such a program.  Take some notes in the evening after your visit.  After a few months doing a couple of these visits per month, it ...

... will be interesting to read your journal. // When you are in your transition, it can be helpful to do an internship.  Don't let your pride be affected if it's unpaid, or poorly paid.  A good internship can really shoehorn you into a job.  Also, knowing that you have something like that starting a couple weeks after you graduate can be very effective in keeping a lid on the end-of-studies anxiety.

I voted to reopen because this question is about something specific and rather different from the other question.

@aparente001 Fortunately, as part of my degree we actually do ~ 3 week work placement / internship in April at the end of the final semester. Albeit it's not a very long period, but something is better than nothing to hopefully help ease the anxiety of the unknown and get a foot in the door somewhere, so to speak. Also, even though with these placements we're generally free to apply anywhere relevant we wish, the employers where students will be permitted to take placements must provide relevant work and experience -- alleviating the risk of ending up doing busy work.

Sounds like a great program....  Don't be afraid to contact employers yourself to set up another internship for after you graduate!

I believe you may find this Q&A on Software Engineering SE helpful: I'm graduating with a Computer Science degree but I don't feel like I know how to program

Also see: “I've somehow convinced everyone that I'm actually good at this” - how to effectively deal with Imposter Syndrome

As soon as you start the sentence "Is it commonplace for students to feel anxious about...?", you can pretty much assume the answer is "yes", regardless of what you put in the "...".  You can also replace "students" with people in any other stage of academia.

@nate Yeah, I suppose that's very true!

This is common. Any coming future you are unsure of will make you feel anxious. You know you can succeed in college because you have experienced it but you don't know if you can succeed in the workplace as you have not experienced it. You may be a more generally anxious person like me. I graduated top of class from my small state college and was super anxious about going to a well known grad school.
I've learned a few lessons since then. The best advice I can give is this: (1) Be committed to practicing thankfulness and contentment and (2) be committed to adapting and learning in whatever situation you face.
If you know that you can still recognize the good things about your future work situation and come from a place of humility instead of entitlement (which is easy to do even when you aren't a jerk) you will be more at peace with the future. Be thankful for the success you've had in college. Grow amazement of the possibility of things still going well.
And if you are committed to being flexible and finding solutions to things that aren't working out as well as you'd like, you will be more at peace with the future knowing that you have some power to improve things. You aren't going to know everything you need to know for you job. But if you know you can learn, that is enough.

That certainly makes a lot of sense. I am also a rather anxious individual in all aspects of my life. I guess I sort of have the unrealistic expectation that I should have all the answers by now, but that ideology is flawed. I feel a lot of my anxiety regarding graduation stems from the fact that I don't really know what I want to do. I mean, I know I want to continue on in the field, but the scope of possible jobs is so vast, especially with further training.

Yes, the number of options is daunting. That's why I wrote (1): you eventually have to just pick something and go with it, being thankful for the good things about it. There isn't going to be a perfect solution. See Cal Newport's books where he discusses that "passion" is highly overrated as a basis for career decisions. He says gaining mastery, autonomy, and purpose in your job is more satisfying.

That's an intriguing outlook. I guess I've never really stopped to think that your passion and your skill-sets need not necessarily fully intertwine in the workforce to the fullest extent. One can be very skilled at something while having a passion lying in a different place. At least that's sort of what I take from that :). I think for me I just need to accept that I'm not going to get it right the first time. I'm likely going to end up moving around for the first few years until I find the right fit.

Yes, I think you need to accept things won't always work out "perfectly". I'd strongly recommend you check out Newport's books "So Good They Can't Ignore You" and "Deep Work".


text:
Publishing as an independent researcher
Could I submit a (Math) paper in a journal (i.e. ArXiv or Annals of mathematics) as an independent researcher (not associated with any university)?
What is the process to submit a paper without affiliation?

You might look at http://mathoverflow.net/questions/12894/submitting-to-arxiv-when-unaffiliated

The process to submit a paper as an independent researcher is the same as the process to submit a paper when you are not an independent researcher. Follow the journal's instructions to authors, which are on the journal's website.

arXiv is not a journal. Re: arXiv, see this answer.

In general, you may find all the other questions tagged independent-researcher + publications helpful.


text:
Is it normal to feel that your career comes to a halt when you achieve tenure?
My question pretty much self explains what I've been feeling since four years, when I achieved tenure. As I moved up in the academic hierarchy, from undergrad to post-doc, then tenure-track Professor and finally tenured Professor, I realized that the burden of responsibility was always incremental, but I was prepared and after a short period of adjustment, found my way to dwell in the system and balance my obligations. I felt I was constantly learning, keeping up with administrative obligations, and contributing new ideas to my research field. However, I feel that after achieving tenure the administrative load broke that balance and four years later I'm seeing the consequences. The most unsettling sensation is perceiving that I stopped being up to date in my field. Now, I spend so much time writing grant proposal, dealing with committees and doing administration that I struggle to find time to read and stay abreast with the literature in my field, propose new experiments and “do science”.  Sometimes I even feel I am starting to forget concepts and abilities that were natural to me and that are at the core of my field.
Don't get me wrong, there are many things I enjoy from my position. I like teaching, tutoring the students in my research group, every now and then I'm able to put together an interesting project with a colleague and get it running. Also, considering that I'm still relatively young and have fuel for a couple more of decades, I'm concerned that eventually I won't be able to fulfill my duties and enjoy the things I mentioned out of sheer burn out.
Is it normal to feel this way? What are the causes? Does this feeling recedes with time? Could this be an indication that I should start considering a Plan B before I get to old and moving in something else becomes harder?
I want to note that I am not in an exceptional situation: I work at a good university, salary and benefits are above average, the head of the department has never complained about my job, my student are very intelligent and independent and I already sought professional counseling (no diagnostic or conclusion.)

Tip 1: Sabbatical.
This is a great way to get up to date and to drive in your research again.
Tip 2: Leverage the abilities of your students/postdocs to help you stay up to date. If you find a paper that you would like to read, try to find a student for which the paper would also be useful, let them read it and explain to you. If you find a new book/topic you would like to know more about, try to give a lecture or a seminar about that topic.
Tip 3: Say no to more administrative positions, if ever appropriate. You've got tenure and you do your service as you should do you may say no. Some people may not like it, but this is ok - they will get over it.
There was a recent question here that was similar with some great answers, but I can't find it right now…

I believe this is the question you were referring to?

@tonysdg Many of the answers and comments are relevant, but it is a different question because that one was just after achieving tenure, not four years later.

@tonysdg Yes, that is the one. Although the focus of that question is different, the answers may still be helpful.


text:
Unsure whether to continue maintaining research account on Facebook re Cambridge Analytica
I maintain a Facebook account purely for research purposes. I have about 30 or so friends on my account. I have always disagreed with FB and its ethics, however, recently, in the light of the CA scandal I have found myself increasingly questioning my use of the site.
The benefits that FB provide to the researcher of virtual communities are undoubtedly strong. Much of my master's research focused on virtual communities in Iraq and Syria, and much of this would have been impossible without FB. However now I am considering deleting my account in the wake of these - unsurprising - revelations.
As a PhD student, the benefits of being part of an online social community are notable. As a Linux user and a supporter of Free and Open Source Software I also have to wrestle with the occasional difficulties of trying to get software to work which Windows or Macs users would breeze through with ease, but I am happy to do so because of my support for free software and the additional learning/skills I inherit.
Maintaining an ethical standard re software and software companies becomes increasingly difficult in the modern climate. Does one just put one's ethical beliefs on the back burner in the interests of research and should one be perpetually plagued with the decisions one has made to maintain a FB account in spite of disagreeing strongly with the company? Or does one delete one's account and potentially miss out on the great research opportunities it provides?

The question you are asking is a moral dilemma that is unlikely to receive a definitive answer: if you feel like you critically need this tool to do your research, then not using it is likely to damage your career. I publish and review for editors whose commercial practices irritate me, but believe that I cannot have a career without them. Keep an eye open for the alternative, limit your usage, but don't do anything too drastic? (And close your personal FB, if you have one)

there was one good explanation about this in one of my question, let mi find it

@Clément thank you very much. The way I see it, I have three choices. Just get on with it and stop worrying about it - but as I say this will continually plague me. Secondly, delete the account and worry about the missed opportunities. Thirdly, delete the account but include the moral dilemma as part of my research. However, I am unsure of how to do this since my research focuses on music and it's not really that relevant. Well, maybe it is to a point since several of our research training sessions focused on software. My research focuses partly on online communities, so FB is important.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69231/how-to-politely-and-logically-explain-that-i-dont-want-to-receive-notification @c26

I do have same concerns as you, they even ask me to upload my passport! because in FB words, they know I dont go with that name

@SSimon This is definitely not the same question. C26's question is not about mixing private and public, it is about using a non-ethical tool professionally.

@Clément I maybe used wrong wording, there was an answer similar to this question that may be helpfull to OP, I didnt write it is duplicate

Without considering the ethical issues I would say that a FB account with just 30 friends can be easily deleted without any cons. But I assume that your friends can stay in touch with you by more private and traditional channels, as well as follows your work.

@Alchimista true, but many of those in Syria will use the easiest route to communication possible because of time restrictions and the sensitivity of their situation. And they have limited electricity. I think they have greater things to worry about than the ethical dilemmas of using FB. So really it's not about the number of friends but who/where they are. I totally get your point though - it would be different if these people were all in the UK or the US.

I don’t see how one could answer this question for you: you don’t like Facebook for some rasons, but you may need it for research, for some reasons. First of all, it is not a conflict: just because people don’t like cancer, they still study it.Second, neither your reasons can be objectively evaluated by others. This is personal how important they are for you, how much this research you are interested in, and most probably you will have an emotion based decision which makes you feel better.

So that is a highly specific reason to keep the account.  I would delete it as soon better times will arrive for everyone.  I thought it was a more general situation.  Welcome to fb is this is the only way.

@Greg I feel this has wider ramifications. Using platforms purely because these platforms are easy does not mean they absolutely should be used. If they are the only route to specific research, should we use them to that end or should we use another route for other research? If you don't have an answer that's fine, others may be able to help with this issue which affects the community at large and which has wide-reaching consequences. If anything, I hope this question has made some researchers think about metholodologies.

You are facing a moral dilemma that only you can answer. We all are facing a similar dilemma:

Do my professional activities contribute to the wealth of un-ethical companies?

That company may be Facebook, a publisher, a software company, a private group, etc.
Most of the people I know will think

If I don't have the choice, I will go with it but keep an eye open for the alternatives, and make sure the people I work with are aware of that dilemma.

I use C# and Visual Studio in my teaching, despite not really liking Microsoft: I roll with it, but make sure my students know of the alternatives, and bring up the topic regularly with my colleagues, in the hope that we will collectively chose an alternative.
Arguably you can't make that switch on your own: you can't make all the virtual communities in Iraq and Syria switch to Diaspora overnight, but you can create an account on that website as well, encourage people to switch, and keep an eye on both platforms.
As you stated, that recent "scandal" with Facebook didn't create that dilemma: you already knew that your data was used in all sorts of ways. But maybe you can use it to encourage some of your contacts to move to a different platform?

Some people have the opposite approach and put their morals before their career: Alexander Grothendieck is such an example. Quoting Wikipedia:

Grothendieck's political views were radical and pacifist […]. He retired from scientific life around 1970, after having discovered that the IHÉS was partly funded by the military.

You raise a good point here - where online communities are involved - communication will have to be done through email [mostly Gmail], Skype or Facebook [maybe Twtitter]. Therefore this necessitates assisting the work of Google, Microsoft or Skype. Switching people to other platforms could greatly hinder working practice. Therefore, I suppose the question is, is working with the Big Three inevitable? Yes, to an extent. Is it avoidable? Yes. But is doing so convenient for interviewees? Mostly not. What is more important, ethics or research/career? Maybe that is question for me to answer.