text:
Terse definition of many symbols
I'm writing an academic paper in the CS field. I'd like to define five symbols as tersely as possible.
Can I say this as the following using 'let' and semi colons? Like:

Let $a$ be xxxx; $b$ be xxxxxx; $c$ be xxxxx; $d$ be xxxxx; $e$ be xxxxxx.

If answer is no, I would appreciate if you suggest a suitable and short alternative for an academic paper.

This would work for me as a reader, especially if it were preceded by a short sentence like, "We define the following variables/constants/symbols:"

If you're in the "squeezing blood from a stone" stage of paper compression, trying to fit 10 pages of text into a 6 page limit or the like, then sure.
If you want readers to be able to understand what you're talking about, however, you typically want to give your variables a bit more space to breathe.  Definitions sections are typically very dense and hard going, cognitively speaking, and the more that you can present in a reader-friendly manner, the better the rest of the paper is going to be.  If each symbol is important and distinct, then it's worth devoting the space to explain each naturally. If you really do have a large number of not-very-interesting variables best explained by brief phrases rather than prose, consider using a table instead, which at least provides a clear and separate visual organization of the symbols.

A well-organized table can make it much easier to look up a symbol when reading a formula.

+1 for using a table, wherever possible. So much easier to read and understand. It may even be appropriate to create a "master table" for the whole paper, wherein every variable is defined. The most opaque prose is often that which is loaded with symbols and short mathematical expressions. Better to compartmentalize those devices if they're used often.

I would consider a bulleted list rather than a table, since that fits more naturally into a longer written text.

The best way would be to use commas:

Let $a$ be xxxx, $b$ be xxxxxx, $c$ be xxxxx, $d$ be xxxxx, and $e$ be xxxxxx.

As indicated in this answer:

When elements in a series involve internal punctuation, or when they are very long and complex, they should be separated by semicolons.

You could also introduce the formula first, and then the meaning of the variables:

R = pq,

where p is the price at which each widget is sold and q is
  the number of widgets sold

See: A Guide to Writing Mathematics (K.P. Lee) for more information about writing in mathematics.


text:
How to remind a professor about sending papers to read?
In a face-to-face meeting with a professor, he told me he would send me some papers to read. It's been almost a week, so I assume he's forgotten. That is understandable, since he has a lot to do. I would like to send an email to remind him, but am having difficulty writing it. How can I phrase it nicely?

This question sound like a scenario taken straight from this Ph.D.

Is this being afraid of your supervisor an American thing? I see so many questions here either about just normal human interaction or about things supervisors are the best person to answer.... If your supervisor promises to send you something but he/she does not then just mail. He/she is human, you are human, tried each other as human.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because sending reminders to professors is no different from sending reminders to anybody else, so this is not a question about academia.

Dear Dr. Wossname, I have some time off this coming weekend; is it possible you could send those papers along before Friday?  Yours very truly...

@BobBrown Why make up a fake reason?

@DavidRicherby: Who says it's fake?

@BobBrown You have no way of knowing if your suggested response is appropriate to the asker's situation (i.e., they really do have some free time this weekend and want to use that free time working). Unless that's true, it's a fake reason. If you meant that the asker should write something that corresponds to their actual situation, you should have said that, rather than giving a canned response that you seemed to be suggesting could be used in any situation.

I'd be inclined to believe the only way that teachers forget things they say to you is when they are suddenly struck by a bout of early onset alzheimer. Even when I teach 12 classes a day I can still recall what needed to be done the following week.

Dear Professor X,
during our meeting last week, you mentioned that you wanted to send me links to a couple of papers. Would you mind?
Best, Y

I often find students agonizing over the exact wording of totally normal emails. The text above took me 10 seconds to write, and that's the amount of time you can expect the typical professor to spend on the typical email. You're not going to be held to a much higher standard either. Be polite, formal, and above all brief. Address the person at the top, sign off at the bottom. That's all that's being asked for.

Good answer but I think it would be useful to remind the person which papers they were going to share. Professors will routinely meet with many people and may not be able to remember the specific papers they had promised to share.

In addition to the other answers, remember that most professors and other established researchers are extremely busy and overcommitted.  Email often then serves as a durable marker of a task to be done, and can be seen when the person is in a position to carry out immediately (i.e., in front of their computer).
I thus often actually ask students to email me to ask for something that I've promised them, without waiting to see whether I remember on my own.  That is because getting that email helps me to make sure that I actually respond promptly.  In fact, my collaborators and I often do it with each other too for the same reasons, and it's surprisingly helpful.
In short: relax, and don't worry about the phrasing too much, as long as you're not actively rude.

Spot on. In fact, the O.P. has practically written the email already, in this question – simply change the pronouns: You told me you would send me some papers to read. It's been almost a week, so I assume you've forgotten. That needs just a few more words to wrap it up: Could you please send them when you get a chance? Thanks.

@J.R.: "It's been almost a week, so I assume you've forgotten." - seriously? To a sensitive professor, this might sound somewhat reproachful or inadequately demanding, as if saying "Dear professor, how dare you let me wait for almost a week?!". (I agree with the rest of your comment.)

@O.R.Mapper - I suppose you're right – those words could be interpreted in more than one way. (A better way to say it might be: "It's been almost a week, so maybe it's slipped your mind?") In any case, I'd hope most professors would be thankful for the reminder and not read too much into it.

A simple polite email will be just fine. You can write something like the following:

Dear Professor Smith,
I very much enjoyed our conversation last Tuesday. Thank you for meeting with me. In that conversation, you mentioned two papers that I am eager to read, one on post-colonial algebras and another on dialectical topology. Could you please send me the references for those articles?
With Gratitude,
Alice

This is OK if the conversation was a one-off with a professor you don't have much of a relationship with. If it's your advisor and you're meeting every week or more, the first two sentences are way over the top, IMO.

+1 for the idea to remind the person which papers they had promised to share.

Professors are busy people and it's not unusual for them to forget such things. It is perfectly fine to send them a reminder. Make sure you set some context, in case he has forgotten the discussion you had with him. Also, clearly mention what he had promised to send you. Keep it short, simple, and polite. Some of the templates above work fine.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are Nature Letters still considered primary articles?
I have an article that I want to link as a primary article. I found a really interesting Nature Letter article and I was wondering if this is categorized as a primary article, since it is a "letter":
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13144.html
What do you folks think?

I was not previously familiar with the distinction between "primary articles" and "secondary articles", but the distinction is explored in this very helpful link.  After comparing the paper with this document, it seems clear (even) to me that it is a "primary article": they describe results of a rather massive experiment which has not previously been published, and they contribute their own statistical analysis. I didn't see any evidence of a literature review or anything like that.
Also see how Nature describes its own Letters here: they are short reports of original research.
Forgive my naivete, but: why does it matter?

Thanks for the update, and it is mandated I should have all articles I reference to as primary articles in the paper I am writing. I don't know why, but they specified that it must be.

@Tom: Mandated by whom?  That sounds like it could be an unethical mandate: if you used a secondary source in your research, don't you need to cite it?

@PeteL.Clark I believe that high school and early undergrad "how to write a paper" exercises often ban the use of secondary sources, in order to force students to look at primary sources rather than just remix a set of encyclopedias and the lot.

@jakebeal: Ah, but in that this pertains only to pre-graduate students, such questions should be off-topic for this site, right?  Also, you seem to be implying that I have just done someone's homework. :(

Hey guys yes I was a engineering turned med sci student, taking a scientific methods course. I have been sifting through hundreds of papers but I haven't come across these letters before. Sorry if I posted in the wrong area.

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


text:
Appropriate time to announce current research topics
I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in the field of economics and I'm starting to make significant head way into my research and submitting articles to journals.  I get a really strong vibe in the academic community to protect my ideas and don't leak anything until it is appropriate.  My general sense of this comes from my experience with various individual's ideas getting "scooped."  While collaboration is obviously key to academic success, I also want to be wary of announcing any current research plans until it is appropriate.
My question is : When is it appropriate to discuss current research projects and update a CV or website?
When the paper has been accepted to a journal?  After the paper has been submitted to a journal? A proposal has been drafted?  After all preliminary research has been complete?
I appreciate  your responses.

related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27472/is-there-any-research-on-the-prevalence-of-academic-theft http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20833/how-much-of-my-ongoing-unpublished-research-should-i-disclose-to-others?rq=1 http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1966/how-much-information-should-i-divulge-about-on-going-unpublished-research-at-a-c

This is very field-dependent (some fields are very open, others much more secretive), so I have tagged it with economics.

In the field of economics, I believe you are safe to go out with your paper and discuss it after you have produced a working paper or presented it in a conference.


text:
How important is the PhD school reputation in securing a faculty position?
New assistant professors and selection committee members, based on your experience how important is the reputation of the PhD school in selecting a candidate for a tenure track faculty position? Can you please share your experience in supporting your argument? Thanks!
Edit 1: My PhD school was Penn State and my degree was in Electrical Engineering

@Anyon I guess I look for actual examples as opposed to opinions. I probably should add that my PhD school was Penn State and my degree was in Electrical Engineering.

Actually, the first answer does provide examples.

@Dilworth About CS mostly

close enough obviously

@Dilworth I believe it’s very dangerous to assume hiring faculty in CS and EE are “obviously” similar as each of them are simply labels for a myriad of research areas. Thus I rather settle for the most diverse examples and hope to try to find a pattern among examples in different majors. Nonetheless, thanks for your input

Thanks. I definitely disagree. EE and CS are almost identical for this specific question, and for this specific website. How would it be different?

@Dilworth I wouldn’t know if it’s different. However, I’m simply betting on the fact that if an output (or trend) in hiring faculty (with respect to my question) holds for various majors, then it probably will hold for mine as well. Otherwise, I don’t see how uniquely similar CS is to EE as opposed to any other major (with regards to hiring faculty)

The question has many answers from different areas.

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


text:
How much does a successful funding proposal affect the tenure-track faculty application?
QUESTION: I’m curious to know: how much does success in writing funding proposals for NSF as a PhD student affect your application for a tenure-track faculty position in the US? Especially if you were not the PI (due to citizenship reasons and school regulations) but your PhD adviser was. The fact that you did write the proposal is corroborated in your advisers’ recommendation letter and the fact that you did secure funding from NSF on a recent proposal is stated in the research statement to demonstrate that you do have experience in submitting proposals.

EDIT 1: The wording of this fact in my research statement is as follows: As a PhD student and with assistance from my adviser, I drafted the proposal
X that was awarded funding from the Y Division of the NSF. I then go on to briefly explain what published research the award supported.

EDIT 2: Based on your experience how often and to what extent discussion of proposals is included in an applicant's material? I assume the committee would be interested to see the evidence that the applicant is capable of drafting a competitive proposal. Do they by any chance search for the proposal online to see the amount of money it was awarded? Maybe that is a factor on the importance of the proposed study!

EDIT 3: This is with regards to an issue brought up in the comments: The discipline is plasma science and engineering. As I mentioned in the (original) question I could not be a PI/co-PI due to citizenship restrictions and school regulations. Also, the ideas developed in the proposal were not 100% mine but maybe equally shared between the two of us. The draft also went through multiple revisions by my adviser.

EDIT 4: The issue of abusive behavior and circumventing rules have been brought up in the comments. I have not experienced any such behavior (unless I'm being abused without knowing!). Furthermore, per NSF's survey emails I have been listed as a contributor based on this excerpt from the email: You have been identified by the Principal Investigator/co-Principal Investigator(s) as contributing to the following NSF-supported project. Before starting the process of drafting the proposal I was directed by my adviser to read NSF's Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and to my knowledge rules were not broken (I understand circumvention is different).

I would be very careful about claiming that you “secured funding” if you are not named as the PI on a grant. You did not secure funding, your advisor did. If the advisor wants to say that it was you who helped write the proposal, then let them, and that might reflect positively on you, but you do not want to be seen claiming you obtained funding when that is not officially true.

If you are not the PI, how are you listed on this grant?  Are you a co-PI or "other personnel" or what?  Will this grant fund you after you graduate?

@DanRomik The wording in the research statement clearly states that the proposal I drafted was under the guidance of my adviser so there is no false claim. Especially that the main goal of including the whole proposal part in the research statement was that I have the experience of drafting a successful one.

@Kimball This grant funded me towards the end of my PhD and currently as a postdoc. I simply get paid by it and I’m the “other personnel” I guess because I’m definitely not a co-PI.

@Newbie hmm, I’m wondering what discipline you’re working in? Because in my area, math, it would be pretty weird both to draft someone else’s proposal and to boast about it. You say there is no false claim, but technically at the very least your PI can be viewed as making a false claim to the NSF when they submitted a proposal largely authored by someone else who isn’t credited as a co-PI. I know this sort of thing happens and is probably common in some disciplines, but again, such behavior IMO is a touch shady and something I’d be wary of disclosing publicly, let alone boasting about.

@DanRomik As I mentioned in the question I could not be a PI/co-PI due to citizenship restrictions. I think it was worthwhile having the experience of drafting it plus the ideas developed in the proposal were not 100% mine, they were shared between the two of us. The draft also went through multiple revisions by my adviser as well so I disagree that anything was shady. Though I can see how one's perception would be polluted without all the details. I will add this as an edit to the question.

… Think about it this way: suppose your advisor also “trained” you in other academic work such as writing recommendation letters and referee reports, which they submitted under their name only. Would you think that that’s something to boast about in your application? I mean, it shows that you got valuable training, right? And you can say that those recommendation letters led to positive hiring outcomes for their subjects (assume that’s the case). But obviously, submitting rec letters and referee reports that are written in someone else’s name is pretty unethical behavior. Do you see my point?

"As a PhD student and with assistance from my adviser, ": Don't write this like that. Write "together with my advisor, I prepared", or the like. To me, it feels that writing like you do has little benefits, but it makes it sound like your advisor's role was minor, sth. they might disagree with (and they might be right; telling you the weak spots of your draft and how to sharpen it is difficult work and a major contribution to a successful proposal).

I find "I could not be a PI/co-PI due to citizenship restrictions" to be very odd.  I have not heard of universities allowing a graduate student to be co-PI on a grant.  Is it different at your university?

@user151413 Thank you for your insight. Interestingly my adviser did not have any objections to the way I expressed the experience but I see your point. I should reword it in a much fair fashion.

@TerryLoring I added university regulations to the main post as an edit as well. That was an extra reason.

@Newbie It is good that you check this with your advisor and they agreed on that - you don't want to risk of having contradictory statements in their letter. But I'd say there's not much - if at all - you gain from using your original formulation, and you risk coming across as too assertive.

Getting funded is a plus, but simply writing proposals isn't the same thing. The NSF considered more than just the writing, including the reputation and background of the PI.
It isn't the sort of thing that will guarantee you a position, but it is one positive thing among others that will earn you a position. Don't try to base your application entirely on that (though I'm sure you know that, already).
So, a small, but definitely positive, contribution to any application. Getting funded on your own would be a different matter and much more positive. Deans, in particular, love that funding inflow.

Maybe I should rephrase my question to ask how often this sort of information is included in an applicant's application. But then again based on your answer it is not going to be an important factor. Also, to your point about not basing my application on the funding part, this just took 2-3 lines of my research statement.

That sounds about right. A few lines... it shows you can write. It shows you are focused. Positive, but not determinative.

As Dan Romik pointed out, your advisor should be writing their own proposals and not having PhD students do it.  The best way for you to benefit from this situation is for your advisor to describe your contribution to the proposal in the letter of recommendation.  If the advisor makes it clear that you went beyond what is expected of a PhD student, this makes you look good while probably avoiding making your advisor look bad.
In summary, do not discuss your contributions to the proposal yourself.
I do not see proposal-writing as likely to be decisive in hiring at the assistant professor level or below.

Although I do not agree with your comments regarding the answer of Dan Romik I find the answer here very useful, especially the part you mentioned about how my adviser can make the situation clear through the letter. I also appreciate your opinion that writing proposals is not as decisive for hiring assistant professors.

Grant writing for a Ph.D. student is a plus as mentioned in the previous comments. But it does not pave the way for you if you have not done a good job in publication, teaching experience, and research. I suggest that this item even should not be emphasized too much because the search committee might think you are diverting them from the main elements by listing something that nobody expects from a student. I would suggest you mentioned it as a simple experience, because funding is not all about the writing and even the idea. It has more complexity such as, as mentioned in the previous responses, the PI, his/her reputation, the ranking of the school, the panel, the referees, and many many other factors.

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


text:
Is it time to move on from my faculty applications that had deadlines in Dec. 2021 and Jan. 2022?
I'm a recent PhD (~7 months since I started my postdoc with my PhD adviser) in plasma physics/engineering with multiple conference presentations and 5 first author papers resulting from my PhD in journals such as Plasma Sources Science and Technology and Geophysical Research Letters. My letters were written by my PhD adviser, 2 members of my PhD committee and a senior colleague in Europe. They are all professors and have thousands of citations in their field of research and are established colleagues with degrees from US’s top engineering schools. At least 2 of them are associate editors of popular journals on plasma physics. I have applied for 11 R1 institutions in the US with tenure track faculty positions in astronomy, theoretical/computational plasma physics, and mechanical and aerospace engineering. I thought the fact that my background is fundamentally related to research topics pursued in different departments justifies applying for a range of departments. All of the schools have rankings (reputation) better than my own school which itself is a popular public R1 school in the US. Up until now I have received out-right rejections from 4 of them and I was wondering if it's time to move on from my faculty applications and look for available postdocs?

It's not uncommon for rejections to be sent out only after the position has been filled.   It's also unfortunately common for institutions to not send out any rejection notifications.  You could be out of the running for all 11 of these positions and just not know it yet.

I'm sorry to say but the number of recent PhDs that get faculty positions at research universities is vanishingly small in most fields. The very few that do probably did not get them through a regular job application but were rather invited to apply.

@quarague I've come to this realization as well. Even my own recommenders went through multiple postdocs before becoming a faculty. I'm concluding that experience in research seems to be the most important and inevitable factor simply because due to the high number of applicants all other factors seems to be more or less uniform and therefore, choosing the most experienced applicants seems to work!

Five first author publications from your PhD is outstanding.  It's a really good record.  But I'm afraid that alone will not get you a faculty position.  You will need to do something else.

@AnonymousPhysicist Thank you for your feedback. Currently I'm applying for postdocs with established scientists other than my adviser. Though I have no logical reason, I personally feel that a short postdoc experience with nobody but my PhD adviser is not going to stand out either.

Apply to every job for which you are not completely unqualified and that you would be willing to take if it was the only job offered to you.  You can worry about what decisions you have to make if you get an offer and you are still waiting to hear back from places you prefer.
You should have been looking for available postdocs already, simultaneously with your search for a tenure track job.  Of course if a potential postdoc mentor wants to know, you should be open about your tenure-track applications.  It's reasonable to back out of a postdoc if you later get a tenure-track offer.
Once you make an application, it's out of your hands.  Forget about it until you hear back or have a decision to make.
(I am giving advice from the perspective of a field where many highly qualified people don't get any job, because there are more highly qualified people than jobs.
For us, 11 applications is a laughably small number.)

Back in the early 1970's it was necessary to apply for hundreds of jobs (over a few years) to find anything at all. And what you found was disappointing. The market was then, as now, just terrible. Then is was the completion of he moon mission. Now it is a variety of things, including COVID but also political attacks on science.

Thank you for your answer. The 11 were ones that 1. I could write a custom research statement for and 2. I could see myself actually contributing to their department's research in a new field that was fundamentally similar to the already pursued fields for possible future collaborations. I guess I should've not been as picky cause I was not in such a position at all!

I am in a similar situation so here's my experience (note that I am in an engineering discipline). Out of around ~40 applications sent out, I've had 4 interviews (over zoom) and 2 rejections. No invitations for any on site interviews as of yet. My advisor says that top schools will want to have offers out by end of march/april, so they want to have all the on site interviews done by the end of march at the latest (so, invitations for on-site interviews need to go out by early to mid march). Of course it's also going to depend on the school and field.
So, at least in my experience, some schools may be in the "early-ish" phase, but it may be a bad sign if you haven't heard back from anywhere at this point.
You probably want to also apply for postdocs regardless of the outcome of the faculty searches, so it's definitely not a bad idea to look around in any case.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I agree that it’s a bad sign that none of the R1 schools have asked for interviews. Thank you for the timeline you provided as well. Good luck!


text:
Can I change my academic affiliation after a conference paper is accepted but before submitting the camera ready version?
My case is the following; I was doing independent research while I was working in a university, which, by the way I did not use any resource from that place of work at all. During the time I was at this university, a conference came up where I saw the possibility to submit my research, and because they asked for an academic affiliation to be put in the paper; I put the one of my then current work-place.
While I was waiting for a decision from the conference on whether my paper would be accepted, I got a part time job in another university. The good thing about this new place is that they have offered me that they would pay any expenses related to research publication. I know that they have not said that straightforward, but I suppose that they want me to put them as my academic affiliation.
Now the paper has got accepted, and I have to make the final version of it, so I was wondering if it would be possible that I can change my academic affiliation to the new place which has offered to pay the expenses for me?
Can I do that?

Are you asking if the conference will allow you to change your affiliation after the paper is accepted (but presumably, before you have submitted the camera ready version)? Or are you asking whether it's appropriate to list the new place as your affiliation?

the first one, because I still need to submit the camera ready version

According to your comment, you are asking whether the conference will allow you to change your listed affiliation between acceptance and submission of the camera-ready version.
In my experience, the answer is yes. I have done this several times without issue. If there's no way to do this by yourself in the paper submission site, you can email the chair and ask him/her to update your information.
Whether you should use your new institution as your affiliation just to get them  to pay for your expenses is another issue entirely, which you have already asked about in another question.


text:
When is the best time to get permission for putting others figures in the paper? (Conference vs. Journal)
My basic question is, should I get copyright permission for a figure before submitting a paper?
However I realize there may be two different situations, and I'm not sure if they are different.

Should I get permission from original authors/journals before sending a paper for review or;
should I wait to get accepted and then ask for permission.

It seems to me that I should not waste peoples time for permission without being accepted first, but maybe the paper is stronger with figures.  For example, an image of a machine that the paper points out aesthetic features.
On the other hand, it seems to me bad to submit a manuscript or paper and after submission finding out there is no permission to use the figure or image, and taking it out of the paper after being accepted.

When I review a paper, if I see that a figure has come from another paper, I expect the author to have already sorted out the copyright/attribution issue and to have expressed this in their paper. Although I don't consider this by itself a reason for outright rejection, it definitely will be sent back for "major revisions" if a figure is not properly attributed. But since one data point doesn't make a trend, I won't post an answer :-)

Try the question from the other end.  Someone wants to use one or more of your figures for their work.  When should they get your permission?  (You may not care, but ettiquete suggests assuming the figure creator does care, and so I think the proper answer is before submission.  At least, ask them before submitting, and let the editor know the present status of that request.)

Leaving aside for a moment the question of "etiquette",  it might very well be a legal requirement from both the journal where the work was originally published and the one you are submitting your work to that you adquire this permission to reproduce others' (or even your own) work.

It is good to ask permission from the publisher before submitting, even if the figure is from your own paper that was published in the past.


text:
Do I need to get the authors permission for creating a similar image?
Consider a situation where author X explains a concept on his website (no copyright marks etc.).
He also provides graphics to visualize what he puts in words in that explanaton.
I cited that explanation (the text) in my masters thesis and also made an image. The image looks structurally similar to the one of author X. The similarities don't go beyond what is written in Author X's text though. So in that sense, I didn't copy his image but rather put in picture what he wrote - because his image doesn't have many more features than what he wrote in the text, my and his image are similar. In other words: I didn't adapt any aspects of his image that go beyond what is already written in the text. In other words again: My image doesn't contain any aspects of Author X's image beyond what is already written in the text.
Would you recommend asking for the authors permission to use the image? Or is this unneccesary, I am overthinking and citing the text only is enough?
PS: Yes, online sources are not welcomed in theses, but this is a known author.

You have two concerns, which will both be influenced by your location.
First is a possible copy-right violation. Since what you are doing constitutes fair-use and even if it would not, the copy-right holder to the image would probably not enforce copy-right (no gain to be shared, damage to copy-right holder hard to ascertain, use is innocent, enforcing copy-right would be against academic customs, ...), you are safe. You do not need the author's permission, and probably, by now, the copy-right would rest with a third party such as the editor of a book or the journal in which the text and image were published.
The second concern is an accusation of plagiarism. Standards have shifted considerably over the last decades. A vague citation of the image would have once been sufficient, but you need to be a bit more careful these days. If your image is derived from the TEXT, then it is more than sufficient to put in the caption of the image something on the line
Image after [4, Ch.3]
If you feel that the image benefits a lot from the actual figure, it would be sufficient to cite the figure
Image after [4, Fig.23(a)]
where of course you adjust the citation style. If the function of the figure is crucial to your point, you might even want to say something like:
"We explain and illustrate the concept of a shock absorber along the lines of Nikolas Bourbaki's Cohomology of Springs [4]. Bourbaki's argument first considers an algebraic sheaf made out of corrugated steel and its interaction with a source of friction. We illustrate this concept with Figure 2, which is a strongly adapted version of Fig. 23 in [4]."
The last one would certainly be overkill unless you are just rephrasing Bourbaki (a famous, but ill-fated general from the Prusso-French war in 1871) who to my knowledge never worked on spring theory) and the argument is not standard.
The point is that you should not incorporate other's thoughts and results without proper attribution. For almost all purposes, a single citation in the caption of the image is sufficient, where you cite either the master image or the text, depending on the source of your illustration. You do not need the author's permission for doing that.
(If however the original image would have artistic value, then things are different. For instance, do not redraw an XKDC cartoon.)
In short: you are almost certainly over-thinking, you do not need permission to use someone's scientific / engineering illustration, and you need to attribute material that you used directly or indirectly.

Thank you this helped a lot! I've gotten curious though - maybe you have an answer for that. So far I have only worked with CC-licenses. I know that those are specifically estabilshed so that authors can mark work that is allwed to be built upon. So originally I thought by default (if an image doesn't have a cc-license) one is not allowed to build upon or alter an image and therefore has to ask for the authors permission.

Copy-right law quickly becomes murky and dependent on the locale. The Fair Use doctrine covers most academic usage.


text:
Correctly citing a cc-licensed picture that is third-party-material already
There is a picture in an article I want to use. The article is by John Doe (2020). The picture is on page 100.

The caption of the picture says

"Model by Denver (2005, p. 3; 2010, p.10)"

The licensing terms of the article says

The images and other third-party material contained in this article
are also subject to the Creative Commons license mentioned, unless
otherwise stated in the figure legend. [Translation from: Die in
diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial
unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern
sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt.]

The CC-license mentioned before is CC-BY 4.0.
How should I reference this? I only have access to Denver (2010) besides John Doe's article. The picture can be found there too, but is not in color and doesn't provide a cc-license, which is why I cannot take it from there. The problem is, I don't know who or what is the "author" (in the definition of the word used by cc-license) - Denver or Doe? The caption I would use is:

Model by Denver (2010, p.10). Text...Text...Text. Source: Doe (2020),
licensed under CC BY 4.0, "Model by Denver (2005, p. 3; 2010, p.10)"

Is this ok in your opinion? Should I change something?

If your goal is to publish this work, just leave a blank box and put inside "see image nr. XX in Denver (2010)" and sort it out directly with the publisher (i.e. ask them how to proceed).
If you are self publishing ... contact either Denver or the publisher of Denver 2005, 2010 to ask if you can reuse the image for tell your goals, if for academic/science or for profit and they will tell you whether you have to pay or not.
Ask them if you can license modification, so you know what terms you must respect (probably they will tell you "no way" but there is no harm in asking).

So although the picture in Doe has CC BY 4.0, I cannot reuse it? This seems odd, doesn't it? CC should make the whole process easier... I am not trying to modify it in any way.

It's all about being fair. Has Doe the right to reuse the picture?
What if I steal your car and then I use it to work as a taxi driver, offering lower prices with respect to other taxi drivers? Do you think it is fair ?

You changed the question.
It seems now you are sure Doe is the author of the image, that he has build the image using the model from Denver.
Then it is about referencing both, Denver with a citation for the model and the CC license given by Doe for the image.

Let me try to be more precise: Denver has created the model (as an idea) and provides the picture of it in his 2010 text. Its black and white and in english. Doe privdes the same picture but in German and in color. Doe publishes with Springer and the text is available online openly on the Springer homepage. Therefore, I think Doe should have asked Denver for permission to license it as a cc-license, no? So, if one trusts Doe's integrity in using Denver's picture, on should be alright using it the way I intend, no? So telling by the publisher of Doe, he should have the permission of Denver

Again to be more precise: I am sure Doe is the license holder (at least that's what I can tell from the picture being represented as a cc-licensed one in his article). I am also sure that Denver is the original author of the picture. Doe adapted it. What I don't know is how to reference this, since for cc-license usually, the author and the license holder are the same. Not in this case though. I hope this clears things up.

So just to be sure: Doe clearly didn't "steal" the picture. His article has a DOI, is published by Springer and looks "professional" by every means.

I adapted the original question to make clear that I don't know whether cc-licensing wants one to use the licensor as "author" or the original author of a picture as "author".

"I think Doe should have asked Denver for permission to license it as a cc-license, no?" how do you know? by reading the proper acknowledgements/reference as required by CC 4.0 .
Can you find such declaration/wording in Doe's work? if not, either Doe redid the image with the Denver's model and thinks that properly citing the work of Denver is enough, or he modified the original image of Doe without asking/having the license to do so.
Having a DOI, being published by Springer ... means basically nothing. Basically no checks on this kind of thing are performed by the publishers.

In my opinion, the licensing terms (see number 2 in the original question) are exactly that. Doe takes responsibility for the usage of images as cc-licensed, even if they are third-party-material (if not stated otherwise). At this point, one might have to trust Doe. Clearly, he cannot explain for every single picture how and if negotations with the original authors are made, because that just would get to lengthy. I assume your point of view is different.

"Clearly, he cannot explain for every single picture how and if negotations with the original authors are made, because that just would get to lengthy."
You are free to put fairness and "length/readability" on the same level.
But then do not complain if someone take your paper, translate the content in chinese, replace the title with a shorter one and the author list with his name only, because, you know, a text in chinese is much shorter than in german.

Ok. Thank you for your opinion.

Just a final comment: " Doe takes responsibility for the usage of images as cc-licensed, even if they are third-party-material"
Replace "of images" with "patented technology". Does it make sense?


text:
Letter of recommendation from employer for MS in U.S. universities
Is a letter of recommendation from an employer required to be on the official letter head of the company?
Also is it okay if I give the recommender's personal email?

Nothing in particular is required for a company letter of recommendation.  Pretty much any established company will have some sort of letterhead, though, and your recommender using it will feel more "professional."  Likewise with corporate vs. personal email addresses.

Regarding personal vs corporate email, I would strongly recommend using the corporate one. If nothing else, because it gives some assurance that the person on the other side is who he claims to be. Would you take this seriously?

I am recommended by the President of the USA, you can find him at barak_obama_mr_president@hotmail.com

Also, consider that in industry, LoR in many countries are just brief cold objective statements:

mihir S worked for Company.inc from 2003 to 2014 in the position of Junior Developer.
Yours trully,
Mr CEO

But an academic letter is expected to present you as an excellent candidate. Make sure the head of the company understands the difference and is happy providing a strong letter.


text:
I reviewed a paper but was not informed of the decision -- is this common?
I occasionally review articles for a prestigious but high-throughput journal. The most recent time, I went to check on the decision of the article, and saw that a decision of minor revision had been rendered but I was not informed. Is this a quiet way the editors have chosen to take me off of further reviewing a paper because they didn't like my review? I didn't even disagree with that decision particularly, but I had marked "another journal" for my recommendation.
In a previous encounter with this journal I was informed the journal had returned a decision of major revision, then the revision was never returned to the original reviewers, but rather was directly accepted by the editor and published 10 days later. Is this common too?
These may all be common practices at journals with more throughput than the specialized journals I am used to but they are new to me.

Maybe this question needs an update: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like?

The editor can do what ever they want.

Related: For what reasons (if any) would a journal refuse to inform the reviewers about the final accept/reject decision?

What is "decision of the article"? What do you mean by "revision had been rendered"?

Yes it is pretty common.

While most the journals that I have dealt with inform me of the editors' decision, I have found that a significant minority do not.
I've found this to be the case in fields with significantly different publication practices (e.g., computer science, biology), so I don't think it's field dependent. Likewise, there seems to be little consistency in which journals allow me to see other reviewers' comments and which do not.
My guess is that hiding review or decision information is some sort of attempt to increase editorial independence, e.g., allowing an editor to more freely decrease the weight given to an unfair Evil Reviewer #3.
I really do not like it, however, since seeing the editors' decision and the other reviews helps me simultaneously evaluate the quality of the journal and editor, which are also quite important to know (and sometimes give feedback on).

Maybe we should then all add our field to our answers!

For the journals I review for, I have the impression that it is more common to not inform the referee about the decision rather than to do so, except if there is some communication from the authors to the referee.  Of course, this might be highly field-dependent, so without much more information, this question is likely hard to draw specific answers.

For the first question, it depends on the journal, the paper and the editor.
For the second question, when receiving a revised paper, the editor/associate-editor may sometimes read it by himself and take a decision directly without asking the reviewers or remove one reviewer. This is done sometimes if the revisions are minor like fixing some typos. Or the editor may have other reasons to do so. An editor may also ask some new reviewer to get some different perspective.  In any case, it can happen.

To the user who raised a Low Quality Post flag, what's wrong with this post?

@scaaahu I raised an "not an answer" flag. And I indeed think this does not at all answer the question: The question is whether a referee is informed once a decision is made.  The answer talks about ways how a decision might get delayed.  It does not address at all what happens after the decision, with regard to informing (or not informing) previous referees.  No idea why the flag got decline (except that people didn't properly read the question, since of course everything said in the answer is reasonable as such).

@user151413 The OP mentioned not one but two questions. The first one is if you are informed of the decision. I explained in my first sentence that all of this depends on the journal/editor/paper. The second question: " the revision was never returned to the original reviewers, but rather was directly accepted by the editor and published 10 days later. Is this common too?"  In my answer, I have given some reason why the editor would not return return the paper to the same reviewer.

@Phil I see.  It might help if you clarify that the first sentence refers to that question, this feels rather unclear to me.

Ok I have edited it to make it more clear

Now it's clear! (I think my confusion stemmed from the fact that the title of the question only mentions the first question.)


text:
Submitting a paper to a journal: is it OK to indicate the Editor of that journal as a reviewer?
I have quite good experience in submitting papers, but I have never met in journals' guidelines any statements about the possibility of indicating editors themselves as reviewers. I think the implicit rule nevertheless is that one should avoid doing so, since editors should make their objective decisions on the basis of opinions of "third parties" (reviewers unrelated to the editorial board). On the other hand, editors often choose reviewers themselves, so anyway if I choose to indicate the Editor-in-Chief, most probably he will find another reviewer. This question is particularly relevant in the case of narrowly-specialized journals, where there are simply not so many experts in the concrete topic I deal with, and the editor happens to be one of them.

In the journal where I am an associate editor, there is an unofficial policy that editors do not review.  The reason for this is simple and pragmatic: if somebody is an editor, they are doing a whole bunch of work of the journal in that capacity.  Asking them to review as well is double-duty, and the journal wants to spread the service load more broadly over the community.
Now, there are special cases where an editor will do a review, particularly when there is difficulty obtaining a sufficient number of qualified reviewers.  In my experience, though, this is rarely due to difficulty finding people with sufficient knowledge to review, even in highly specialized fields.  Instead, it is most likely to happen with a certain species of dreary borderline paper that is very badly presented but possibly salvageable---confronted with such a beast, reviewers suddenly all become "too busy at the present time" and an editor may end up having to review it themselves.
So, returning to your question: I would suggest not bothering to suggest an editor as a reviewer.  If you have a choice to suggest a handling editor, that's fine, but your suggestion of editor as reviewer is likely to be simply ignored.


text:
What happens when you terminate a UK Ph.D. in the second year?
I've read that after you "pass" the first year of your Ph.D.program you can either continue normally or stop and get a masters degree.
What procedure should one follow in the latter case? Do you get any official document (diploma, certificate) and if so, does this document have any value?

It's often not in the first year, but whenever it is, the procedure will depend on your university's rules. The master's degree you get is real master's degree. You should get a diploma.

Should there be a thesis written additionally or is it based on the work you have done till the termination moment (1st year report)?

You can get a master's at many universities on coursework alone, but it takes more than a year. We don't even know what country you're in, and the policies vary quite a lot.

Let's say a Research based Ph.D. in the UK.

In the UK, typically students are not "officially" PhD students until after they successfully complete their first year report. I say "officially" because from  a student perspective you are a PhD student from day one, but students who do not progress at the end of the first year, either because they drop out or fail, do not count against completion rates. This means from a book keeping vantage the student is not a PhD student. Typically students are awarded an MPhil after successfully completing the first year report. You would definitely receive a diploma and there may be a graduation ceremony.
You should talk to your director of post grad studies to figure out the exact procedure. The timing can be critical in making sure you do not count against completion rates.
As for the value of an MPhil, that is a difficult question. It might have some value in industry since there is a big difference between failing out and dropping out, but a year of post graduate research experience is not all that valuable to industry. The more important value may be personal in at it says that you left on your own terms and did not fail out.

The situation here varies wildly depending on your particular program, which is strongly determined by your particular university, which in turn is strongly influenced by country.  Some places will allow it after two years; others have a specific non-time-based criteria (e.g., completion of a Ph.D. proposal or being ABD); others do not allow a Masters exit at all.
In the UK, Ph.D. students are often expected to have a Masters before they even start, so you are definitely not talking about a standard case in that system and need to talk to people at your particular institution to find out the answer.


text:
Unable to decide if I wait for my coauthor for indefinite time? Not sure even if my coauthor deserves authorship
I am  PhD student in mathematics, from Aisa region. I started a project in 2020 and a (assistant) professor from Europe formally promised to work together. This is my old question here, here, and here. I am going to be details here (sorry), so that, readers can understand the situation:
My coauthor(?) didn't cooperate with the results of the paper. Every time, after partial progress from my side, I used to send those results to him through emails, seeking his help to shift my results for further improvements. But he was irregular in communication; after a couple of emails in 2-3 months, he used to reply once with the promise that he would look into it. But ultimately, nothing happened. This procedure continued until 2022. I was very upset due to this. Finally, I completed the whole paper (with the help of other professors) at the beginning of 2022 and again sent the final paper to him to look into and revise the paper in a nice way because my language writing is not that creative. I suffered in publishing my previous article due to poor writing. My whole intention from my coauthor was that he will read the paper, check the calculations and revise it in a creative way before submitting it to journals. So far he did nothing but this time he read the paper and point out a minor error in two results, but then I have then corrected those errors on my own. So I am grateful to him for pointing out two errors in my papers. After correcting two errors, I sent the final revised version to her in March 2022 and asked him to revise the language and submit it in a journal, but since then he has continued to promise to revise and submit the paper. Indeed, I was happy to offer him authorship, though I am not sure if he really deserves to be an author(?). But 2022 passed, 2023 is almost finished, and still he is not taking action. After failing to communicate at several attempts, I said that if he doesn't finish the paper by September 2023, I will have to submit it in arxiv because I wanted to mention the paper in the few post-doctoral positions as my proposed research plan will be based on this particular paper, and that is why I repeatedly requested that he submit the paper in arxiv at least so that I can show the paper in my resume. But he still didn't reply within September, and hence I submitted the paper in arxiv (without his name since I got no consent from him) and acknowledged him. I sent him an email and mentioned that I have submitted the paper in Arxiv but will not submit it to a journal. As soon as he revises it, I will update the paper in Arxiv and add his name. This time he replied and said to add his name to the paper "as soon as possible," with some strong words. and he said he has been unwell since September 2023, so he couldn't reply. In my response, I stated that I had submitted the version to arxiv, for which I was solely responsible for all of the results. He knows it that he didn't do anything and that is why in his next reply he became soft. I then requested that he revise the paper and submit it to the journal. Since it is a health issue, I am emotionally more in favour of him and truly want him as a coauthor. Besides that, he is an established mathematician, so it would be slightly beneficial if he remained as a coauthor. But I can't understand if he has really been in the hospital since September 2023, though he is replying to emails regularly (since I submitted the paper in arxiv). This is something that I am stuck at. Suddenly, I saw in his profile that he mentioned the paper title in his CV and mentioned it as a preprint (preparation/submission). Of course, he mentioned me as an author as well. This is why I don't want to upshet him by proceeding alone. So here is my question:

How long should I wait for him, or should I proceed as a solo author?

Does he really deserve a coauthor (for pointing out errors)?

Is he just holding onto the project but not interested in it?

I appreciate your valuable suggestions that I really need. I am suffering the situation for long time. Even if I exclude tese 3 months of his unwell, in the last one and half years, he did nothing significant as coauthor. I am a PhD student and suffering this bad situation.

This is a tricky situation. I think what you do depends on whether or not he ever met the criteria for authorship in the first place (not necessarily if he continues to be actively involved). I can only offer the perspective from my field, which is not mathematics, but there are specific criteria that I follow for authorship.
Generally, one must make a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper. They must then also take part in the writing/revision process. Then they must approve the publication and agree to be held accountable for the results. Meet all 4 points and ethically they must be listed as an author (unless they decline I suppose). In your case, I don't see clear evidence that any of these were met, even in the beginning. You know your situation better than I, though.
So if you decide that he did not in fact contribute significantly, I would say you don't really need to include them as an author. It would certainly burn a bridge, but it sounds like the relationship may already be soured anyway. The only caveat here is that if they did initially contribute significantly, you must give them the chance to meet the other criteria. The way ICMJE words it is:

The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3.

So the rub comes from the fact that while you have offered them that opportunity and they have not done anything, they clearly want to be listed as an author. I think your options are to either list them as an author and move on or firmly state you don't feel they meet reasonable criteria for authorship.
Obviously these exact rules may not apply directly to mathematics, but I think they work as general guidelines for most fields.
To answer you questions directly,

There is no time limit on authorship. They either contributed enough to warrant authorship or they didn't. They can't just time out, especially since they are responding and indicating they want to be included.
This is the crucial question. Based on my experience and what I'm reading here, no. I often ask colleagues/mentors to review my papers. Unless they make significant additional contributions I don't include them as authors. I have offered authorship in the past, but with the understanding that moving forward they would contribute to the level of an author. This strategy might not hold true for mathematics though. It probably also depends on how significant the errors where - I assume a fundamental error is different than typo's or minor mistakes.
I can't answer this. I don't know why he would be "holding on" but have no interest in publishing. I suppose it's possible that he is trying to scoop you but that seems unlikely given the series of events.

I do wonder, you collaborator seem okay with the preprint (as long as they are listed as an author). Why not just submit the paper yourself and list them. It isn't ideal but you could move on from this project. Just don't collaborate with this person again. There are english language editing services available if that is a concern to you. I think whatever you do, you should talk to the other professors who helped you. They may have some insight that I do not.
Side note: I sympathize with him dealing with an illness, but that doesn't really change his contributions thus far. Personally, I may give him a little extra leeway as a result, but at some point, enough is enough.

Thanks. I must say that you understood my situation very well. Exactly this is the situation. I again repeat that "his only contribution is that he picked up two minor errors". Those minor errors doesn't anyway disprove my results but I just had to correct those very easily. He agreed it when I replied him after arxiv submission. However authorship is not an issue because I am happy to offer him. The problem is that he almost took one and half years to revise the paper since I have fully computed the paper.


text:
Is it ethical to dedicate a thesis whom I want to choose as a referee?
I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics and am currently writing my Ph.D. thesis. One old mathematician (emeritus), very famous for his work in number theory, philanthropically helped me through my Ph.D. journey. Sometimes, it seems to me, he is my real supervisor rather than the actual one. Philantropically, because he hasn't seen me in person yet, he doesn't know my supervisor, even though I work in the flavor of his work right now, but my initial approach was far from his papers, but he helped me in the last 5 years to help my understanding and never felt boaring with my stupid questions.
Now I am done with my research. Instead of my family members, I want to dedicate the thesis to that philanthropist mathematician.
The rule is that, our university will send two international (and two national) referees to verify the thesis. Now the point is, since he knows in detail about my work, if I want to suggest him as one of the international referees as well. For your information, my research papers are published; hence, their scientific quality is already peer-reviewed through the journals. Besides that, there is an independent committee in my department that will give the ultimate decision to pass the thesis
The second international referee whom I (or my supervisor) want to suggest to my university, is a mathematician whom I also acknowledged in the thesis, who also helped me in my research work.  So:
Is it ethical to send a thesis to those referees who are acknowledged or dedicated to the thesis?
Edit: Here in the University, in general,the supervisor suggests few referees to the university while the university will choose among them and send the thesis. Let me point out that, in my country India, one have to publish paper in peer-reviewed journals for writing thesis, without publishing paper, one can not write thesis. So in other words, the results of the thesis are already peer-reviewed by journal.

Do you consider the dedication the potential issue or that your actual supervisor will be the referee?

Can your referees be people who've helped you with the work? Regardless of an acknowledgement or dedication, this person sounds like they'd be much too close to your work for me to suggest them as an examiner based on our local rules.

@Christian, yes I want to dedicate that old mathematician who helped me understanding my thesis area. My question is, should I suggest him as possible referee to my PhD supervisor ? In general, here people do that. But my question is about ethicality.

@StephenMcMahon, in my university, in general, the supervisor suggest few referees to the university to whom University will send the thesis. Let me point out that, in our university, at first one have to publish paper for writing thesis, without publishing paper in journals one can not write thesis

@learner but there are rules about who can be chosen, and often those rules include that you should have not worked with that person.

@AnderBiguri, thank you for your opinion. I am seeking such opinion from people here. Even in Europe I have talked to some PhD student who also suggested their familiar person as referee of their thesis. Same In my country India, supervisor suggests familiar person for referee and that is why I asked the question. None of them are co-author of me, but they helped me in my research work. This is the situation

@learner Yes, don't get me wrong, almost always its someone familiar with the supervisor. But (in the UK) this "no co author" means "this person has not worked with you in your research work" not "this person has no name in the paper published". Its conceptual coauthorship, not literally if a paper has been published with a shared name

@AnderBiguri, thank you. I understand. Just one difference, I think in UK, it is not necessary to publish the thesis works in a journal and that is why the thesis referee must be independent while in India, we have to publish our research works in journal at first and so the thesis referee is not big issue as already the works are published

I think suggesting that person as a referee is perfectly fine. They are an expert on the topic of your thesis. Note that you don't make the actual decision about the referees, you are only making a suggestion. Both your department and the professor themselves can refuse them as a referee if they feel there is a conflict of interest.
So make the suggestion, ensure that at least your official supervisor knows you have had plenty of communication with this professor and you should be fine.

Thank you for the answer. As I mentioned above comment, the supervisor suggest few referees to the university to whom University will send the thesis. In India , at first one have to publish paper in journal for writing thesis, without publishing paper one can not write thesis. So we write thesis only on the papers already published in journals, i.e., already peer-reviewed.


text:
Can I add new coauthor after submitting the paper in arxiv?
At first I suggest readers to look this question. My current question is related to that.
In this question, I said that my coauthor is not replying/submitting the paper in arxiv.
Now the issue is that I have prepared another paper in which I need to cite our joined paper. So unless my coauthor submit that joined paper in arxiv, I can not cite it. (Is there other way to cite a paper, which is neither in a jounal nor in any online database arxiv ?)
Since I am not getting reply from my coauthor, I have the following options:

I can submit the paper in arxiv without my coauthor's consent but adding their name ?

I can submit the paper in arxiv without my coauthor's consent but without adding their names ? Would arxiv moderators considers adding a new coauthor without any revision in the content ?

Thanks

Regarding your parenthetical question, see How to cite a working paper, preprint, or manuscript? for some options.

At least in math, in the bibliography, you can put anything you like with a note "preprint, in preparation" or "preprint, available upon request" or just "preprint." Sometimes it leads to undesirable results (if the cited work never materializes, but this is, hopefully, not your case). If journal's referee asks you for that preprint, explain the situation and send them what you have, explaining that it should not be shared because of an issue with your collaborator. I had such a situation with my collaborator: It took several years for them to agree to post a joint paper on the arXiv and few more years after that to submit to a journal. In the meantime, I had to apply for jobs and share the preprint with my recommendation letter-writers. Sigh...

Thanks for your suggestion. Hopefully my coathor replied today. The matter is solved now

I'm not really understanding all the surrounding issues here, but fairly simply:
You should not post to a preprint server or submit to a journal any work unless all the authors have agreed to submit.
You should not post to a preprint server or submit to a journal any work that fails to include an author who should be an author.

@learner You have a communication problem to resolve with your coauthor. You cannot solve this problem by submitting without their permission or leaving them off. I do not understand why submitting the paper is their duty, though, it seems like if you simply ask for their permission to submit then it's far more likely they can simply say "okay", whereas if you insist that they submit then you have created a task for them that is not as fun and exciting as their other duties.

@learner It's not reasonable to expect response to email in one day. Do you see your coauthor in person ever? Do you have a phone number for them?

@learner Most likely they are simply busy and your project is a very low priority to them. Do you have a local mentor that you interact with more directly?

@learner A day is a very long time when your schedule is busy. Ask your supervisor for advice.

+1. I would add: You should not post to a preprint server or submit to a journal any work that includes an author who should not be an author.


text:
How to handle a coauthor who is very late in finalizing a research paper?
I am a PhD student in mathematics. I have been collaborating with a professor on a research article. I have done my part. Almost all mathematical content is already developped from my side, then my coauthor read my paper and suggested a few changes and pointed out some errors. I have corrected the paper according to my coauthor's suggestion. I then sent the paper back to my coauthor 3 months ago. They were supposed to re-read the paper and submit the paper to a journal or at least to arxiv. But that is not how things are going.
I emailed my coauthor, telling them to submit the paper, but in vain. I am a young scholar in need of publication in time but my co-author is delaying the issue. I am not blaming my coathour, because as a professor, my coauthor might be very busy. On the other hand, it will not take more than 2 days to read and submit the paper but my co-author is not doing that. I get one reply for every 3-4 emails. It has been 1 month without a reply, I already sent 2 emails. The same has happened before as well. After 1 month or 2 months I get a reply. My coauthor can tell me about their individual busy schedule, but i received no reply. When I do get a reply, it is very positive. But nothing happens ultimately.
What should I do in this situation? I want my coauthor to be a part of the paper because it will increase my chances of collaboration beyond my country.
Note: Our contact is possible through email only because I am living in Asia and my coauthor is from Europe.

First, a frame challenge: it does not sound like this person has done enough to be an author. Perhaps that is also their opinion, and that is one reason why they are not prioritising this.
However, since your actual question might apply even if they clearly did deserve authorship, it is worth answering. I think it would help to tell them that you will deal with the submission, and ask if there are any other changes you need to make before doing so. If you have not already agreed on a journal, suggest one and ask if they would prefer somewhere different.
There are two advantages to doing this. If the other author is very busy, they may well be reluctant to do moderate amount of work involved in submitting it themselves, even if they do have time to agree to you submitting the current version. Also, it avoids problems further down the line - you don't want to have to worry that they might have had communication from the journal which they haven't bothered to deal with or forward to you.


text:
What are the pros and cons of coursework at the doctoral level?
This is a debatable issue given for me to make inquires on: some people said that coursework should be introduced at the doctoral level while others insist that it should not be introduced, as a PhD student is already a Master in the area of study.
What are the arguments for and against introducing coursework for PhD students?

Welcome to Academia SE. I edited your question to ask for the pros and cons of coursework, as otherwise it would be too opinion-based and also dependent on the field and other factors.

@Wrzlprmft Are pros and cons objective?

@OllieFord: Yes. Objectiveness usually arises from the impossibility of objectively weighing pros and cons against each other, e.g., some persons consider a certain pro to outweigh all cons, while others consider the respective pro to be irrelevant.

I think that which way one goes on the question has a lot to do with whether you are dealing with a US-style model (long program bundling Masters and Ph.D.) or a European-style model (short program assuming Masters already completed).
To my mind, the main pro of doctoral coursework is that it ensures graduates have a solid general grounding in the field at some depth, and cannot only hyper-specialize.  Complementarily, the main con is that coursework interferes with research by taking time that would otherwise be devoted to it, thereby stretching out the time expected in a program.
In a US-style program, a large amount of coursework is pretty much always included and the program is expected to take longer accordingly.  In a European-style program, I think one can make a reasonable argument that there should be no coursework, as that should have been completed during one's Masters.

It is definitely not true that all European programs, which require a Master, do not have any coursework. We even had a couple of courses aimed only at PhD students. The state exam  is also more thorough in comparison with the Masters final exam.

@VladimirF Absolutely: there is a great deal of heterogeneity both Europe and the US.

It very much depends on the program. For example, this assertion:

a PhD student is already a Master in the area of study

Is not necessarily true for all fields. For example, my own field, Epidemiology, doesn't have a large number of undergraduate or Masters-only level programs in the U.S. That means that many students that enter Epidemiology PhD programs have at best a number of bad habits to undo, and more likely are entirely clean slates. As such, most of the top programs in my field involve at least two years worth of coursework.
This does definitely slow down the time until degree completion, which is the usual argument against coursework, but in this case really is the only way to ensure students are properly prepared.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Is reusing part of an internship report self-plagiarism?
My university has a very strict policy on plagiarism (I presume as do all universities).
As an assignment I must write a report of my internship, but since it is my second internship I have already written one last year. Would it count as plagiarism if I copy and pasted some text, when the content would be almost identical even if I were to rewrite it? Obviously I have to rewrite most sections of the report, but in other sections I genuinely have nothing new to say since last year.

At my university you require the permission of the professors teaching the old and new course to resubmit any work so plagiarism may not be the only factor.

What did your instructor say about this when you asked them?

It would be a sad situation if you did not own your prior coursework... But, nevertheless, it is often the case that the institution imagines that they own it. So if you quote yourself you are plagiarizing... This is ridiculous, but, well, it is a corollary of the combination of too-many students "gaming" the system ... and the profit-motivated copyright machinations of "publishers" (as thought there were no internet...)

I don't think see this as a matter of owning your prior coursework.  Rather, the requirement is to write something new, and copying your previous work doesn't satisfy that requirement.

As long as you're sure it's appropriate that you are saying the same thing as in the previous assignment (if you're supposed to be achieving something on this internship, shouldn't you be achieving something new?), cite yourself.
It might feel pompous or self-centred at first, but it is the norm in academic texts to cite your own material just as you would anyone else's. Since I imagine your previous report isn't published anywhere, if you can put the previous one online it could be helpful to include the URL so the reader can check the context of the material you're quoting or paraphrasing.
Specific citation styles vary, but they would generally look something like:

Tully, B. 'Report on my first internship'. Unpublished, available at http://www.internet.com [accessed 1 May 2015].

Yes, quoting your previous report extensively with a citation might not go over well, but it's not plagiarism.  (And I can't imagine circumstances in which copying without citation would be considered OK but copying with citation wouldn't be, so it can't make you any worse off ethically.)

The OP could also submit the cited paper as an attachment rather than post online.


text:
How would I preface being on the president's list in the same way that someone can be a “winner” of an award, on a bullet list
(Referred here from English SE)
I'm trying to write a bullet list of accomplishments for a scholarship renewal, and I'd like to include that I am on the University President's list.
Typically in a bullet list of such things, you (and this is extremely difficult to phrase) "preface" each item with a word, such as "Winner of x award", or "member of x club." (Where "winner" and "member" are the words in question.)
Seeing as the Presidents list is neither an award nor an organization per se, how would I preface such an accomplishment?

I would typically term inclusion in such a list an "honor," as in "Awards and Honors."  If you want a verb, however, I would not use "honored" but simply "included", however, as in:

Included on University President's List, Miskatonic University

This fits the bill, thanks! It is appropriate without drawing unnecessary attention or causing awkwardness.


text:
Temporary position in Academic Institution vs. Postdoc research after PhD
After completion of my PhD, there are two options open for me: one is temporary positions in academic institutions and other is Postdoc.
I see that most of the regular faculty jobs require a minimum of three years of research or teaching experience. Thus, for getting a regular job, I need have three years in hand.
I joined as a temporary position in one institute, and the period is over now. As I have experienced, there is little scope of doing research in a temporary position and heavy academic load (such as teaching classes 4-6 hours daily) causes a lack of time for research. Also, getting a regular supervision for students is tough because it is a temporary position. Despite this, I worked hard after office hours, and published a couple of research papers in top journals and conferences in collaboration with some foreign researchers. It drains out a lots of energy to balance between job search, teaching class, and publishing papers with lack of research facilities.
In contrast, I think that it might be better to move into a postdoc.
So, how good or bad is it to do a postdoc of 2-3 years duration, with the aim of getting good publications and good jobs in academic institutions?

@Mithun, What country are you talking about?

@Mithun So, is your question: "Will a good postdoc help me get a long-term faculty position?"  The answer is "Yes."  Not sure what else you're asking...

@jakebeal Yes, I am asking this question.  However, I am new in academic ocean after completion of PhD. I don't know whether a Postdoc with a reasonable publications is better than temporary jobs in academic institution with teaching experience of same duration?

@Mithun I've edited your question in an attempt to improve clarity, as best I understand what you are asking.  Please feel free to further improve and to correct anything that I've gotten wrong in my edits.

@jakebeal Thanks for edit. It is easy to follow than previous version.

If you want to obtain a long-term faculty position, at least in the United States, it is usually better to get a postdoc position rather than an adjunct lecturer position.
Perhaps it should not be this way, but the practical fact is that at present adjunct lecturers are often treated as interchangeable exploited labor.  Yes, you will build up teaching experience, but as you have found, it will be difficult to extend any of the other job qualifications that are needed for obtaining a good long-term faculty positions.  There can also be a stigma associated with these positions: it is unfair, but these positions (and by extension the people who fill them) are often viewed with such disrespect that they are paid poverty-level wages---about half of the average for postdocs.
A postdoctoral position, on the other hand, is unlikely to give you teaching experience, but will allow you to focus on building your reputation for intellectual excellence (e.g., via strong publications).  Rightly or wrongly, this is generally a much stronger factor in faculty hiring than evidence of teaching ability.

Your second paragraph paints a very gory picture for these adjunct positions. Nevertheless, sad, but true.


text:
Does starting PhD by late (after Master degree) affect in application for post-doctoral position?
I am a PhD scholar of Mathematics, in number theory branch. I completed my Master degree (M.Sc.) in 2015. Then I did a 2 years degree on education (B.Ed.) in mathematical pedagogy. I started PhD in 2018 and will submit my thesis by June, 2023. At least I started my PhD by 3 years late after my masters, or in other way, I am late by at least 3 years to complete PhD than other who are at my age. I am now 31.
I have publication in number theory. I am planning to apply for post-doctoral position.

Does it affect (negatively) to my post-doctoral application ? or, only my works/publication matters ?

Thanks

Institutions in some countries have age limits that apply to post-docs.
Most countries I am more familiar with, though, feel strongly against discrimination by age and do not have such limits. If there are time-based limits on post doctoral funding, these are either by years of such funding (for example, "you can't have more than XX years of funding as a post doc") or years since PhD degree (for example, "you can only apply for this type of funding if you've received your PhD in the past XX years"). In these cases, the date of your masters relative to your PhD or your age at the time of receiving the PhD degree are irrelevant.
Ultimately, though, it's likely that any hiring decisions are made by people, and people are diverse and have different ideas about what "matters". If someone has two CVs in their hand that are identical except one person took 2 years for a degree in math pedagogy, they could think "Ah, great! We should hire this person because they have the background to be a great instructor in mathematics in the future!" or they could think "Ah, how disappointing, this person must barely be interested in mathematics because they spent time they could have spent researching on something else!" Even if 99/100 people think the first way, all that matters for an application is what one person reading your application decides. For you, you can't change your resume, so all you can do is apply to positions that interest you! Let the people who have to make hiring decisions worry about how they make those decisions.