text:
Is re-discovery plagiarism?
I have a hard time understanding statements such as:

Scientist X discovered Y in 1960 and was subsequently rediscovered by Scientist Z in 1980.

How does one prove that plagiarism has not taken place? This is also extensively observed in some really old math theorems, chemistry and so on. How does one prove that the similar work produced was as a result of one’s own independent work and not resulting from another’s. Even if something was re-discovered subsequently, why is it even given merit?

One doesn't prove that plagiarism has not taken place.  Accusers prove that it has taken place.

If late-rediscovery were any sort of academic crime, we'd pretty much have to knock every researcher who reports anything.  The idea that most work's novel is one of those early naivities that a life in research will dispel.

I’ll just leave this here: Examples of Stigler’s Law of Eponymy

@Nat I'd put that a bit differently: Rediscoveries don't happen very often, because not very many people discover stuff for the first time that is fourty years ahead of their time. ;-)

It's perfectly legit to stand on the shoulders of giants and make a nice selfie. If you only later find out that mountain was in fact a forgotten giant, nobody is going to think worse of it.

Remember that research was a lot harder to track down before the Internet Age. We couldn't as easily do literature searches because databases were much more restricted in scope and scale. Therefore, we can guess that keywords might not have found the earlier results.
In chemistry, it's possible that alternate methods could be used to synthesize a molecule, which would certainly justify its republication. In mathematics, an alternate, more elegant route for the proof or justification would also merit "rediscovery."
It's only plagiarism if the same methods and techniques were used after consulting the old material: in other words, only if it's a straight-up reproduction.

Plagiarism isn't merely the same methods and techniques because independent rediscovery is possible, in which case the relevant question is, who was first, not did one copy the other.  (This often arises in patent disputes, for example.)  An essential element of plagiarism is that it's not independent and involves presenting someone else's ideas or work as your own.

@NicoleHamilton: The question here is what happens when it's done decades later, and there's no issue about primacy.

It can still happen much later, e.g., in industry if an invention is kept trade secret rather than patented.

In many cases, such discoveries were also arrived at from different directions, and the connection was not seen until later.

For what it's worth, I've encountered many rediscoveries in mathematics. A typical example is described in the first two paragraphs of IV. MOST C-INFINITY FUNCTIONS ARE NOWHERE ANALYTIC in this 9 May 2002 sci.math post, where I discuss the apparently independent rediscoveries of the same result made by Morgenstern (1954), Christensen (1972), Darst (1973), and Ramsamujh (1991).

@NicoleHamilton In prior industrial projects for, say, chemical plants, I've found the same inventions repatented over and over again over the past 150 years.  But it's always in a slightly different context, using slightly different terminology, in a slightly different commercial venture, such that it seems to go unnoticed.

It's even worse for algorithms, mathematics, logic, and any other highly accessible field that a lot of people do.  Like xkcd quipped (in the mouse-over text): "Some engineer out there has solved P=NP and it's locked up in an electric eggbeater calibration routine.  For every 0x5f375a86 we learn about, there are thousands we never see.".  Publishing something involves a ton of work and translation into a field's understanding; but the basic problems themselves have been solved a million times before.

@Nat  Totally agree.  And what's striking about these reinventions is that there's nothing to suggest plagiarism.  The same problems pop up over and people resolve them, unaware they've already been solved.  Part of this is due to the way engineers are trained to solve problems; they're not trained to do a lot of research to find how other people have already solved them.

In mathematics genuine rediscovery seems to me quite common, and it is usually plain that the rediscovery is not plagiarism for reasons related to its content and exposition.
Often the rediscovery occurs in a substantially different subfield than the original discovery and is motivated by different considerations than those that motivated the original discovery.  In other cases the result is essentially the same, but the techniques used to prove it are different.  In    other cases the results can be proved to be equivalent, but this is not self-evident from their statements, or to their authors (or others), and it requires some work, or at least some insight, for people to realize that something is being rediscovered. Sometimes a result that is now considered important in and of itself was proved in passing as a supporting lemma in an old paper, and only once the rediscovery has taken place is it recognized that the result had already appeared. Many results are forgotten - at the time they are published there does not exist an audience prepared to understand their significance - later this audience comes to be and the result is rediscovered - still later someone in that audience realizes that the result had been obtained much earlier.
       Finally there is what might be the most common pattern - at the time the relevance of the discovery was not recognized or the work of the person who made it was not paid much attention (for various reasons, e.g the worker published little, wrote in a strange language, died early, etc.). Others come along, and with similar motivations pursue the same lines of research. It is usually clear that such rediscovery is not plagiarism simply    from the style and organization of the exposition. More often the results are not exactly the same in the so-called rediscovery, although there may be some overlap.
Each of the scenarios described can be illustrated by numerous examples, but as doing so takes some work (to get the details straight) I'll limit myself to the following two that are more or less fresh in my mind.
Here's an example. It is a theorem proved by C. Lebrun in 1987, and generally attributed to Lebrun, that there exists no integrable complex structure on the six-dimensional sphere that is orthogonal with respect to the standard Riemannian metric. The existence (or not), on the six-dimensional sphere, of an integrable complex structure (with no further condition) is a famous open problem in differential geometry (and one for which many false "proofs", both affirmative and negative, have been published, even quite recently). The theorem proved by Lebrun is an important partial result in that it shows that the most natural ways of proving an affirmative resolution fail. Recently the open problem has been revisited and it has been realized that it (actually something more general) was proved in 1953 by A. Blanchard (surely some specialists knew this earlier, but the broader "community" seems not to have (I learned it from a comment made by R. Bryant on MathOverflow); in a different context, a different result from the same paper of Blanchard was rediscovered by A. Sommese, as he explains in the his MathSciNet review MR0397030 of a paper of S.T. Yau). Blanchard's article has probably been overlooked partly because it was written in French and Blanchard only published a few papers, so probably his work was not well known to later workers, particularly as the use of French in mathematics declined; more likely, people weren't ready to appreciate its import it at the time, when the general understanding of integrable complex structures was still undeveloped. (A review of this particular theorem can be found in this article of A. Ferreira.)
Here's another example (really of independent discovery). There is a mathematical structure now known under the names left-symmetric algebra, Vinberg algebra, pre-Lie algebra, and chronological algebra (among others - the multitude of names for one object is already indicative of the sort of lack of communication that often underlies rediscovery and independent discovery). It was discovered essentially simultaneously in three radically different contexts in the early 1960s. E.B. Vinberg introduced such algebras under the name "left-symmetric" in his study of homogeneous convex cones (these are finite-dimensional left-symmetric algebras). M. Gerstenhaber introduced the graded (so slightly more general) version of these structures, under the name "pre-Lie" algebras, in his study of deformations of algebras. They are also closely related to the B-series introduced by J. Butcher in the context of the analysis of Runge-Kutta type methods for the numerical solution of ordinary differential equations (here it is infinite-dimensional pre-Lie algebras that are relevant). The "chronological algebra" terminology arose in the work of A. A. Agrachev and R. V. Gamkrelidze on control theory. These contexts are superficially quite different and the particular algebras that appear in the different contexts have different characters. There was for a long time essentially no overlap between people working in these areas. It took many years for people to assimilate that essentially the same mathematical structure was being studied in parallel in different contexts, with different points of view and different techniques. In retrospect there are good reasons for the appearance of this algebraic structure in these apparently diverse contexts, and understanding why the same structure was appearing in these apparently disparate contexts is itself quite illuminating.
I view these kinds of rediscovery and independent discovery as useful. They often shed new light, illuminate complementary points of view, or bolster confidence in complicated arguments. It is desirable to give credit where credit is due, but the obsession with novelty for its own sake in publication sometimes ignores that methods and exposition can be novel even if the results are not, and that this can be useful for better understanding and utilizing the results.

An example I discussed in my dissertation (and it's not the only such example I discussed there) involves the symmetric derivative of a function from the reals to the reals, where difference quotients f(x+h) - f(x-h) / 2h are used. A standard elementary real analysis exercise is to prove that if the ordinary derivative exists finitely at a point, then the symmetric derivative also exists there (and has the same value). The absolute value function (at the point x=0) shows the converse fails. Since there exist nowhere differentiable continuous functions, a natural question is (continues)

whether there exist nowhere symmetrically differentiable continuous functions. The credit for the first such function is pretty much universally given to Filipczak (1969), and Kostyrko (1972) gave a Baire category argument that “most” continuous functions are nowhere symmetrically differentiable. (In fact, I know of no published or even unpublished references that say otherwise besides my dissertation and a handful of places where I’ve mentioned this online.) (continues)

However, in 1958 Petrův (1958) gave both an explicit example of such a function and a Baire category proof that “most” continuous functions are examples. Moreover, Petrův’s actual results were even stronger than these two later published results, because he used symmetric difference quotients in which 2h is replaced by an arbitrary scale function, so the result becomes one about having at no point a preassigned and uniformly applied pointwise modulus of symmetric continuity.


text:
How do I address my research publication being 'scooped'?
Back in spring 2016, I submitted a manuscript for publication. I revised the manuscript in winter 2016 and have been waiting for reviews since then. Two of the three reviewers responded in a timely manner, while the third has consistently delayed their response. This delay has been going on for almost half a year. I have been patiently waiting and in communication with the editor. The editor has sent numerous reminders and personal emails to the third reviewer to send their re-review, but nothing has come out of these efforts. The editor recently sent out the manuscript to a new 3rd reviewer who is considered more ‘reliable’ but the deadline has passed.
During this time, I received an email to review a new manuscript submitted to a large journal with similar research, methods and analyses used. I feel that this other manuscript will scoop my research that has been sitting for nearly a year and been delayed continuously.
As an aside, in Winter 2016 I saw a collaborator present research similar to mine (in terms of methodology used). This methodology has not been applied in my field until I put together my manuscript. I was surprised to see this in their presentation at a conference and was confused by how they knew what I was working on (it didn’t share with them). This is speculative, but my best guess (and this is also based on this person’s track record with others) is that they had access to my manuscript that was under review. The new manuscript that surfaced this past week doesn't include this person as a coauthor, but it seems likely that they encouraged these authors to use methods and research similar to mine.
For me personally, I want to see the manuscript published with an acceptance date that precedes this new manuscript. I notified the editor and they alerted the chief editor, but nothing has been done yet to rectify the situation. Typically, two reviews are required for this journal, but a third volunteered, and as a result, my manuscript requires three reviewers and not two. The editor and chief editor acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, but I don’t know if/how to encourage them to take further action rather than continuing to wait for a response to the third reviewer. I feel like this approach has been overused in my circumstance and has not produced anything out of it. I would like to move forward with the response from the two reviewers, but I don’t know if that is possible or how to suggest this to the chief editor.
Is there anything else that you recommend I do to rectify this situation?

You can make pre-prints available without peer-review prior to publishing the peer-reviewed version.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that process. What do you mean by pre-prints? I am still waiting to hear a 'yes' your manuscript is accepted to this journal. And, what would I use these pre-prints for? To say, have my adviser indirectly recommend that the other manuscript cite my work?

The collaborator presenting similar methodology may not have been aware of your paper at all. Quite often, it is time for a change or addition to the methodology in a given research area. That is a consequence of where recent research has led, and what methodologies are being used in other areas. When it is time, several researchers will independently propose the change and there is a certain amount of luck in which one gets published first.

@user3052817, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint for an explanation of pre-prints. In essence, you make a draft available online.

It might be relevant to clarify whether your paper than the one that you have been asked to review have both been submitted to the same journal, or different ones. The incentives for the editor could be different.

They were submitted to different journals @SimonW

@SimonW: Not only the incentives, but also the possible courses of action.

You cannot speed up the publication/review process. Suggesting to an editor that they need to speed up the process because you might get scooped is inappropriate. In the future, you need to choose a journal with a better turn around time. Assuming the majority of the time the manuscript was with the editor/reviewers and not on your desk being revised, you can, and probably should, complain to the journal that their review process is too long. Explain to them you will no longer be submitting to or reviewing for them.
In terms of being scooped, your concern of the other authors having access to your manuscript is a valid one. The editor of your manuscript can easily check if one of the reviewers is an author of the competing. In the case where the reviewer shared the manuscript with one of the competing authors, things are more difficult to "prove". As you only became aware of the competing manuscript as a reviewer (which hopefully you turned down), even talking to the competing authors is difficult. You probably should contact the editor of the competing manuscript as discuss the issues. The editors can then work together to try and resolve the issue.

I think contacting the editor is sensible - you would do the same if you only just learned of an important conflict of interest. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up, because 1) most referee delays are for innocuous reasons, and 2) to do enough investigation to pull a referee because of a nondisclosed COI requires a serious time investment on the editor's part. Therefore, PREPRINT!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I cite a paper for its literature review?
Let's say I'm writing a report about sociological consideration of Aurora borealis in hipster communities. I want to support the value of my paper by showing that the way in which people consider Aurora borealis is a major and recurrent question.
I have found a paper saying in its literature review: "Aurora borealis have been written about for at least 4000 years, starting with Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky by Ithurts Myneck (~ 2100BC)". So this is a perfect example of an information I want to report in my paper.
However, this paper turns out to deal with the physics of charged particles in solar wind - that means neither the scope of this paper, nor the scientific discipline it belongs to are related to my topic. Moreover, the reality of the book Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky is evidenced by other means (i.e. this paper is not the only one that is talking about the book). But I cannot access the book to read it.
Question: I want to write in my report that Aurora borealis has been a concern for a long time, and prove this assertion by giving the example of the Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky. Should I credit (i.e. cite) the paper where I found this information, even if it is not related to the core/added of the paper?
I want to give credit for the information I found, however, it is sometimes said: "When you cite a paper, you will be citing from [result] section. If you find yourself citing a paper based on something in the Intro [= literature review?] , you're just citing another citation."

There is more controversy on this topic than I expected, so I've done some further digging. The results of this surprised me!
Institution, Program, and Journal requirements
The rules of your neighborhood may differ, so you'll want to follow whatever more specific rules are given to you in your program. For example, Columbia College demands secondary source citation:

Indebtedness
You must cite any text you read that helped you think about your paper
even if you do not reference it directly in the text of your paper.

However, the OWL APA style reference gives differing advice:

Work Discussed in a Secondary Source
NOTE: Give the secondary source in the references list; in the text,
name the original work, and give a citation for the secondary source.
For example, if Seidenberg and McClelland's work is cited in Coltheart
et al. and you did not read the original work [emphasis mine], list the Coltheart
et al. reference in the References. In the text, use the following
citation...

So if you merely were directed to the original work, but then attained the original work and read it, there is not necessarily any need to cite the secondary source - but the guide doesn't prohibit it.
However, the IEEE has a stance as strong as Columbia, but in the opposite direction! As noted by York University in their IEEE style guide (page 5 of the pdf):

Should I use secondary references?
A secondary reference is given when
you are referring to a source which you have not read yourself, but
have read about in another source, for example referring to Jones’
work that you have read about in Smith. You should avoid using
secondary references and locate the original source and reference
that.

Murdoch University has an even stronger interpretation:

• IEEE style does not allow for the use of  secondary source.
• Locate the original source of information which is cited in a work
which you have read.
• If an original source cannot be located, it should not be cited.

Jeeze, no wonder there are so many different answers!
So it would seem there cannot be a one-size fits all answer - it depends. What is required in one field and style is forbidden in another, and optional in a third (and apparently even then people differ).

True, as the last paragraph, there is a question of what the norm may be, since there may be strong motivations to conform to it. On the other hand, "conformity to norm" is only a particular, potentially limited sort of virtue.

@paulgarrett I actually re-wrote my entire answer, as I was surprised at how many different answers there were - and I think I've located some of the sources of disagreement. While I do agree that conformity is not necessarily a worthy goal or virtue, it notes a difference in fundamental philosophy. In tech the attitude tends to be, "we don't really care where you heard about it or who you are, we want the facts" - and in-text citations do not contain names or dates (just numbers). Yet in the APA style the name of the researchers are considered important. I don't think one is more right.

Selected answer, since it presents (and cite) several point of view. Of course, first answer is "comply to the rules that apply", but it is sometime not clearly defined (hence, my question). Thx for the various solutions you suggested. In a dissertation, what do you think about a section in appendix in which secondary sources are credited? E.g., "Following work have more or less directly influenced previous work, but have not been cited befor. We however want to give their author due credit: # [Ref 1] for this reason; # [Ref 2] for that reason; etc."

Of course you should cite the paper.

The content of the paper should be focussed on your topic and its field. But, this does not apply to the citations within the content. There is no such rule stating that the papers you cite should be within the scope of your topic.
Anything you refer in any domain deserves to be cited as long as you utilise its information within your publication (be it paper or thesis).

While I agree with this in principle, a pg. number should be provided if you are citing something based on a sentence that is not a major point in their paper, so the reader of your paper knows where to find the statement and how to evaluate it in it's proper context. You should also make it clear in your paper whether their sentence was based on an opinion, or a previous study.

@WetLabStudent: Isn't that obvious? You have to include chapter and the pp. ref. in the reference section of the citation.

@ÉbeIsaac I do agree. After reading answers, I think my questioning arose because what is quoted is a fact (i.e. only stating "That book deals with such topic"). You wouldn't quote a history book if you write "Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 1492", would you? So for what kind of facts is there a need to cite? // If several contemporary papers refers to Chronicles of a Minoan watching the sky, which one should I cite?

@ebo: It would be up to your own preference. Cite what you think is closest to the original source or more valuable. This is not particular for just your case, but applies to many places. In general you may find many good sources that would describe about a topic or fact under discussion. For instance when discussing artificial neural networks, one may cite the paper of the inventor, while I may prefer to cite a standard textbook where it is more clearly explained. No one can question why you preferred one reference over another as long as the concerned fact is included in the  ref. you cite.

@ÉbeIsaac I'm saying put the single pg number of the exact quote (in the inline citation, or the ref section). This is not obvious, most people just put the pg numbers for the chapter in which the quote came from.

As witnessed by the varying answers, there are varying opinions on questions such as this. My opinion is that one should be honest about one's methodology and sources, including intermediate sources. In particular, acknowledgement of the sort of sources that have been helpful in finding more-primary sources. One sort of extreme case is acknowledgement that one has used Wikipedia in various way, e.g., to get started looking for things in a possibly somewhat-unfamiliar direction. No, wikipedia is not a primary, and maybe not even secondary, source, but to acknowledge its use serves several positive purposes. More modestly, but similarly, to acknowledge the helpfulness of survey/review/expository parts of papers is to acknowledge the utility of such things to the scholarly community. This is in contrast to the general editorial and stylistic pressure to not give context, not give too many external pointers, etc. It seems to me highly desirable to encourage/legitimize a broader scholarly writing style in STEM (science, tech, engineering, math, the latter my field) in contrast to a narrow technician's writing style that is nevertheless often adequate for "publishability". In summary, honesty both in sources and in methodology.

Absolutely cite it. If reference is second you can check maybe check this site which gives an example based on Harvard Guide for referencing and in the example second referencing.
If possible and if it is from another author try to find original work, if not or if original is the one you are looking cite this one.
But in short, absolutely yes, it gave you information you are using and no matter the genre it is part of your project and your genre since it is relevant to you.

I'd cite it, noting that this paper on a different subject mentions in passing that...

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


text:
Dropping a course as a master's student
I am planning to drop a course in my master's program as it has been really difficult for me to score well in it while looking for internships this semester.
If I don't drop it I will end up with a C in that course. I already have a B- and I don't want my GPA to drop.
How badly will it my hurt my future prospects when I am looking for jobs and internships?
I am a CS major and the course is related to my field.

I dropped a course for a similar reason in grad school. I can safely say that it has had absolutely no effect on anything. No one has ever mentioned anything about it. No employers asked to see grad school transcripts, so no effect there either. Sample size of one, but it's a data point.

If the course is required and you drop it, you'll have to pay for it again.  Weigh the cost of (another) C against the financial cost.

You also need to make sure that you maintain your academic standing (minimum number of credits required to stay as a full student, if applicable).

I can second @eykanal, I have done the same during my MSc and PhD:

The only repercussion you need to worry about is how much dropping the class will affect your standing in your program. If your program/school/advisor are okay with you dropping the class I see no further harm that will come from it.
This being said, you will of course miss out on what is being taught in the class, which may indirectly affect your ability to get a job since you do not have some sort of required skill.
But again, I have never had an employer ask me why I withdrew from a class.

Some things you have to take into consideration are, is this a required class, minimum number of classes to be full-time and your school's policy on low grades.
If it is a required class, then if you drop it, you will have to take it again.
If you meet the minimum number of classes to be considered full-time, then from that aspect you would not have any problem with it.
If you get a C, would it be alright with the academic standing in your school?

Can you / would you want to change your grading to pass/fail?  Your Department could allow you this option for one or two classes - this wouldn't hurt your GPA, I believe.
Another option: you could discuss with your professor about whether he'd be willing to give you a grade of "Incomplete".  Then you can work to resolve this I-grade, either through retaking the course, or doing extra work with your current professor to boost your grade up a bit.  I'm not really sure how that all works, though - I just know that some professors will offer that option for students.
(I am guessing the Incomplete grade option would only be made possible if you had some sort of crisis during the semester...)


text:
Do German universities have "ethics boards"?
In many questions on this site, I see the suggestion to contact one's university's "ethics board" (or "ethics committee" or similar) to decide in the case of disputes related to research or general ethics. A few examples of many:

"Of course, before deciding any course of action, consider consulting the ethics board at your institution."
"You would be well within your rights to object to the professor about the content of the assignment (...), or failing that, to the university's ethics board."
"When in doubt, consult with your ethics board and the journal you plan to publish with."

It seems that the authors of the respective answers usually take it for granted that the university has such an "ethics board".
I have studied computer science for six years at a German university, and then kept working at another German university for a bit more than five years while getting my doctorate. Especially while working there, I have been heavily involved in teaching, and I was regularly in touch with groups from various other German and also international universities while doing my research. Yet, in my real-life university experience, in no situation have I ever heard of anything remotely reminiscent of an "ethics board".
Therefore, I am interested in the following set of interrelated questions:

Do German (or maybe European, in general) universities have anything resembling an "ethics board"?
Is there a body that regularly resolves ethical disputes (or is the ethics angle maybe not that focused because German universities also have nothing called "honor code" or an "ethics policy" (which I see mentioned on this site, too) that could be used as an objective basis for deciding in the case of disputes)?
Or is all of this nonsense, and it is just that the nomenclature is so radically different that I do not see the analogy to certain boards and offices that I am well acquainted with in the German universities I have been to?

In German universities, who investigates allegations of research misconduct?

@ff524: I am not really sure. I do not know whether there is a formal process of any kind. If, as a doctoral candidate, I had watched something questionable going on, depending on who is involved, I might have tried to discuss the issue directly with the person/persons (if they are other doctoral candidates), or informed my professor about it, who could then bring up the issue in the weekly meeting of all professors in the department. But maybe someone other users on the site have some more concrete information?

On "ethics policy" in research a relevant term is "gute wissenschafltiche Praxis."  You then can find Richtlinien zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis and so on.

Weird, why are comments disappearing here? There was an (in my opinion) useful suggestion about looking into reports about previously discovered scientific misconduct among German professors, and another data point about a user's similar Impression about Italian universities, both of which I think added to the topic.

K. Arl, I deleted my comment about Italian universities because after having read quid's answer I've thought that, with different committee names, represents also the Italian situation, apart the investigations of scientific misconduct. I have to admit that I don't know exactly who investigates cases of research misconduct -- probably directly the university Senate -- and I don't know which kind of action the university can legally take against a faculty found guilty of research misconduct (I've never heard of anyone fired for this, though I know of recent cases of research misconduct).

There is the notion of Ethikkommission (searching for it you will find many hits).
However, this is in my understanding mainly concerned with ethical questions related to research activities, in the sense of question whether a particular research activity is legitimate or if there are ethical or moral concerns against it (rather than academic conduct or misconduct).  To interact with it  is quiet widespread and routine in the life sciences, I think.  In other disciplines it is by and large a non-subject.
For the second quote you link to it could be relevant.
As far as other subjects go  I am not sure if there is a uniform naming or legal regulations, but typically universities will have things like:

Datenschutzbeauftragte or a Datenschutzkommission for issues related to handling of personal data and alike.
Gleichstellungsbeauftragte or a Kommission fûr Chancengleicheit  for questions related to equal opportunities and discrimination.
Behindertenbeauftragte for concerns of persons with special needs.
Kommission zur Untersuchung von Vorwürfen wissenschaftlichen Fehlverhaltens for investigations of scientific misconduct.

Instead of a Kommission it could also be an Ausschuss, or some other variation.
At a university level such committees are often attached to the Senat, but they can exist on lower levels, too.

The name will vary, but all universities must have an Ombud or committee for investigating scientific misconduct, as stated above. This is specifically for dealing with internal problems. For cross-university problems there is a national ombud: http://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/

Any academic integrity (or general rules of studies) matter concerning students at my previous German Institutions were handled/decided by the Prüfungsamt (office) based on the Prüfungsordnung (document), both being subject specific, the former being composed of faculty and administrative staff.
For simple questions/advice regarding research ethics you discussed with your supervisor. I have not encountered anything like an ethics board during my bachelors and masters studies in Germany.  As others commented there might be ethics boards writing general strategy reports but not interfering with student life.
Again, this all is from my limited experience as student only.


text:
Submission paper to a journal with no reply
I submitted a paper ten day ago, respecting the dead line. Precisely, I submitted the paper two days before the dead line indicated by the Journal on its web site. The Journal had different editions during the years, such as the spring, summer and winter one. The deadline is important only to see your article published on the next edition of the journal. However, from the day I submitted the paper, I still haven't received any answer from the editors. I submitted my paper, as required by e/mail. I didn't get even a confirmitation that the paper was received. Is this normal?
Should I ask about the current status of the paper?

You write "respecting the deadline". This does not sound like a normal journal submission so is this for a thematic/special issues or what is the background? Please add some more information.

Hello, The was a deadline to respect for the spring publication of the paper as indicated on their website and I respected it. There isn't due to a  special issue, the journal simply publishes a few editions a years such us the winter, the spring and the summer one. Every time the journal posts the dates on the website. Hope to have made my self clear this time, if not please don't hesitate to ask me more questions, I am new in this field so I apoligize if I am not so clear.

How far after your submission was the deadline? Also, is there reason for people to care much about which issue will contain their paper (and thus about the deadline)? Also note that you can and should edit your question to contain additional information (instead of posting it as comments).

Did you ever receive an automated confirmation that your files were uploaded to the system?

Most journals have a website that let you check the status of the paper.

From what I understand, the journal has a schedule for considering articles to be published in the next issues. This means that if you miss a (not the) deadline, your article will be considered for inclusion in a subsequent issue. No problem there.
You not having heard from them in 10 days does not mean your paper was not received. I assume they received the paper already, but they 're too busy/unprofessional not to send back a confirmation or a thank you email.
Yes, of course you can ask about the status; nothing wrong can come out of that. I would write an email of the form:
Dear Editor,
I am writing to inquire about the status of the paper, entitled:
[title]
that I submitted to the [Journal name], on [Date].
I would appreciate if you could confirm that you have received the paper.
Best regards,
[Name]
[Affiliation]

Assuming of course that you have checked your spam folder.

You should always get a confirmation email that your journal, paper, demo, etc. has been received.
Now this happened to me once before where the journal article was submitted on time but due to some automatic pdf renaming, the journal got sent by the system to the wrong editor who just ignored it. Luckily, because this article was an invited one our editor sent us a kind reminder that we didn't make the deadline (since she never got it) and we figured out what happen and resolved the problem.
So as george suggests, just ask about the status of receiving it. A review will take some time...


text:
Is this an experimental or observational study?
We are conducting a study to validate an educational game on PC. A number of subjects are invited to use the game to go inside a virtual office room and put markers on the places where they "like" and "don't like". Then, the places where subjects'  left markers along with their rankings (like or not) are compared to a quantitative indicator of comfort (calculated by an algorithm based on various parameters of the place in question). For example, if point A was evaluated as (liked) by a subject but the algorithm says it should be (disliked), then there is a discrepancy between the subject’s opinion and the algorithm.
The puzzling question is would this be classed as an observational study (as we don't intervene or create control groups), and in this case, how the variables should be defined? But if it is an experiment, what would be the independent and dependent variables?

This is not an experiment, as you do not have experimental control (the ability to manipulate an independent variable, or to randomly assign participants to different manipulations). The point of an experiment is to demonstrate causality: that the independent variable determines (at least in part) the dependent or outcome variable. In your case, there is not even a question of causality to be addressed: the participants’ judgements can’t affect the algorithmic rating, and vice versa. What you are seeking to demonstrate is whether there is nonetheless an association between the judgments. ie For a given location, are the answers similar to each other?
So yes, this is simply an observational study, designed to test whether two variables are associated with each other. As there is no causal relationship between them, the terms “independent” and “dependent” variables aren’t ideal. In your case, it might be best to say that you are seeking to determine whether your automated rating is a predictor of the outcome variable, which is the participant judgments. But you could just as validly phrase this in the other direction, and see if the algorithmic ratings differ systematically across values of the human ratings.
Don’t worry that your study can’t be described as an experiment. Entire scientific disciplines (eg a lot of astronomy, anthropology, archaeology) are largely non-experimental.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, truly helpful. In fact, the output in question is the user rating in the game itself, as the algorithm is already validated against user ratings but in real life (not a virtual room). In other words, we try to check if this game would lead to user ratings that agree with the "reference" algorithm, and thus the game offers accurate replication and we can use it instead of putting subjects in the real room. So in this case, the two "variables" of interests be "user rating" and "algorithm rating"? does ignoring subjects personality, etc would invalidate it?

Yes, those are the two variables of interest. You are testing to see whether the relationship between them generalises from the real-world situation to this virtual one. The question then becomes how you formally assess this. A low bar would be whether the algorithm performs above chance at predicting user ratings. Or you might specify in advance a sufficient level of some metric like AUC, based upon how well it performed in the training situation (expecting that it will naturally do somewhat worse). These are questions to consult with a statistician upon, prior to designing your study.

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


text:
How to list an ABD PhD when I also have a second, defended, PhD
I have started and completed 4 years in a theoretical physics PhD program. I was ABD ("all but dissertation") and have published a couple of papers on that topic and been employed in a research project. I quit about 1 year before completing it and was considered ABD because all that was left was to write up my PhD thesis.
I had been considering switching to Computational Neuroscience for a while then, and because there was a project hiring PhD students in a lab that I really wanted to work in, I decided to abandon my first PhD and switch to Computational Neuroscience. This second PhD I completed and am now a second year postdoc at the same lab.
So for my current position, the CV was not much of an issue. But now I am thinking of applying for other positions and grants and I wonder how this sort of "gap" in my education section will look to people evaluating my CV and how to declare what I did during those 4 years. Do I list my PhD and say that I was ABD? Does that even mean anything to people outside of the US? I'm in Europe now and my current advisor did not know what ABD means and suggested I just leave out my first PhD program. Does that feel right to people?
Going from physics to computational neuroscience is by no means uncommon but I feel like completing 4 years in a PhD program to then go do another one is.
If anyone has experience with a similar situation, I'd appreciate pointers!

ABD = "all but dissertation"? So you defended your work, but you just didn't write it up in a thesis?

No, I guess ABD is ill-defined. At my old university it meant you had done your quals and all the course work but did not write a thesis nor defend it. I wasn't aware that it means defending work and not writing it up elsewhere and I'm not sure how that would work since you need a thesis to defend.

This is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "a doctoral candidate who has completed required courses and examinations but not a dissertation" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abd

@WolfgangBangerth Why do you think story defended anything?

@AzorAhai-him- That's how the term is used at my university: A candidate who has defended their work, but either hasn't submitted their thesis yet, or hasn't made the changes required by the committee (or the committee hasn't accepted them yet).

@Wolfgang Bangerth Ah, that means without having filed the final version. I think that's not how most people use it, though. In most cases it means a person who finished all work and quals and is now in the process of writing up a thesis.
In Europe they used to have the Dr. des. (doctor designatus, I think?) for what you mention in some places for people who have written and defended but haven't filed or published their work yet.

@WolfgangBangerth Ah okay. That’s not how I’ve heard it used anywhere else.

ABD doesn't mean much in the US, either.

You're thinking a bit sideways.  Don't look at how to get credit for it on your CV.  Think of how you can include the info on your CV without having it look like a major unfinished project.

@Scott Seidman I've explained it. It's not about getting credit. It's about what is the best way of representing the situation. I do not want credit but I also do not want to be penalized because I have an empty space for 4 years.

@ScottSeidman Also we might be using "meaning" way differently. What I this conversation was about is the explication of the word. What you seem to be alluding to is the inherent worth of an ABD status. And while I agree that it doesn't have value in terms of being a degree, there is value in class/research work I did and it's not just 4 years of being out of academia. Apparently, meaning is hard to convey.

Just say what you did:
2000-2004 Graduate student, theoretical physics:

Completed qualifying exams and published two papers (referenced
below).  Employed by the University of the Universe's Dark Matter
Antidiscrimination project during this time. Left this program when I
decided to switch to, and complete, my PhD in Computational
Neuroscience.

This sums up some of the main points from the answers and comments above and is the most honest and comprehensive solution. Thanks!

To me, "ABD" is mostly a fancy way to say you didn't graduate; it provides almost no information, because the thesis/dissertation is the central part of your PhD; far more interpretable that you "published a couple of papers on that topic and been employed in a research project". It's like saying you're a novelist, but haven't written a book, or saying you're an actor but you've only ever auditioned or competed against family members in charades and never actually acted.
I find its use within academia in the US to be fine to describe your in-progress situation; people know what it means, and I think generally understand that the meaning varies between programs and is often informal. Outside of academia or possibly outside of the US, it's a little tricky, I've seen some examples where people write something like "PhD (ABD)" and it's quite misleading, as if you have a PhD and "ABD" is some secondary characteristic. Even for someone who knows what it means, though, it may look like you are attempting to mislead. I'd just stay very very far away from that. For you, though, you aren't really "ABD" anymore: you withdrew. You're not in the program. You didn't earn half a degree, you quit. For some people in your position, it may have been possible at the time to apply to exit with a masters degree, but if that wasn't an option or you didn't go through the paperwork, you don't get an "almost PhD" as a consolation prize.
On your CV, I wouldn't bother touting the "ABD" designation; published research and employment can be listed in other sections (e.g., "Research Assistant"). I'd probably list it clearly in the education section, maybe like:

Education
Computational Neuroscience University, PhD Computational Neuroscience 2022
Theoretical University of Physics, PhD Theoretical Physics (withdrew)
State University, BS Physics 2013

I think for some things, especially outside of academia, it might be fine to just leave it off, though the rest of your CV would probably still have signatures of your time there, such as employment as a TA/RA. For grants, check carefully about any requirements to list all past education.
In either case, you should be prepared to answer questions about why you left the first program, but I think that'll be pretty easy now that you've completed another degree, you can simply say you switched to a different program that interested you more, and point to your accomplishments there. You can also make clear that this was your decision, rather than some sort of discipline, and you have some productivity from that time to point to as well. Overall I can't see it hurting you, the only thing that would hurt is if someone gets an impression you're misrepresenting.

Thank you! That is very helpful actually. I didn't mean to say that I want to put the ABD there as some sort of almost-degree. I was just wondering how it would look to have a not-completed PhD on my CV vs. having a gap of 4 years between the BA and the start of the PhD I did complete. Thanks!

Those 4 years academic gap isn't as big a stigma as a job gap. You know what you did so if it came up during then interview, then talk about it. Otherwise, leave it off the resume. The point of the resume is to be an introduction, not to exhaustively list everything you've ever done. You have approximately 15 seconds to generate interest, for a maximum read time of maybe 2 minutes, and seeing an incomplete PhD is too much of a distraction to gain any real value.

@Nelson It's more common for resumes outside of academia to pick and choose a bit what you show; within an academic CV, there's more expectation that you would include all relevant academic activities including all education. Your advice about 15 seconds to generate interest sounds to me more like you're talking about resumes outside of academia.

@Nelson I've been in hiring situations with my supervisor when they were looking to hire a new PhD student for a project and even in that case, the "issue" of a gap of two years between the BA and an MA came up. I was stunned, since this was a brilliant MA student and I would not have cared about something like that personally. That's, in part, also why I worry.

To me, even "PhD Theoretical Physics (withdrew)" is misleading. You worked at a lab or vent to grad school in theoretical physics. Nothing more.

@usr1234567: To me, even "PhD Theoretical Physics (withdrew)" is misleading. -- To me also, now that you've pointed it out. (It seemed OK to me earlier.) Maybe something like "PhD candidate Theoretical Physics (2013-2017)" would be better, since this also better fills in the gap years. Indeed, "withdrew" could give the impression of less than a year, maybe even just a few weeks -- 4 years is much more significant for providing evidence of a nontrivial background in physics.

Yeah, I agree there might be better ways to present it. Adding "student" is another option I'd say, and year ranges are pretty common as well.

@DaveLRenfro and Bryan KrauseThis is precisely what I was trying to ask in the original question. Is it customary to update the question with these points, since they're here in the comments and not in a main answer?

When applying for an industry position, accounting for the time honestly shouldn't count against you, but leaving it vague invites suspicion. I participated in interviewing someone who we decided against, in part because of the four-year gap that he would not willingly explain, but mostly because he got through four (Imperial) pints of strong beer during lunch in a pub.

@JohnDallman Yes, I would just honestly say what I did for an industry job. I've done that before and all they cared about is what I did, which was work in two labs doing XYZ, and what skills that taught me and how they apply to the position. But for academic positions, they are usually weird about gaps. I already find it weird that I have to put having had a child last year as an "explanation" for a dip in paper output for 2022. Academia is weird.

ABD indeed means nothing in Europe, this is the first time I hear of the term. I would refrain from even having the word "PhD" in the description of that time period on your CV, because having the actual awarded title in there can come across as misleading, even when followed by "withdrew".
So I would either be more specific (PhD student in theoretical physics, not completed due to personal reasons) or more vague (xxx lab at yyy university).
In the first case you can expect questions about WHY you quit and in the second case about what you did there exactly. Either won't be a major issue after you have actually completed a PhD, it's just about making sure that time period on your CV is covered.

Thank you that helps! That's precisely what I thought, that Europeans do not have the notion of ABD, as some of my colleagues didn't even do coursework or anything besides a thesis for their PhDs.

I would think that taking 4 years to achieve a BA to be more problematic. That's what that reads as, to me.

@CGCampbell maybe in this formatting, but it says BA 2008-2011. That’s three years, which is extra fast in the US, if anything.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I posted that. If you actually received your BA, then you're right, three years is fast for that. My apologies.

For the theoretical physics, OP can state (withdrew) or (incomplete). I suppose, withdrew might sound better though, but not ABD.
All but dissertation is a US thing where you complete your course work and passed the qualifying exam. At that stage, ideally all that is left is to write up your thesis.
In Europe, things are different.
In lot of places on the mainland and Scandinavian, as a PhD, you are actually in a (university) employment.
In some, you're simply a student.
In others, you are in a sponsored project.
The ABD is unknown in Europe. That is not to say that academia (in Europe) might not understand it. So, it's either it (PhD) was completed or incomplete.
Rather, speak to the relevant research project(s) you've done. Talking about 'relevant', theoretical physics can relate to aspects of computation neuroscience.
See Theoretical physics professor wins NSF grant in computational neuroscience

Yes, the link is fairly common in Computational Neuroscience. Many of my colleagues are physicists by initial training. That is less of an issue. Any hiring committee will hopefully know that.
And yes, I was considered more like an employee who also does a PhD in my second PhD but more like a student in the US. That made me consider putting it in the education section in the first place. Because I did study during that time, so it would naturally belong in that section.

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


text:
Why is there a 14-year difference between the submission date of this arXiv paper and the date in the paper text?
I am so confused. This paper is listed as having been submitted in 1999, but the date below the author's names inside the PDF is 2013.
What is the meaning of each date?

Now it states 2018.

The LaTex source code contains the \date{\today} command, which inserts the current date at the time of compilation. That is, the PDF is probably last regenerated in 2013. The arXiv submission history gives a more reliable date.

Yes, this is one annoying feature of current arXiv. I wish they could do the obvious thing (viz., redefining \today).


text:
What is the most efficient way of deducing the culture of a lab during graduate recruitment days?
I am amidst the recruiting season for engineering PhD programs. Fortunately, I  have made it to the interview stage for some (YAY!). I have been reading a lot about how crucial fit is to a person's success in a program. I am stuck wondering how can you ascertain fit when you are on campus only one day. In the program's I applied to you are admitted to the group not the program.
These recruitment events are the only face time I will have and given the itinerary pacing,  my free time will be limited.  I also assume it is unlikely I will get a senior student to open up to a complete stranger nor is it feasible to directly ask the PI what is the real culture of the lab.
So my question is what are good strategies to make the most of my time on campus?

Talk to the professor regarding their expectations of students. Talk to the students about what the professor's expectations of them are. If those don't line up, that's worth noting, and it'll probably give a good sense of what the culture is like in the lab. Along the same lines, try talking to the students outside of the lab if possible (i.e., grab a drink at the local watering hole, have dinner with them, etc.)

I removed the "key questions" part because we already have Q&As on that. See this answer and linked questions, this answer and linked questions, this question, this question, this question.

try talking to the students outside of the lab if possible — Let me say this more strongly.  Talk to the students with no faculty present.  Full stop.  If the lab/department hasn't already set up a private meeting with the students, ask for one. If the faculty object, run like the wind!

@JeffE I like that approach I will have to try. I am nervous since I scared myself to death reading horror stories. I need to get this choice right!

I second @ff524's comment about the "key questions". Not all of them are equally applicable to each person, so decide what fits your situation the best.
Plan ahead, and try to memorize a few questions you want to ask.
Here are a few tips:

Talk to the grads in that research group.
Talk to the faculty leading that research group.
Talk to the postdocs in that research group.
Talk to other faculty in that department (but in other research groups).
Try to observe interactions between grads and their advisors, if possible.

What you want to elucidate is the following:

What are the expectations in terms of balancing fun/health/classes/research? Does your potential advisor appreciate friends/family, or is he/she more work-oriented?
What's the expectation in terms of hours/week worked? Does that seem reasonable compared to other research groups?
Do people in the group seem to get along with each other? (If not, that's a sign that there could be drama.) Do you think you could get along with the people there?
Are people -- especially grads -- competing with each other for funding? This can put a strain on interpersonal relationships, unfortunately.
Are people -- especially the faculty and/or senior grads or postdocs -- looking out for their own interests or for those of others (particularly yours)? In other words, will they be on your side and look out for you?
Are people only interested in their own work, or do they show an interest in your abilities? Do they show an interest in you as a person -- beyond your academic capabilities?
Does your potential advisor seem to appreciate his/her students?

If you're feeling really gutsy, you could ask a few more direct questions, but be careful.


text:
Politely decline an offer that I sort-of accepted
I applied to several post-grad programs at Australian Universities. I got an offer from one (University A) very quickly, conditional on completion of my undergraduate degree. It had a lapse date of January 1. During the Christmas break I emailed University A letting them know that I had completed my undergraduate degree but would not be able to get a transcript to them before January 1. I said "Is there anything I can send in the meantime [while waiting for official transcript] that would be sufficient to prove I have met the conditions of the offer and can accept it?" Since then I got another offer from a different university (University B) that suits me better and I plan to accept this offer.
Today (January 6) I finally got a reply from University A saying "I can confirm you have successfully accepted your offer...". I realize I may have implied that I was going to accept the offer in my email, but the situation changed and I no longer want to accept the offer from University A, since University B is a much better option for me for various reasons.
How can I professionally and politely decline the offer to University A?

Dear [name],
Thank you for your reply to my email of December [xx]. Please note that in that email I asked what documentation I need to send in the event that I decide to accept the offer to join your graduate program, but did not yet indicate a definite wish to accept the offer. In the meantime, I have considered the matter some more and decided to pursue other opportunities elsewhere. Thank you again for the generous offer, for which I am  grateful.
Sincerely,
[your name]

I think an apology is needed since the situation is partially Gerry's fault.

@ПетяНарышкин I'm not sure I agree.  Assuming what he quoted is in line with what he said; he never actually accepted.  The email was about the steps required to accept the offer.  Actually accepting the offer should still be a conversation between both parties after all the documentation is in order.

@ПетяНарышкин That's up to him whether he wants to apologize, but I wouldn't - the admissions office should not assume that someone accepts an offer until they explicitly state so. This is also a question of Australian politeness norms, something I know little about, so I trust OP will apply his own common sense.

I am actually Canadian, and have never been to Australia, which is part of the reason I am asking this question.

@Gerry All I know is that as far as I can tell there is no logical reason why you should apologize. Good luck, and have fun in Australia or wherever it is you're headed.

You can apologize without "needing" to apologize. Something like "I apologize if my wording caused any confusion" works well for instance. If it did, then you're at least acknowledging the possibility (which goes a long way to diffusing anger). If they just read poorly, then they will realize that when they check your wording. And it's not like you are admitting some grave error.

@tkr well, I have a (small) pet peeve about people apologizing needlessly, and I'm not the only one. Anyway, it's a very low-stakes decision either way. OP has my blessing to apologize if it makes him happy.

As always, honesty is the better solution here. Just write to them a polite e-mail explaining that you did not explicitly want to accept the offer. Then you can say that for personal reasons, you have accepted an offer from another university.
A polite e-mail explaining your situation is always a quick and professional way to settle such situations. In most cases, the person reading your e-mail will most likely be in an administrative position and will not really care about the reasons why you wish to decline the offer. Do not worry too much about declining, it occurs all the time.

why would you say that you made a different choice for "personal" reason? I am assuming that if Gerry chooses University B is because he thinks that would help him meet his professional (not persona) goal. And there is nothing wrong in showing you know what you want in life!

The author mentioned that University B was a better choice of various reasons. These reasons could be professional (better university), but also personal (University is closer to home, etc.). Saying that this is for personal reasons is a very generic formulation and, consequently, has little risk to offend anyone. Furthermore, we do not know the real reasons given what Gerry mentioned.

Iindeed - I am being optimistic and hope Gerry will choose for professional reasons only. The reason being that if you want a career in academia, you will have to sacrifice a lot of your personal life anyway. Keeping in mind that you will succeed only if you won't think at the end that was a sacrifice at all. For the same reason, saying to an employer - academic or not - that you make your choices for personal reasons, IMHO makes you look as a person with limited drive.

@famargar "personal" is just a polite way of saying that the reasons are none of University A's business. In this context it means nothing more or less than "reasons I do not care to, nor have any need to, elaborate."

The reasons are not professional only. There are two main reasons - 1. University B is a very prestigious university (professional reason), 2. University B is in a much better location as I have family in the same city that have offered me a place to stay.


text:
J1 or J2 visa for post-doc
Me and my husband both are accepted from US universities for post-doc. The universities will not pay us for post doctoral work. My husband won a scholarship from our country for 1 year, but unfortunatelly I couldn't. He will apply for J-1 visa. My question is can I do post-doc with J2, or should I apply for J1? As applying seperately for J1 requires more personal foundation, we would prefer J2 for me. As I will not receive any payment from the university should I apply for working permission (EAD) for J2? Or is it best to apply for J1 at the beginning? Thanks for your answers..

Probably related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63666/are-unpaid-postdoc-positions-common

Have you contacted to the international exchange/student office of your university? Generally, they are the responsible to sponsor visas, so they may have specific advice for your situation.

My PI said they are on semester holiday, so I am trying to find the answer on my own. Thank you. @Greg

@Derya Immigration (ie the whole visa thing) in general is a rather delicate question in the US, so most universities are very particular about it how to do such things. Good luck anyways!

You should apply for J-1.
I had exactly this question when my wife got accepted for a postdoc in the USA.  She started before me.  I was told that although it may be possible to work on a spousal visa, it is far easier to get J-1 directly.
Note: One difference was that we both got paid.  An unpaid postdoc sounds quite exploitative to me, to be honest.

I totally agree with you, but unfortunatelly we have no other choice. At least, my husband has a scholarship from our country..

The salary may be a key difference here. If you are not being paid then I am not sure if you would be eligible to apply for J1. Though there is apparently no minimum salary level to apply for J1 (as opposed to H1B for which the offer must have salary beyond certain threshold depending on the city of work, occupation, etc.), I am not sure a zero-salary-position would be eligible for J1. But better to ask the university's legal dept. They are usually very helpful. And, yes, this sounds very exploitative to me too, but the postdoc system in the USA is exploitative anyway unlike other countries.

@John I suspect the same may apply for getting a permit to work under J2, but I agree that asking the university legal department is key.

We will show our own savings in visa application which meets the minimum criteria to live in USA.  Yes, I will ask the university department but my PI said they are in semester holiday, so I am trying to find answers on my own. MY key question is can I do post-doc with J2? This option will require less money from our side. but I learnt that you have to apply for EAD to work with J2 which requires 3-4 months.But I am confused as I wont be paid. Do I have to apply for working permission in a circumstance which I am not paid?

If on J2, after getting EAD, you can work full time/part time/volunteering anywhere in the country. To get EAD you need to show that the J2's salary is not required to support both of you. With EAD, work without pay (volunteer) is straightforward. Again don't take my words only, you should talk to uni lawyers.


text:
Is it a good idea to include "research interests" section in CV for PhD admissions? If so, what to include in it?
I plan to apply for a PhD position in Engineering. I am working on the CV and while going through google looking for examples I found references to a section Research Interests. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to include it or leave it altogether.
If included, it is pretty obvious to tailor it to the PhD position one is applying to. But the question then would be to whether keep it limited to the position in question or include your other interests. Given that, nowadays, having multidisciplinary research interests is a desirable trait, I tend to think the latter. However, I need opinions from other people. Before answering the second part, please state as to why including Research Interest is a good idea in the first place.

The section on research interests should help to identify these quickly. In principle one could deduce your interests from your publications, talks, thesis and so on, but an exposed lists makes life easier.
However, you can not just tailor your list of research interests arbitrarily to the position as they should be in line with the rest of the CV. If you state that something is one of your top interests but this topic does not appear anywhere else in your CV this looks suspicious. My advice is, to be totally honest here. Do not include anything which is not truly your research interest, and if you include something that does not show up in your CV, have some explanation for this somewhere else (e.g. in a research statement or cover letter). Don't write one of these applications where everything looks like a perfect fit for the position, but nothing is backed up with evidence.

I agree with you. I would also like to hear other opinions as they can be interesting too. :)


text:
How to inform the editorial office that a special discount has been received?
I just submitted an article in a special issue. This article is based on a talk given in a conference, and we received a discount. So after I submitted the article, the website told me to contact the editorial office about the discount. How shall I write the letter? It is the first time for me to do this kind of thing, please suggest some sample letters.
I also want to point it out that in the website of the special issue, it is clearly stated that all papers in the issue will be published free of charge. Does this mean that it is not necessary to contact the editorial office? If so, why is it that after the submission, I still got the suggestion to contact the office?
Thank you!

You might want to check the Beall's List.

From the details given in the question it's a bit hard to tell what exactly happened. Still, my read is that the journal is accepting papers for both the special issue and regular issues. You're asked to contact the editorial office to identify your submission as part of the special issue, since otherwise they wouldn't know how to tell one from another. So you write something similar to what you wrote in the question: I'm submitting this article that's part of this special issue, and I'm told there's a discount applicable / free.
On a side note, it's unusual to me that you're asked about payment upon submission, since usually payment only happens upon acceptance (and then only for open access articles). You might want to check if the journal is a genuine one.


text:
Editor asked me why to change the corresponding author
I have one accepted manuscript waiting to be published. During the proof, I changed the corresponding author from me to my postdoc adivsor. Editor now asked why I made such a change.
What happened was that when I submitted my manuscript, I am the corresponding author by default. I failed to find any option to change it. So I planed to change it later on.
What shall I respond in order not to be rejected during this stage?
I am major in the theoretical relativity physics.

Update:
After nearly one week, my request finally is approved. I do not even have to fill out a form.

What publisher is this? (In any case, it does not seem this ought to be a big deal. Just explain to them what you said here, and I don't anticipate problems.)

In some disciplines "corresponding author" is just the author with the most permanent address or the person who took care of submitting the paper.  In other disciplines there's a convention that the corresponding author is the author who contributed the most to the paper.

@BrianBorchers I am working in the theoreical physics in relativity.

@AndrésE.Caicedo It is springer.

I figured. I doubt you will succeed. I have horror stories involving Springer.

@AndrésE.Caicedo What happened?

@Drake The latest incident is still happening, actually. I may revisit this thread in a few weeks if the situation ends up resolving.

Just say what you said here: you intended the corresponding author to be one person, but accidentally set it to the other.  That's a fairly unexceptional reason to change and I wouldn't expect it to raise any major issues.

Give them the honest reason. Modifying the list of authors is suspicious because incidents where authorship was purchased have happened before. You're only changing the corresponding author, but from the editor's point of view, better safe than sorry.
Since you weren't acting unethically, you shouldn't have to fear a rejection, either.

I suspect that there is no chance that you will then be rejected. Just say what happened and why. I'm pretty sure the editor want to know why rather than be looking for a reason to reject. If you are at the current stage they already have a lot of effort in your paper that they wouldn't want to waste. They would much rather publish such papers than not.
But you may have caused a minor difficulty in their record keeping.
An outside chance is that they are wondering if they need to improve their system or the information they give people.
Another wild guess is that they want a bit of assurance that all authors are on board with the change and that it isn't a case of closing someone out at the last minute.

It's fairly common for editors to ask all coauthors to OK any change in authorship after the initial submission.


text:
Is it reasonable to consider a back-up plan when my PhD student visa is still pending?
I am an incoming international PhD student at a US university. Previously, I obtained my bachelor's degree from the same university, and I've recently completed my master's program at a university in the UK. Unfortunately, my student visa to return to the U.S. was refused for reasons beyond my control, and further administrative processing is required. With the fall semester approaching in just two weeks, this has left me feeling extremely stressed.
I've been in communication with my school and the program director, and they are willing to hold my place for a little longer while awaiting the visa outcome. But past experiences of others have shown that there's a chance of visa refusal or substantial delays in processing. This uncertainty has led me to contemplate internships as an alternative plan.
I reached out to a professor who I had worked with during my undergraduate years, and he has consented to provide me with a reference letter for internship applications. He's well-acquainted with me compared to other professors. However, since he's likely to be my PhD supervisor, I'm concerned that applying for an internship before the beginning of the fall semester might give the impression that I'm not entirely committed to our joint research project. My query is whether it's sensible to have a back-up plan while my PhD student visa remains pending. How might I convey to my professor that my commitment to working with him remains strong, provided that the visa issue is resolved?
Thanks for the help!

Is it reasonable to consider a back-up plan when my PhD student visa is still pending?

Yes. Don't let discriminatory policies keep you out of work. The internship sounds like a great backup plan. PhD students in the US do internships very often. Go for it.

How might I convey to my professor that my commitment to working with him remains strong, provided that the visa issue is resolved?

You could start a side project with them with a small hour/week commitment, if you aren't in the US (otherwise it could violate your visa status). That being said, most PhD advisors should understand your situation and your interest in interning while your visa is being processed. If not, that's a red flag.
It's commonplace in the US for advisors to lose great students due to the current discriminatory policies of the government. I lost one last week, and one two months ago, for example.


text:
How common is it for a professor to require students to work for him?
I'm in a computer science master's program in a university in asia.  It's a three-year program, and halfway through our first year, our professor told us to come work for him at his company during our free time.  I thought it would be a good way to get some experience so I went along with it.  He gave us a little bit of pay but it was irregular and we never knew how much we would get.
After a while, he said we should come work for him at his company everyday unless we had class. My classmates and I didn't want to go anymore, because the work was only vaguely research-related and completely unrelated to our desired thesis topics.  At this point, we were all uncertain if whether what we were doing was just research or actually a job. There was no contract or anything.  One classmate said he wanted to stay on campus to focus on his research, and our professor belittled his research ideas and told him that working for him would be much more valuable.
At the end of my first year, I got a great offer for a part-time internship in another company. When I told my professor that I wouldn't be coming to his company anymore, he was not pleased.  He told me he wouldn't be able to help much with my thesis.  Eventually he gave me permission but it's most likely because I'm American, and I get treated slightly better than my local classmates.
When another classmate tried to leave, our professor gave him a very difficult software problem and said that if this student could solve it, then he could leave the company.  The assignment was in an area that this student has no prior experience in, so he was unable to solve it and was too afraid to try to leave again.
From what I've heard, this is a common situation in our department and in other universities in the area.  Since I've never done graduate school in the U.S. or anywhere else, I don't know if this is accepted behavior or not.  I want to inform my classmates of the choices they have. So, on their behalf I want to ask:
What kind of position is this? Would this be considered an internship, research assistance, or just research?
In the global academic world, do professors have the authority to require their students to work for them? Should my classmates have the option to do something else?
Related:
A while ago I read this question about masters students working for a professor's profit-making company.  I can fully understand the value of turning research into commercial benefits. I have no problem with this part.  However, in this answer, someone asks if the students feel coerced into working with him. In this situation, I believe the answer is a yes, and basically I'm wondering what to do about it.

What you describe is ethically wrong on many levels, and would be also illegal in many parts of the world. Try to graduate as soon as possible and get into a better school to avoid running into bigger problems in the future.

@mmh This is actually one of the top universities in the region. :(  And my classmates say this happens all the time here.  They have friends who are stuck in the same situation with other professors, and at other universities.

To quote JeffE: Run, don't walk.
Remember that first and foremost, you are a student. The purpose of being a student is to receive an education - if you wanted to work full-time at a company, you would not be paying for graduate school.

...halfway through our first year, our professor told us to come work for him at his company during our free time...He gave us a little bit of pay but it was irregular and we never knew how much we would get.

Working for a company part-time as a graduate student isn't unheard of; not being properly compensated for your time, however, is likely illegal. That doesn't necessarily mean getting a salary, but it does mean getting more than just "experience".

After a while, he said we should come work for him at his company everyday unless we had class. My classmates and I didn't want to go anymore, because the work was only vaguely research-related and completely unrelated to our desired thesis topics....There was no contract or anything.

A bunch of red flags here. First, if the work you are doing is not interesting to you, find a new advisor. Easier said than done perhaps, but the advisor-advisee relationship is one of the most important of graduate school - indeed, it's a significant part of what separates graduate studies from undergraduate studies.
Next, being asked to work for a company without any form of contract is indentured servitude at best...and quite possibly much, much worse. Think of it this way: would you ever work for a company like this if you weren't in graduate school right now? (Hint: the answer should be a resounding NO.)

One classmate said he wanted to stay on campus to focus on his research, and our professor belittled his research ideas...

Again, advisor-advisee relationship. These are not traits of a good advisor.

When another classmate tried to leave, our professor gave him a very difficult software problem and said that if this student could solve it, then he could leave the company. The assignment was in an area that this student has no prior experience in, so he was unable to solve it and was too afraid to try to leave again.

Yes, in graduate school you are asked to tackle tough problems. And yes, often you have little experience or background in that area. But the whole point of graduate studies is to grow your knowledge of a particular field that you find interesting - and your advisor is supposed to help you do that. This does not sound like helping.
So, to answer your questions:

What kind of position is this? Would this be considered an internship, research assistance, or just research?

I'm going to go with "abuse". Get out as quickly as possible.

In the global academic world, do professors have the authority to require their students to work for them? Should my classmates have the option to do something else?

No they do not (at least not in that capacity), and yes they should (unless graduate school in Asia works differently, the most you can be held accountable for is tuition and fees - beyond that, what you all do is entirely up to you). But the individual you are working with right now is acting highly unethically and possibly (likely?) illegally, and you and your classmates have nothing to gain by continuing this relationship.

You're right.  Now that I think about it, it is abuse.  Unfortunately my classmates have said that it's not really different with other professors.  Authoritative intimidation is common in a Communist society.  Thank you for your answer, it helped me explain to my classmates how wrong this is.

@Evelyn You should be aware that one of the darkest sides of people experiencing abuse is they come to wholeheartedly believe it won't be different anywhere else and they should just accept it (rationalizations associated with learned helplessness), often ascribing it overly broad causes (societal, national, gender, etc) - why leave if everyone is terrible? But everyone isn't terrible, in any country, even in the middle of the darkest of times - so don't simply accept that everyone is so awful.

@BrianDHall: If I could upvote that a million times, I'd upvote it a billion times.


text:
Deceased author and conflict of interest statement
I am submitting an article with heavy heart. The main author of article passed away just a week ago. This work was suppose to be submitted by him. Now this responsibility came to me.

I am not sure how I can sign the conflict of interest statement on the behalf of deceased author?

My condolences. This situation is unusual enough that I think you had best ask for guidance from the journal about how they want you to handle the issue of the conflict of interest statement.

Edited your title, because as written it somewhat implied the deceased author had a conflict of interest; which is different than just needing a sign off. Sorry to hear.

@Dan Romik: while unusual, I would think this occurs semi-frequently. The average human above 40 has a 0.1% or higher chance to die in a given 6-month period, which is about or lower than the time between the design of an experiment and the submission of a paper; most papers in most fields have a senior author who is 40 or older; so I would expect that the situation occurs every 1000 papers or so. While unusual for a given coauthor, it would be relatively frequent for journals.

@UJM There are fields were you can go from design to submission in six months?? I'm not sure I've written a paper in much less than that.

I wanted to take the numbers on the safe side, hence "about or lower". It's a Fermi problem, really: less than a month is impossible and three years is on the long-ish side (in my field), so 6 months is in the right ballpark. (One of my papers was submitted 5 years after the experimental work started, but I was a master's student and my advisor had tenure so neither of us really cared about timely publication.)

There won't be any standard way for this to be handled, and it's not really up to you, directly. You'll need to discuss this with the editor; I'm sure they will work with you to make this not an issue, perhaps either by having the other coauthors speak for the deceased or simply waiving the requirement.
How to acknowledge a deceased advisor’s contributions to a paper? and Dead author ethical guidelines may also have some relevant content for you as far as authorship for deceased contributors - since the paper was so near to submission I think it's straightforward to argue that your colleague would have approved submission and that they should be an author, but more generally the journal should be made aware that one of the authors is deceased, since they may have relevant policies.

In my case, the editor had a surviving family member sign the waiver for the deceased co-author.  I believe this took a bit of time, but we didn't have to do anything except inform the editor of this situation.


text:
Is it possible to resubmit a corrected manuscript when the manuscript is under review?
About 10 days ago, I submitted a revised manuscript based on the comments of Referee. But I just found out that I made a mistake in the newly added appendix. Now, the revised manuscript is under review, and I am not sure if the Referee is reading it or not.
So I want to know if it is appropriate to submit a new manuscript with the mistake corrected.
It is the first time I encountered this embarrassing situation. I should have been more careful.

If the mistake is minor, do nothing.

Depending on the severity of the error, see either https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44466/a-trivial-correction-to-my-currently-under-review-paper-what-to-do?noredirect=1&lq=1 or https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20098/i-found-a-nontrivial-mistake-in-my-currently-under-review-paper-should-i-send-a.

Don't do this. If you submit your manuscript as a new one it'll be treated as a new one, which means things such as editorial review and plagiarism checks need to be done again. It's possible the system will detect the duplicate submission, but if it isn't there's no guarantee it'll be noticed quickly simply because you might not be assigned to the same editor.
Instead, email the journal office and tell them what you've written in the question. They can halt the review process and return the manuscript to you for revision.

Editorial management systems usually prompt the submitter to indicate that the manuscript is a revision.  If that is filled out, your concerns will not be relevant.


text:
Difference between research question and research objective
What is the difference between research question and research objective?
In my opinion, every research question can be paraphrased as a research objective and vice versa. Am I right?

The question is what will be answered, the objectives might be what could follow from the answers (which justifies the need to answer the question).

Welcome to Academia SE. You’ll probably get a more helpful answer if you specify why you wish to know this.

Although the specific formal definition can be field specific, Farrugia et al do a nice job of laying out "research questions", "hypotheses", and "objectives" in their open access article (linked above). Note their article targets medical researchers, but applies to other fields as well.
To summarize/highlight their definitions:

Research questions "arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study." These may be answered either using literature reviews or primary research.
Research hypothesis are the formal ideas one seeks to test. (The linked article focuses on null hypothesis test, Chamberlin (reprinted in Science 1965, first published in Science in the late-1800s)) does a better job of explaining hypotheses. Chamberlin advocates for multiple working hypotheses where you have multiple competing ideas.,
Research objectives "should be coupled with the hypothesis of the study". These are what the study specifically seeks to do. (e.g., what is to be measured to test a hypothesis?).

One may add that there's not always a specific formal definition, simply because it's not necessary to have one. Science primarily seeks to advance knowledge, and the meta-terminology for describing a knowledge advancement can vary.


text:
Should I resubmit my paper to get the attention of a slow reviewer?
I have submitted a paper to Proc. Am. Math. Soc.  My advisor said to submit to this journal.  It's been over 3.5 months with no response.  I have made several  edits to my paper, but none that essentially change the structure of a proof.  The original email contained the following message:

Submission of unrequested revisions is discouraged. If SUBSTANTIAL
  modifications are absolutely necessary after initial submission, the
  above link can be used to resubmit your article. Please limit the use
  of this link to one resubmission.

Based on these words I would not resubmit, but I am wondering, since it is taking so long, should I just send in the current version to perhaps get the attention of the reviewer?

Have you tried contacting the editor? Not to discourage you, but I have been on the receiving end of a multi-year revision process (at a single journal)...

This will (probably) be my first publication, so I'm not sure of the etiquette here.  I don't know the editor personally.  Would it be rude to bug her at this point in time?

Assume the editor got around to looking at your submission and sending it out to reviewers after a month. Assume further that he asked the reviewers to get back to him within, say, two months. Both assumptions look reasonable. Then he should have the reviews in hand by now, so you should expect an email from him right about... now. I'd say it would be perfectly OK for you to inquire politely (!) about the status of your manuscript. Chances are that reviewers take too long. In any case, I would not resubmit just to get attention. The kind of attention you'd get may not be the kind you want.

3.5 months is not a very long time, at least in my field.

Stephan and Marc, thanks for the advice and perspective!

It should be noted that PAMS only publishes relatively short papers.  If it were a long paper in mathematics, I'd say that (short of something drastic, like discovering that your main result it wrong) you should wait until at least 6 months after submission to (politely) contact the editor.

According to the statistics published by the AMS, at http://www.ams.org/notices/201310/rnoti-p1390.pdf, the median time from submission to acceptance for PAMS is 5.1 months, so 3.5 months is not that long.

This is clearly answered in the comments by @Stephan Kolassa (making community wiki here just to post an answer for the question).
Absolutely do NOT resubmit the paper! If you do, you could end up having everything rejected.
Contact the editors of the journal. 3.5 months is not such a long time for journal review in many fields (unfortunately) but it is sufficient time to warrant a quick friendly email to the editor asking what the progress is.
Though you should not pester the editor, contacting them after 3.5 months seems perfectly reasonable. But keep a friendly/deferential tone. (Don't demand or complain ... just ask for info.)
(And best of luck with the reviews. The first submission is always the most nerve-wrecking. If it works out, then great. If not, try not to sweat it too much. Rejection happens to nearly everyone.)

Please note that mathematics is on the slower side when it comes to the review process. (1) In math there are often only a handful of people who are even remotely qualified to review your paper, so it is tough to find reviewers (2) It takes a very long time in some instances to check the validity of a proof. In some fields perhaps, 3.5 months may be pushing the long end, since in these fields they often only critique big ideas, writing, statistics and experimental design, these things are rather quick to check -- in comparison to a long or highly technical proof. In addition, numerical results are often unchecked in some sciences (especially in fields where you don't submit code with your paper) so even highly technical fields can have pretty quick review turnover. A reviewer in math is going to try and go through your proof in painstaking detail, will try to figure out if there are any counterexamples, even if she believes your proof. I've known several mathematicians to wait over a year before they get a decision on their submission. This is why the arXiv is so important in math; it helps date your discovery, since the review process takes so long.
Inquiring is fine, but be very friendly. Often journals allow you to check the status of the paper. When was this paper sent to the reviewers? If you don't know the answer to this you should try to find out.

I entirely agree with the "do NOT resubmit" advice of badroit. I just wanted to add something which was not addressed and yet seems like the natural thing to do.
Ask your advisor. If he/she told you to submit there, he/she probably has some experience with the journal, either first-hand (as author or reviewer), or through colleagues. This will help you evaluate if 3.5 months really is unusually lenghty for this journal.
I would be surprised if it were. I have no experience with this particular journals, but for other journals in mathematics I have been told that it is unreasonable to expect an answer before 6 months and you can start worrying after one year.
One good reason to enquire about the state of the review process is if you are expecting to send applications soon and a few weeks difference means the world to you. Even in that case though, as badroit very well says: "Don't demand or complain".