text:
phd advisor hasn't kept a promise (and may not care) - do I address this directly? if so, how best to do that?
My doctoral advisor did something that seems odd to me. I did a bunch of unpaid work for him, with an explicit promise from him (but not in writing because I trusted he would keep the promise) that in exchange he would do one of two mentoring-type things for me, and he has now reneged on his promise.
I want to think he is just unaware of how much time I put in, or has forgotten his promise, or is extremely busy with other commitments, or that maybe my work wasn't up to snuff and his earlier very positive evaluation of the work didn't match what he in fact thought. It may also be the case that the mentoring-type things I want from him would take more commitment from him than he realized he was prepared to offer. I fear that it is a little of some of those things, but also that he is being covertly aggressive (because I feel fairly sure he's been covertly aggressive toward me before).
What would the professors on this site suggest I do? What I want to do is send him an email politely reminding him of our deal and specifying what work I've done to gently nudge him to do his part. (And also to say, hey, if there's some unnamed conflict we need to address, and that's why you're reneging, let's.) Then again, I need him to be on my side so that I can graduate, I don't need him to do what he promised to graduate (although it would really help my scholarly development, hence the unpaid work I did), and I fear this action from me will prompt aggression from him. For example, I'm afraid he'll just say, 'Sure, I'll do what I promised,' and then will hurt me in the process again (since they involve him mentoring, which would involve more work from me and from him). I guess my question is, do I 1) send a polite email,  2) try to set up a friendly phone call, or 3) forget about it and eat a crap-ton of nachos, because that's the only satisfaction I'll really get? I can't switch advisors. Thanks!

Hi, please try to formulate a title that sums up your question/problem in one sentence. It will help others gauge what your question is about.

Did you agree on a time when he would be giving you the mentoring? Are you sure he is not just waiting for you to ask him? You seem to have a lot of assumption on what he is thinking or what he is doing but in your text I don't see any hint that you actually asked him thus it seems to be all speculations.

It very much depends how your professor 'reneged'. Did he explicitly say he couldn't do the mentoring you discussed? You also seem to assume he's a rather vindictive person - why do you think that?

I think that this is probably too specific to an individual to be answerable on here. But my reaction is "send a polite reminder".  From the info given here, there's a very good chance that he's simply forgotten.

I suggest you don't make it confrontational. Don't remind him of his promise. Remind him that you need help and ask for that specifically.

What kind of 'unpaid work'? And what kind of mentoring that isn't already part of the deal of being a doctoral advisor?

I don't think this is answerable in a meaningful way unless you can provide some of the specific details.

I would not assume malice or intent when just plain forgetfulness is likely. There are times in academia where all you are thinking about is the "next thing". Finish the revision for this manuscript, proposal deadline due in three days, grant proposal due date coming this Friday, a consulting client is demanding another meeting, classes have started and you still need to organize and revise your course based on feedback from last semester, etc, etc, etc.
In short, the scholar might just have forgotten. If I were in their case, I would probably be a little embarrassed at my own forgetfulness, apologize, and then put a meeting (and reminder) in my outlook calendar.
My suggestion is send a polite email with a reminder. Just a
Hi Dr. So and So,
I worked for you in ____ project. We had discussed setting up a meeting for you helping me with _____. I wanted to see if you had time to meet now? If you are able, I can schedule a call about it.
Thanks,
Bleepgloop
I think this is a nice little reminder email that is not accusatory and would probably work well.

I wholeheartedly agree with JWH2006 that you should not immediately jump to assuming malice, but instead of forgetfulness the root of the issue could also be a misunderstanding. You don't really provide enough details that this can be judged by us, but often I have seen "verbal agreements" that both sides understood quite differently. For instance, you may have asked for "help with finding a postdoc position" and expected that your advisor would poke his colleagues, sit down with you and prepare your application material, and train you for the interviews, while he thought it just meant writing a nice letter for you. That is, maybe you are in a situation where your advisor thinks they are doing everything they agreed to do, while you see it has them reneging on their promise.
The solution to this problem is similar to what JMH2006 proposed - contact them and ask, very concretely, what kind of help you would like to get. Never go into accusations that they broke their promise (this won't end well, especially if they think they actually did everything they promised to do). Maximally, I would remind them of all the unpaid help you did for them, but more in a "I did a favor for you, can you please do a favor for me now" way, again not in an accusatory way.
If, after that, they still maintain that they can't or won't provide whatever help you feel you have been promised, I suggest the Nacho option. You realistically have no leverage to enforce the deal, and there is no way that pressing the issue will bring you good mentoring (or goodwill for your upcoming thesis defense, for that matter).

I think, you are overthinking. It's perfectly normal to gently remind others of promises they made after doing your own part. He may not know when you need his help or simply forgot it. Anyway, you are the best person to represent your interests, do not wait for others.


text:
What precisely does "ISI-indexed publications" mean?
I'm currently looking at the requirements of a (Comp. Sci.) job that seems to only take into account "ISI-indexed publications". I'm vaguely aware of what ISI is and so forth, but I'm struggling to find a definitive list of ISI-indexed venues, or what "ISI-indexed publications" means.
Or at least I hope it doesn't mean what I think it does ...
I found the following list on the Thomson Reuters' page as a journal list for science. However, the list doesn't contain any conferences (even the "big ones" like WWW, (P)VLDB, SIGMOD, etc.) and a few journals I would expect to be on there aren't.
Would I be correct to say that any Comp. Sci. venue not on that list is not "ISI-indexed"?
Is this "ISI-indexed-only" restriction common?
(If so, seems quite antiquated really. Not being able to mention good, highly-cited, highly-selective conference papers sucks.)

A short answer is: ISI only index journals and ISI-indexed journals usually mean relatively high-quality journals. But not necessarily.

Right, the IP & Science business of Thomson Reuters (the business formerly known as ISI) curates the indexes Web of Science and Current Contents Connect. The journal coverage in those two is almost identical. Thomson Reuters then creates some data products from the Web of Science and Current Contents Connect data, such as the Journal Impact Factors.
Other indexes that are important in computer science include IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library. There are also more open indexes such as DBLP and CiteSeerX.
Thomson Reuters mentions "Bradford's Law" as a principle it uses to include or exclude journals. The general idea is to include some 12,000 journals that are well woven into the network of scholarly citations, viewed broadly.
I have read more than once that computer science is unusual in the value it places on conference papers. That fact may help to explain limitations in the collection of conferences in the Web of Science collection. I am not certain whether or not the collection strategy for Web of Science specifically takes into account that computer science is unusual in that way.
The Web of Knowledge product that provides access to the Web of Science collection happens to have a more subject-specific collection called Inspec available for subscription. That is a bibliographic collection curated by the Institution of Electronics and Technology that historically was the UK's counterpart to IEEE. Not every institution that subscribes to Web of Knowledge elects to include Inspec in its subscription. Conversely, Web of Knowledge is not the only way to access the Inspec collection - although I believe it is the only way that is cross-referenced with Web of Science.

Would I be correct to say that any Comp. Sci. venue not on that list is not "ISI-indexed"?

I suspect the answer is Yes. Click here to search for your journal. Many CS top journals are not indexed by ISI. This says nothing whatsoever about the quality of the work. Limiting publications to only ISI-indexed is really really a bad decision. This may vary between fields, but in CS, I am certain most of the high quality venues of publishing are not ISI-indexed. Note that some scam journals would claim they have impact factor x.xxx where actually they are not even listed by ISI.

Is this "ISI-indexed-only" restriction common?

I know some universities (like King Saud University; a list from one guy from KSU is also here ) where researchers are required to publish in ISI-indexed venues to get promoted (i.e. to associate or full). But these are exception cases and not common.

I'd like to add a link to the description of ISI. BTW: The ranking (list) they publish is actually called JCR AFAIK.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to cross over from chemistry to biology?
I'm currently a chemistry major. However, I am more interested in the life science and want to be a molecular biologist in the future. However it is too late to change my degree to biology so I am wondering how to cross over into biology with my chemistry degree and whether is it possible for me to be a molecular biologist in the future? Will my chemistry degree be useful in helping me to become a biologist? Is there any relations between chemistry and biology?

Guess what all the biochemists are doing? Chemistry!

and molecular biology. and sometimes even biophysics.

I am a theoretical physicist reconverted to biology (bioinformatics) in his masters. I am sitting next to computer scientists, mathematicians, chemists... all working on life sciences.
Biology is a very complex subject. Most of the concepts are easy, but there are many devils in the details. Ergo, it is very suitable for multidisciplinary work, where people from different branches can contribute with solutions from their own field.
Focusing on your question, depending on your set of skills, you have several options: biochemistry, wet lab, computational chemistry oriented to biomolecules... You can probably swing by the molecular biology department and ask what kind of problems they would need a chemist for; and perhaps ask if they are willing to take you on board for an undergaduate project.

+1 for "Most of the concepts are easy, but there are many devils in the details." I think that is true for all fields.

@xLeitix: I don't know the other disciplines, but I can guarantee you quantum chemistry has devils already in the easy parts. :)

@xLeitix Especially in mathematics you need a few years to learn non-specific basics (also true for computer science and theoretical physics). Only after that "Most of the concepts are easy, but there are many devils in the details.". Perhaps for that reason I don't know that many biologists turning into theoretical physicists.

It's not too late. It's never too late. My undergraduate degree was in chemistry. From there, I did a Masters degree in nanoscience between the physics department and chemistry department. My research project found me in a microbiology lab using wet chemical techniques and biological methods to build a working cancer sensor, that we then tested to see if it worked using solid physics. It did work, by the way. As a result of my masters, I got my PhD project where I am doing the biophysics of phytoplankton physiology.
The point is do what interests you. Find people in your department or at other institutions where the kind of thing you like is being done. If you're passionate about learning then there will always be an abundance of people to teach you.

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


text:
What should I do if I can't get a copy of original transcript from the institute?
I saw an offer for a Ph.D. position in US where they asked for original transcript which directly should be sent from the home institute. When I asked my institute, they said they don't have these kind of options. In this case what can I do? Should I write the programme co-ordinator?

official transcripts from all previous colleges / universities attended

That's tough, my mother-in-law had similar problems.  In her case she had attended a communist-era Soviet school that had nothing for her.  Have you tried asking the school to send what they can for you?  If you've tried that, call the department at the school of interest and ask what they suggest.

They said if u need any seal,any letter,the university is ready to give it.But they never send anything via mail. May be I can write the supervisor again regarding this matter.

Yeah this seems like something you need to work out with your home institution; if they will not send it via mail, perhaps they can send it via fax or electronically? If so you could ask the program you are applying to if that would suffice.

Yes, you should write the coordinator at the program you're applying to, explain the situation and ask for permission to submit a copy of your transcript (I assume you have one?) rather than an original. To remove doubt that you are playing some funny games, offer to append a notarized statement from you attesting to the authenticity of the document, and say you'd be willing to take any other reasonable measures they would like you to take to accept the document.
Since the school is in the U.S., I'm guessing they'll be reasonable.


text:
How to write a research proposal for a PhD position where the description of the project is given?
I saw an offer for a PhD position where the title and the description of the project was given.
Now, in the form they ask the applicant to write a research proposal which will include 'Why I'm interested in the field/project described in the advertisement; 2. Why and how i wish you complete the project; 3. What makes me suitable for the project in question.?' (maximum 3 pages).
In my university, in one course what I learned was a complete idea how i will do the work and finish that work. But where should I write the reason why i m applying there? I mean, if they need a new proposal then would why they write the project name and description? And how is one supposed to know how the supervisor wants to complete the project?

I've seen some instances where the generic application form asks for a research proposal but the department you're applying to doesn't demand one. It might be worth getting in touch with the admissions tutor/ office to see if it's actually necessary. They may also be able to give you some specific advice about what they like to see in the proposal.

If the research project description is very specific, think of it as a job application.
The research project is the job advert.
The research proposal you will write up and send out is your cover letter. You ought to demonstrate how you're the best fit for the research project.
Approaching the research supervisor in advance of the application deadline would be good, if their details are given as part of the project description.
One cannot assume that 'the supervisor knows how they want to complete the project'. One supervisor might be very prescriptive, the next supervisor will be very open-minded or loose.


text:
Contacting professor for PhD in different research area than past experience: do I need to prepare a research proposal before first contact?
I've done my masters in CS/Artificial Intelligence. My thesis work is related to Human-Robot interaction, that involves robotics and psychological theories.
I did that project because it seemed to me as more interesting, I'm still interested but during my masters studies I have realized that I am more interested in machine learning, deep learning and its applications in so many domains. Which is why I'm highly motivated to pursue my PhD in machine learning, specifically deep learning.
I do have theoretical concepts about machine learning, image processing and good knowledge about research process (working as research assistant currently). I'm quick learner and have good CGPA as well, few conference in different research area. What I don't have is any research project or publication in this area and hence I don't have any proposal prepared so far.
Now I want to contact professor showing my interest in Deep learning. My question is since I don't have a prepared proposal, how do I approach him? Do all professor expect the proposal attached at first email or Can I prepare proposal while being in touch with him with little bit of his guidance.
Should I spend like a month and prepare proposal or would it be better if I just contact professor and with his guidance I can be more focused and save my time?

the answer depends a bit on the culture of your country and even on the individual professor you are adressing. If you would contact me, sending an e-mail containing more or less the question posted would be sufficient to get an invitation to talk about potential research topics and about how to proceed.
At least in my position, the answer is more dependent on whether I have an idea on how to finance your position - so if you have ideas about this (grants, ...), you should include such information.

Thanks OBu.
Actually, when I searched about how one should contact professor about PhD, many people suggested that you should not be wasting professor's time and your email must show that you have already worked in his area or else professor won't even bother to reply. and they also suggested I should not mentioned anything about funding.
Although, I have partial funding so finance is not really an issue. For me the issue is will he be ok to supervise a guy who has not done any work in that specific research area, in which he's going to to PhD.
I'm asking generally.

It really depends on the professor (and the culture of the country you are living in, of the university culture, etc.). Maybe you know someone working with the professor whom you can ask about his/her preferences.
For me, it is more important to see that someone is ambitious and willing to work in a topic. Previous work is a bonus, but not a must have. In fact you worked in a related field and this raised your intereset - it's a good start. I think I would consider taking you ;-)

Your reply is quite motivating. Thanks OBu. I wish to find a professor like u :). By the way I'm targeting Germany (very less tuition fees, huge industry) and surrounding countries. i.e. Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and Norway.

I know that there are different opinions on how privacy should be considered in this forum, so maybe you want to contact me using
5is_20m0p8lavvj6@byom.de - but I can not promise anything ;-) .

Thanks OBu for leaving the contact. I've sent you an email :-)

seems like the e-mail did not reach me... Could you try again, please? After initial contact, I'll answer from my real mail ;)

I have sent you an email. Hope you get this time :)
In other case, please check my "About me" section for my contact.

In the U.S. at least, at the admissions stage, you don't need to have a well-formed PhD research proposal all baked and ready to take out of the oven.  Advisors expect a student to spend some time choosing and defining a topic.  If a student arrives with that already done, that's a nice extra.


text:
Should one put poster presentations on their CV in maths?
I have presented posters at poster sessions at a few large conferences in pure mathematics. Is it worth putting these down on one's CV?
For context, I am a PhD student and have also given talks at several seminars and (smaller) conferences, so my CV is not especially in need of bulking up. Currently I do not have them on my CV. Moreover, my feeling is that posters in pure maths are not peer reviewed at all (in contrast to my impression of other areas), though I do not know this for definite.

Given that you are a PhD student (in math; I am also in math), I think you probably should put this on your CV.  Going to conferences shows some professionalism and interest, and giving poster presentations does too.  I don't want to suggest that this will be a key piece of information for your job search and/or early career, but...it certainly can't hurt.  You may want to take them out later when your CV has filled out in other ways.
The fact that they are not peer reviewed does not seem directly relevant to me, as long as you don't lump them together with publications (why would you?) or suggest in some way that they are something they were not.

For what it's worth, this is the practice I've seen in many other STEM fields as well... list all your conference presentations, posters, white papers, etc. on your resume in their own separate sections.

Regarding the peer-reviewing process, in conferences in my field (civil engineering), sometimes we receive 100-200 papers. After the review process is over, typically, the top 10% get to be presented in key sessions. Then, top 30-50% of accepted papers will be presented in regular sessions. Finally, the rest will be presented as posters (due to lack of time/rooms) or declined! So, you can say that there is some sort of a peer reviewing process involved.
In my case, I have always added the posters under "Presentations and Poster contributions in Conferences" section in my resume (and  I can assure you that I really do not need to do that). This section falls right after "Articles published in conference proceedings". I do not see the point of doing some work and spending time on preparing a poster or an abstract and not take credit for it. Every small contribution is valuable. I doubt that whoever is interested in your resume will consider posters as a major contribution. Most likely they will  skim through it or completely skip it. Peer reviewed journal articles are the most important part of a researcher's career (in my field).

This question is specially about conventions in mathematics.

I understand, and I have mentioned that in my answer. However, from interaction with some colleagues in different departments, it seems that many fields tend to operate [somehow] in a similar fashion. P.S., He did not use "conventions" but rather 'conferences".

I meant "conventions" in the sense of "standards", and he/she specifically said in the question that he believes mathematics to be different from other fields in this respect.

Thanks for shining in. I just want to clear that peer reviewing for possible publication in a journal is way different than that used in reviewing a submitted paper to a conference. Peer reviewing in a conference simply means that such paper fits the conference theme, has valuable results and is worthy of being displayed/discussed.

The Fire Guy: What you say in your last comment is not true in all fields.  For instance, in many branches of computer science, conferences have essentially replaced journals as being the most prestigious publication venue, and there are conferences such that submitting a paper to that conference corresponds to submitting to a top journal in another field.

On the other hand, the above comments about mathematics are completely correct: at a mathematics conference (well, > 99% of the time; I was recently involved with a rare exception) one does not submit anything in advance of giving a talk.  Moreover a conference talk may correspond to a number of papers which is greater than, equal to, or less than one, and these papers may already have been published, may be publicly available but not published, submitted but not yet available, not yet written, never be written, etc.

I understand Pete. CS is different than civil engineering so is mathematics. Perhaps I should write civil engineering in every comment I write. One more thing, even in talks (from keynote speakers for an example), you do not need to submit anything in advance. Talks/discussions are different than submitted papers. You submit papers, and after being reviewed, they will be accepted to be presented as key-papers, papers or posters.

@The Fire Guy: I will clarify my last comment.  In most math conferences, before the conference itself there is no academic material submitted by anyone or refereed and reviewed by anyone, so (it follows that) none of the scheduled activities depend on responses to pre-submitted material.   So your answer "So, you can say that there is some sort of a peer reviewing process involved." is unfortunate advice: with very high probability there was no peer reviewing process done in the OP's case, so he cannot say that.

@peter, thanks for your comment. My full comment is "Regarding the peer-reviewing process, in conferences in my field (civil engineering), ...... So, you can say that there is some sort of a peer reviewing process involved." I hope this clears out any confusion.

Thanks for the clarification.  Since you are answering the OP's question, I had assumed that the quoted sentence was addressed to the OP and his situation.


text:
Is it appropriate to buy a “thank you” gift for a MSc supervisor?
I'm about to finish my Master of Science and I was just wondering around this forum and the question "Is it appropriate to buy a “thank you” gift for a PhD supervisor?" inspired me for this question.
Is a gift appropriate for a MSc thesis supervisor? If so, what gift is more appropriate?
Note: PhD != MSc, avoid marking as duplicate please

@jakebeal and the other closers: How is this a duplicate? At least in some places, a PhD degree and the path leading up to it is something fundamentally different from a Bachelor/Master degree, and the relationship between PhD candidate and their supervisor is just as fundamentally different from the relationship between a Bachelor/Master student and their supervisor.

As a matter of facts this is indeed not a duplicate. I am well aware of the post regarding the PhD supervisor and I also referenced to it in this post. For them, it's like MSc and PhD are indeed the same thing and the relationship between student and professor/supervisor is the very same. Unbelievable. It's like "he's a newbie, few rep points and all that, he can't read previous posts, he doesn't know how to use StackExchange" whilst this is not true.

@O.R.Mapper My original comment appears to have been automatically deleted by the closing process, since I incorporated it into the "Possible duplicate" comment.  What I believe is this: the answers for an MSc are the same as for a Ph.D., excepting only that the terminus of the MSc is not a defense and that the scale of a gift (if any) should be proportionally smaller.  Recognizing that this might be reasonable to actually state as an answer, I have now changed my mind and voted to reopen.

@jakebeal: If the MSc ends with a thesis (as mentioned by the OP), there sometimes is indeed a defense for that thesis. Other than this, I do think there can be a world of a difference between (1) a, say, 6 month MSc thesis that provides an opportunity to show advanced practical skills in action, with a flavour of research, based upon a task provided by a supervisor who may be a doctoral candidate barely older than the MSc student, and (2) a path to a PhD spanning, say, 5 years, based upon largely self-chosen concrete tasks and advice from a supervising professor who can easily be a ...

... decade or more ahead of the candidate, career-wise, and whose advice will mostly be restricted to the research-related side of things, which is in the focus of the candidate, while they are expected to be already well-versed at solving any technical problems of their subject. Now, this is quite culture and location dependent, and probably also somewhat exaggerated compared to the average case, as well as related to individual factors between candidates and supervisors, but IMHO enough to warrant a separate question.

@O.R.Mapper I voted to close this question because I think that the answers provided in the suggested duplicate and in the other questions about gifts (there are quite a few) cover also the case of an MSc supervisor.

@MassimoOrtolano: Given that I think for Bachelor/Master thesis supervisors (as opposed to PhD supervisors), the answer pretty much amounts to "No", or at least "Maybe, but it's also totally appropriate not to do so", I somehow do not see how that case is covered there.

@O.R.Mapper I think that your case is covered by the answers to this question. But don't get me wrong: I mildly think that the existing questions and answers cover all the possibilities about gifts to supervisors, whatever the level, and so I voted to close (unfortunately only one duplicate can be suggested), but I'm not strongly against reopening it.

@Alessiox I removed Note #2 because it's unnecessarily polemic. In addition, several of those who have voted to close have already reverted their vote, so there's no need to put the note back.

Please do not insert meta-commentary into the text of the post. Edit wars will likely lead to having to lock the post, which would have the unfortunate side effect of preventing the question from getting reopen votes, so please don't do that.


text:
Is it OK to change mistakes/typos when you are in the minor revision stage of publication?
What I mean is to change mistakes/typos other than the proposed changes your reviewers pointed out to you.
As this article is based on a previous thesis (which had a very similar focus, only it was oriented towards a different cultural context) I've noticed a few paragraphs that could use a clean up (for example it would help to clarify that I use a certain term because it is related to the administrative divisions in my country,etc.).
I also noticed a typo on one of the results on the table that got carried over to the abstract. It doesn't change the results or findings or anything, basically it's just a decimal that should be lower.
My question is, would it be OK to change them now? And in case it was should I let the reviewers know I cleaned it up or go through each change, besides the ones they asked me to do, obviously.

FWIW, this was also posted on reddit

Yes, this is completely OK. You are not bound to perpetuate typos from earlier versions just because reviewers did not find them.
It's always good to indicate that typos were cleaned up and similar, though you shouldn't note every single typo. I'd write something like "we corrected typos, especially in section X, and tightened up the prose in paragraph Y" in the answer letter - just to make sure that nobody thinks you are trying to smuggle in larger changes.
Of course, there is a bit of a gray area between small and not-so-small changes. If you want to change something that goes beyond simple spelling errors or awkward prose and starts to change your argument, you should draw the editor's and reviewers' attention to this more explicitly, since they should really sign off on any not completely minor changes at this stage.

Thank you very much! No, I'm not changing my argument at all. It's more of cleaning up the prose in certain parts and then a numerical result was slightly lower, but not significantly changint the point I was making. Ie. I was explaining that the duration of a condition had increased for males and reduced for females. It is still reducing for females, only a bit less than I thought.
Again, many thanks for your help, much appreciated!

stephen is spot on, using MS review will track the typos you change automatically. If you change numbers then you are misreading the answer and in a danger zone. @Pointed in no way does Stephen's answer give you the ok to do what you are suggesting in this comment. "and then a numerical result was slightly lower, but not significantly","ad increased for males and reduced for females. It is still reducing for females, only a bit less than I though" This quotes part are a big no no, this is not typos

Thanks, will make it sure I point out any changes except for the typos!

Yes, correcting typos while making revisions (major or minor) is not only completely okay, it is strongly encouraged.  In general you should feel free to make such changes, without explicit comment, as long as:
(i) A neutral, well-qualified reader (not necessarily a leading expert; just a generic member of your target audience) would regard your changes as having no nontrivial intellectual / academic content,
and
(ii) These changes do not significantly alter the length of the paper.
If you run afoul of condition (i) or (ii), you should think one more time as to whether you want to make these changes.  You can still make them, but you should alert the editor to them -- and in case (i), enumerate them explicitly.  You should understand and be prepared to have your work refereed again.  If the changes are so significant that a neutral, well-qualified reader would be concerned that an article submitted in the revised form would not have been accepted (or made it to whatever stage of the process you have attained), then you should think one more time about making the changes, and if so you should probably suggest to the editor that the paper may need to be re-refereed.  In other words, you can yourself make a major revision in place of a minor revision...but be prepared to accept the consequences of that.

Thanks a lot for the advice.
No, none of the edits change the article's argument. In one case it is cleaning up prose. In the other it's just correcting a decimal that ended up higher than it actually was in the results. The change is not substantial in the sense that the argument I'm making is the same: that episodes in men for a certain condition have increased in duration whereas in women their duration has decreased. It's only that in the first version the decrease I got was higher than it actually is (by a decimal). The article's findings are the same.

If the typo was in a reported quantitative outcome of the paper, you should definitely correct it - publishing wrong data would be abominable - but just as definitely note it to the editor. You should not allow any possible misunderstanding that the change from version to version was a mistake, or an attempt at something sneaky.

Yes of course, I assumed those results were not going to be published, my dilemma was more along the lines of "can I just correct it and point out I corrected the mistake to the reviewers, or should I completely withdraw the article and res-submit it?". Thanks for the help!


text:
Should I use italics and different typefaces for foreign words, file names, class names, variable names, etc. in a master's thesis
Currently I'm writing my master's thesis about the detection of Android Malware. It's being written in French. Like you would expect, there are a lot of concepts (e.g., about Android and security) that are in English. The translation in French is not clear and is not known either. How do I write those terms ? Should I write them in italic?
In addition, I would like the reader to be able to distinguish between a variable name, a file name, a class name, etc. just by looking at how the word is typeset. Can I use different typefaces for each element?

I've tried to edit your question to keep it on topic here (we usually don't answer questions on how-to in LaTeX and friends). Feel free to revert or adapt the edits.

my question isn't about the technical part. my question is more about "should I use different typefaces all the time ? occasionally ? if so, when ?

I strongly disagree with the close voters, and voted to reopen:  not all universities have style guides to which a student can refer to.

How do I write those terms ? (Maybe in Italic.)

No, don't write every occurrence of a technical term in italic, or you will make your readers sea-sick.
Treat those terms as you would treat any French technical term, and possibly use italics just on the first occurrence, where the technical term is defined or introduced.
Even though it's not a French style manual, I think it's worth reading what the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, writes on the topic:

Italics for unfamiliar foreign words and phrases. Italics are used for isolated words and phrases in a foreign language if they are likely to be unfamiliar to the readers [...]. If a foreign word becomes familiar through repeated use throughout a work, it need to be italicized only on its first occurrence. If it appears only rarely, however, italics may be retained.

The sentence

If a foreign word becomes familiar through repeated use throughout a work, it need to be italicized only on its first occurrence.

aptly applies to your thesis work.
As for your last point,

I want the reader to distinguish between a variable name, a file name, a class name ...etc. by only looking how the word is written.

In books, authors frequently distinguish code snippets by using monospaced fonts, but I would avoid using too many different typefaces (or too many colours) to highlight different syntax elements. I suggest you to have a look at the LaTeX package listings and to ask on TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange for further information.

And don't forget to check French journals and theses to see how others have approached this. // It can be helpful to try a couple of different approaches and then print out a few pages. You can get a better idea from a hard copy than by looking at it just on the screen.


text:
I want to know a little about everything, not everything about a very specific topic. Is this a good/bad mindset for a career in research?
Lately I've been wondering if I should drop out of a PhD program (in economics).
After graduating with a bachelor's degree, I desperately wanted to know more about the field, and I enrolled in a PhD program. I passed qualifying exams without any problems, and it's time to do research.
The problem is, as I am beginning to realize, I am not at all sure if I want to do research. I believe what I really like is learning new things and applying that knowledge in e.g. conversations, real world problems, etc. I'm generally very happy and excited when I finish reading a paper, a book chapter, or solve a mathematical problem.
But the fun stops there. I have no interest in thinking up my own problems because the way I see it, there are already so many papers or books I haven't read, that I'd much rather spend my time studying the material than going really deep in one particular subject and focusing on it for the next few years (and probably even longer if staying in academia after graduating).
Is this a common way to think at this stage? I've talked about this to a friend in the same program, and he doesn't seem to understand. He is the very opposite of me: he did quite poorly in the exams, but seems to have quite a few ideas (of which most are flat out bad and have been shot down by his supervisor). Whereas I haven't even presented any ideas yet because I don't have any good ones, and would rather study more.
I've realized that perhaps I am just an information sponge, and not a researcher? Can anyone relate to that? I feel like I want to know a little (well, a lot actually) about everything, and not everything about a very specific topic.

Possible duplicate of How not to be like a rolling stone in research?

Also see How to focus on a single area during PhD?

Instead of thinking about research as 'thinking up my own problems' - is there something that you read that your immediate reaction was 'that seems weird, I wonder why that it is?' and then not been able to find the answer? While it is true that research is about finding problems that other people haven't investigated yet, it is more true that research is about finding answers to those problems.
Reading widely is a good thing as it exposes you to different approaches and different potential sources of the question that sparks your interest. However, you are probably getting to the point that you should be focussing on a specific problem (since you have passed exams you must be some way through). I don't know what your program allows, but you might consider an interdisciplinary area where the balance between breadth and depth is different.

"is there something that you read that your immediate reaction was 'that seems weird, I wonder why that it is?'"  - Yes, quite often, but it almost as quickly results in me thinking "...but that is not important, it's a minor detail". I realize that most scientific research IS about focusing on the details and advancement is often very slow and gradual. But I would much rather use that time (e.g. 2-3 years) studying an entire field rather than seek to solve a series of (seemingly) meaningless problems in a very specific area.

To clarify, I guess I am fundamentally thinking about it this way: Person A delves deep into a research question, struggles with it for a few years and emerges with a solution and a few research papers that in the end do not make an impact in the field. Person B abandons research and studies the same few years intensively, becoming an expert in topics x, y, and z. Who is more likely to be more valuable/impactful/ successful in the society? I think Person B, but I guess this is not how a true researcher would see it?

@tka26 In that example Person A did not achieve what they probably aimed to do (and then died?), while Person B might find x, y, z isn't value by society as much as they thought. It's easier and more efficient to learn new things than it is to create new knowledge, just as it's easier to travel an existing road (and you'll go faster and farther) than it is to build a new one. The world needs both kinds of people. Sometimes the roads wash out and sometimes there are pile-ups on the highway, and sometimes the new road means the old experts aren't so useful anymore.  No easy answer.

Somebody has to come up with those techniques that you want to become an expert in. That person had a problem that they needed to solve and created those techniques to solve the problem. That's what research is about. I personally did my PhD later in life because that's when I discovered a problem that interested me. When I wanted to learn things, I did coursework degrees.

Wanting to understand things deeply should be the main reason for getting a PhD, so I think you're okay there as long as you're okay with the deeply part.  Now just realize that's what research is, and when you understand things deeply, you often discover something new.
You of course won't know if (novel) research is really for you or not until you try it out, but I don't see any warning signs.  One of my friends (who is considered a major leader in his mathematical field) had thought that there is so much beautiful math out there that, if we didn't have to do research for our career, we might spend all of our time just learning different old math and not creating new math.  (I think this is a bit of an exaggeration, as we would naturally create new math when understanding old math, but it illustrates the continual desire to learn new things as an academic.)
Also, there is a wide range in the research vs learning spectrum in academia.  Many professors just work in a very focused area all their life, and others spend all their time teaching and learning and writing very few papers.  But I think as a whole, PhDs love learning for the sake of learning.

Are there professors who actually focus on teaching? I thought they were generally called lecturers?

@tka26 Most professors spend at least 1/3 of their time teaching, but depending on the university/department/individual, their main focus might be teaching (e.g., at many liberal arts colleges).


text:
Working in two research lab at the same time – unethical?
Is it unethical to work for two professors (two seperate research lab in two non-related fields) at the same time? I am an undergrad student currently working for professor A in a full-time research assistant co-op job. On the other hand, I volunteer using my spare time working for another research lab in an almost unrelated field. Professor A doesn’t know about this.
So my question is, is it unehtical for me to do this?
I ask because my friends warned me not to do this. On the other hand, I don’t think it is too much of issue since I am not stealling data or anything from anyone and, more importantly, they are in two different unrelated fields.
Similiar question is asked here, but I am asking from an ethical perspective.

As long as you are fulfilling all your commitments to Professor A (including working full time on his project, not misappropriating any data from that project, and not using that project's resources for unrelated work), what you do in your spare time is your own business.

Welcome to Academia SE. I reduced your question to be only about ethics, as we cannot possibly read your professors’ thoughts and thus cannot tell you whether they would be “pissed of”. Please check that everything is still according to your attentions.

@AndreasBlass: I would suggest you to convert your comment (+1) into an answer, as IMHO it answers the question perfectly and people, myself included, will gladly upvote it.

To answer the central question: no, it's not unethical nor is it an issue of ethics. It's an issue of time management and fulfilling responsibilities.

as an aside, can I ask about what the two areas are? I'm curious :)

Professor A doesn’t know about this. — Why not?

So my question is, is it unehtical for me to do this?

Unethical - no. Smart? Probably also no.
Firstly, as Corvus correctly states, it seems very unlikely that you can perform well in both roles and do your undergrad studies in parallel (and I am not even talking about going outside and doing people stuff occasionally, which you should also not forget about).
Secondly, you should not forget that professors are human. Even though you are not doing anything "wrong" by any stretch of imagination, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where either of the professors (or both!) don't take it well, and I am assuming you want letters from these guys down the road. The professor that you work for, for instance, may assume that you find his research very unfulfilling if you feel you need to invest your spare free time into a completely unrelated area instead of hanging out with friends etc. (S)he may assume you are really doing it only for the money / letter. The other professor may be disappointed at some point when an important deadline should be met that you can't commit more time to her/his project, because of your other duties.
Finally:

Professor A doesn’t know about this.

That's never great, and you should change this ASAP. Even if the professor basically does not care about the issue at hand, (s)he may get mad simply because you didn't tell (I certainly would). And I think you are aware that the chance of you keeping this a secret forever are slim to non-existent?

I especially agree with the last comment - it's not the act itself that is unethical, but deception almost always is unethical (and not informing both professors of your other involvement would be a lie by omission)

@user2813274: I disagree. Alex is under no more obligation to tell the professor what he does with the rest of his time whether that's doing other research or going bog snorkling. I find it surprising that he's not mentioned it, but it is in no way unethical.

Some people recharge mentally by hanging out with friends or regular leisure activities. Some may want to instead explore other research as the OP is doing. Assuming that this means that those students aren't interested in their main activities is quite insulting. The OP certainly won't be able to contribute to the secondary research as much as his main activity simply because he's working on it in his spare time but that has no bearing on whether he'll be successful in Lab A. Professor B should be aware that the OP only has limited hours available but that's where the ethical issue ends imo.

@JackAidley that works well for bog snorkling as there is no overlap, but when your working for the same ultimate employer (the university) in the same field, there are issues - first of all, the university may not be allowed to have a person work more than 40hr/week and have legal issues if they do (working at two different places would normally remedy this) - the next is that in the industry, there are often non-compete clauses that prevent working in the same industry at the same time - while they may not exist in this setting, they do have their purpose and it would apply here as well.

Several of my undergraduate students have done this. There's nothing unethical about it, as long as they are honest and upfront about their obligations. It can be a very good way to figure out what kind of work you like doing--which, of course, is a big part of the of the point of undergraduate research.
On the other hand, the students who have done this are not the students who tend to get first author papers -- let alone first author papers in top tier journals -- as undergraduates. The students who do that are focused and highly invested in what they are doing in my lab. There simply aren't enough hours in the day for an undergraduate to take a full course load and perform graduate level in multiple labs.


text:
Co-authors on a study have cut communication, what can be done?
During my first post-doc one of the primary researchers just dropped all communications. The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't publish without his consent. He was initially keen to publish but when pressed to do his side of the papers he kept pushing the deadline & eventually ceased communicating altogether.
OK, so that happened & I moved on, I had no choice.
Unfortunately I find myself in a similar situations yet again. This time though the lack of communication is with a professor who, after coming up to a year, has not responded to my emails or phone calls. This again after an initial work division & publication plan had been worked out & agreed upon.
This time I do know that the prof is still working at the same place & is still collaborating with the same people but just not responding to me.
What are my options here? What would you do in this situation? I am considering Union representation but is that just going to be toothless?
I have been a post doc now for 5 years & I have nothing published in 4.5 years due to this kind of behaviour.

My first question would be how much you have contributed to the lack of communication here. Two similar cases don't necessarily make a pattern, but they might.

I have been trying to keep communication open. In both cases we were communicating regularly about the progress of the papers & then in both cases my emails have not been answered. I have been sending regular weekly requests for comfirmation for comming upto a year with no replies at all & with no indication that anything was wrong.

What does "communicating" mean? Email? Telephone? Carrier pigeon?

as already mentioned both email & phone, weekly over the period of a year

How long has this professor not been communicating? Are you saying he dropped communication for a full year at this point or is it more recent than that?

On a side note... "I have 3 years worth of research that I cant publish without his consent. He was initially keen to publish but when pressed to do his side of the papers he kept pushing the deadline " Does this mean that he didn't contribute any work at all before "radio silence"? Then what stopped you from just taking over "his side of the papers", doing them yourself and publishing everything on your own?

@walen  he played a significant role in the experimental work. I think it would be fraudulent to pass off his work as my own. He was to do some analysis on the work overall work (which I have now done) & when pressed he at first became biligerant & then cut comms

@JGreenwell the last I heard from the prof was in January when I was assured I would have a draft first week in Feb. The prof has had the paper since the previous October, the work was actually completed last summer

Couldn't you just write up everything, put the name of everybody involved on it and circulate it by email, asking for approval? If you do not hear anything, you can send reminders, and after some time, something like "If I hear nothing from you in the next 4 weeks, I assume everything is all right and I can publish".

@J.FabianMeier the journals I want to approach ask for the signed approval of all the authors along with their email addresses. I assume this is the same for most journals?

@DrBwts In my field(s), we never had "signed approval" - the corresponding author needs to assure that the author list is correct.

Closely related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/8223/1033

Asssuming as always that we get a complete and accurate picture of the situation by the OP:
Until physics or medicine do something that under today's standards is indistinguishable from magic, there is one individual natural resource that depletes non-stop: time.
And yes, you are a grown up and you take your chances and accept risks when collaborating, like the ones you saw materialized. But that should not mean "if it doesn't work out smoothly, well, let it die".

The upshot is that I have 3 years worth of research that I can't
  publish without his consent.

Compare: We are equal partners and decision-makers in a company, and you go on and disappear. Does this mean the company is doomed to remain in limbo forever? Dragging my fortunes with it?
I would seek both legal and academic-ethics advise on this, and on your current situation, probably they are available in your institution for free?
Seek detailed expert advise on how you could go on and publish. And in the advice that you will receive, try to detect the most "peaceful" approaches and suggestions -the goal is not to attack or criticize or shame the partner-that-disappeared, just not to throw your time and work in the garbage bin.
And, for the long-run, plan also some work that you can do alone.

I'd be really curious what ethical justification there could be for publishing someone else's work when they are, as it seems, intentionally withholding their consent.

@NateEldredge I believe every author must give consent. (This has probably been discussed elsewhere on this site.)

@NateEldredge When one's own work can't be published without inadvertently publishing someone else's, and that someone else hasn't articulated any reasons to withhold their consent or even affirmed that they're doing so, the ethical scale seems pretty tipped in the OP's favor, notwithstanding what consent is formally required.

@NateEldredge I do not understand your comment. I did not suggest to the OP to publish someone else's work. I suggested to the OP to seek comprehensive expert advise  in order to publish his own work, exactly because it is entangled with someone esle's work . Moreover, rights should be exercised responsibly. And "withholding consent through silence" is a totally irresponsible way of exercising such a right.  I am not into a "litigated view" of the world and relations, that's why I suggested to the OP to find the peaceful way out, but if the other party has rights, so do I.

After reading Alecos's sound advice I'm looking into the legality of this.

Ultimately, you can't make someone collaborate or communicate with you if they don't want to.  I think your only option is to either abandon the project, or rewrite it to remove the parts that your collaborator contributed and then publish it as solo work.  I don't see how union representation could help in any way.
I'm pretty surprised that this would happen twice, and would wonder if there's something about your interactions that might be causing it.  People usually don't voluntarily drop all contact with a collaborator unless something has happened that makes them uncomfortable to continue working with them - ethical concerns, abusive behavior, severe inability to communicate, etc.  If you have a colleague who works in the field, and you trust them to be honest with you, you might want to show them the history of your communications and see if they observe any red flags which you might not be aware of.
If you have any common acquaintances with this collaborator, they might also be able to give you some idea as to what is going on.
Normally I'd wonder if there is some involuntary reason for lack of communication - illness, personal problems, death, spam filters - but here it sounds like you've ruled those out.
Regardless of what initially caused the breakdown, I don't think your strategy of "weekly emails/calls for a year" was a good one.  I would probably send a maximum of about three messages / calls, with longer periods in between each, and the last one being an ultimatum of sorts: "if I don't hear back from you by date X, then I am going to do Y" (where Y could be stopping work on the project, or removing their contributions and proceeding, or whatever).  And then if they don't respond, you do Y, and move on with your life.  Persistence can be a virtue, but in this case I'm reminded of the saying about how insanity is when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Another tip for the future is to have multiple projects going on with multiple different collaborators, so that if one of them falls apart (either for scientific or interpersonal reasons) you still have some publications.

In the first case the researcher had signifcant issues with other people working on the project. I was the last person he would communicate with. In the second case I have reached out to a two third parties (both of whom are still actively working with the prof in question) who are as bemused as I. Its difficult to get multiple collaborators if my publication record is so poor.

I've seen the "dropping all communication" regularly, for myself and for other people I know, simply because the other party has no time whatsoever and is completely drowning in emails.

whilst I get that, this is having a detrimental effect on my career. in an answer above somebody is finding this incredulous, imagine how it comes across to potential employers!

@DrBwts: "imagine how it comes across to potential employers!" I believe that by employers you mean academia. Because outside of academia nobody will care (except maybe for some industrial research positions, and even there probably not).

@WoJ I hear you but I'd like to continue working in academia

@DrBwts: sure, I was just commenting in case where the employers may be external.

I've seen this many times.
Some scientists, in particular senior scientists, can be outrageously busy.  They might have to be on your co-author list because they are responsible for the data.  They might insist on being in the loop for the data analysis, but when it's time for feedback on exactly that, they have no time.  They may be completely drowning in emails.  They might rarely pick up the phone because they're constantly travelling or in meetings.  They certainly don't have time to read a paper draft related to some data they provided to someone junior months or even years ago; they may not even remember.  Do not take it personally just because they're not communicable.  I've found that some scientists are eager to take on a lot more work than they are able to do (because everything is awesome!), but underestimate the time it takes.  See Hanlon's razor and Hofstadter's law.  Scientists are human, the expectation from a senior scientist may not be human, the result is what we observe.  I've had situations where I thought a senior scientist had lost interest, but then spoke to him for 5 minutes at a conference and soon found out that he was still quite interested instead — just incapable of allocating time.
Some senior scientists are very good at time management, manage to reply to emails and even give detailed manuscript feedback even when they're no less busy than any other senior scientist.  In my experience, they are a minority.
How to prevent this?  If possible, seek out less senior co-authors.  That will reduce the risk of this happening.  I've had better responses from co-authors junior enough to desperately need papers to have a chance at graduating/staying in science/etc.
How to get out of this situation?  Try to reach them in other ways: phone their office, phone or email a secretary to find out when the scientist may be in, or if you're lucky enough to both attend a conference any time soon, try to seek them out during a conference break.  Prepare some clear questions: do they still want to be on the paper?  Are they happy for publication to go ahead?  In my experience, the result is usually one of either:

Please go ahead and remove me as a co-author, I don't have time.  I'm OK with the data being only acknowledged/cited, instead of full co-authorship.
Please go ahead, keeping me as a co-author.  If other co-author X approves the draft, you can assume I'm fine with the draft as well.
Let me introduce my postdoc/PhD student who is happy to take over my role on this study (we will both be co-authors).
I will have time in X days/weeks/months, please wait for me then.

I've seen all of the above, sometimes with an added apology.  I would be very cautious of the last answer, because in my experience, it usually ends up being not true.
If you reach them and they say they don't have time, you could even suggest if they might have a PhD student or postdoc who they could introduce you to (see point 3).  Personally, I think #3 is the most professional answer.
You may need to press them, or ask a senior colleague to press them, to get one of those answers at all.

"Do not assume anything bad just because they're not communicable." I dunno. The reasons you describe sounds pretty bad, in the "completely unable to manage my time and availability and then refusing to actually admit that to people and let them get on with the work without me" vein. If you don't have time to commit to the project, you need to communicate that as soon as possible to avoid becoming an impediment like this. Withdrawing from the projects early would also mean a smaller pile of e-mails to sift through.

"If you reach them and they say they don't have time" after they've agreed to do something, you should at least make them very uncomfortable with this turn of events that they come up with a solution.  Some of things I've seen in academia are more unprofessional than anything I could have ever dreamed of in the private sector.

@jpmc26 I mean "don't assume bad" in the sense of Hanlon's Razor. I agree that it's bad to promise to have time, and then not have time. But I've found that some scientists (and probably others, too) promise to take on more work than they can by underestimating the time projects take.  I edited the answer to reflect this.

@NeilG I don't know if a junior researcher is in the position to do so.

Every situation is different, but it's not hard to keep escalating the way you engage with someone until the situation is resolved.  Also, your four results should probably include an apology.  You can't expect promises to be brushed off childishly: "I have bad time management".  That may be true, but it's their responsibility to set expectations.

@NeilG I agree.  However, the question is not what senior researchers should do, but what junior researchers might expect.

Having endured my fair share of douchebaggery from professors during my PhD and postdoc, I suggest you send a polite but firm ultimatum to that professor that, unless he responds, you will unilaterally go ahead with the publication and acknowledge him only (or if you feel in a more generous mood, mention him as a co-author). Use all means of communication necessary such as e-mail, fax, and telephone, and keep all traces of your attempts at contacting him. Get others involved as well, for example by CC:ing his secretary, the other co-authors involved, as well as any stakeholder or relevant "witnesses". Give a clear deadline.
You have invested your time and effort and the professor is manifestly being disrespectful and unprofessional by not following up. If he ever complains after the ultimatum has elapsed, you can bring up all the evidence that you tried to reach him and that he is the only one to blame for this obnoxious behavior. There is no reason why your time an effort should go down the drain because of some else's poor deontology.

As a preemptive comment to what some may say is a justification for the professor's behavior: I don't see how being "senior" or "busy" are valid excuses. Part of what makes a good professor is the ability to follow up with his students, to not get involved in more projects than he or she can chew, and basically be a good "academic father" to the student or postdoc. From the OP described, this is a case of academic abandonment and is indicative of the degraded business model of academia at large.

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


text:
If I am interested in specializing in theory of computation, should I be looking for a PhD program in CS or math?
I took a Theory of Computation class years ago through my university's math department that I really enjoyed and found interesting. If I wanted to further pursue study/research/specialization with Theory of Computation what what kind of Ph.D program should I be looking for? Computer Science or Math. I am leaning towards Math grad school since I not inclined to take take classes about Database and OS design.
Has the prevalence of computer science programs in major universities during the past 30 years made the new researcher in the Theory of Computation normally a CS grad student or is it normal for pure math grad students specializing in theory of computation?

I am leaning towards Math grad school since I not inclined to take take classes about Database and OS design. — That is a really terrible reason.

You might consider programs specific to ToC like Georgia Tech's "Algorithms, Combinatorics, and Optimization" PhD program.  But you might also find that the course requirements (at least for the ones you don't like) are not that heavy in CS programs.

I am surprised at someone going into theory of computation in an era of big data wanting to avoid studying databases.

@PatriciaShanahan: I think you might be unintentionally insulting pure mathematics.

Maybe dig around at theoryofcomputing.org?

What specifically do you mean by Theory of Computation?

Generally speaking, in the US, the theorists will be in the computer science department, but it will not be hard to make arrangements for you to work with them as a student in the math PhD program.
Would you prefer to TA and eventually teach introductory programming courses, or calculus courses?  That's probably going to be the biggest difference (especially down the line after you graduate) between the two options.

"Theorist" can mean many things - what do you mean by it? Almost none of the computability theorists I work with in the U.S. works in a computer science department. I think there are quite severe topical and methodological differences between a PhD in math and a PhD in computer science; there is an intersection in some cases, but the two fields are not at all interchangeable. The prerequisites are also not at all the same - in math, you will almost certainly have to pass a qualifier in analysis or abstract algebra, while in computer science the qualifiers will be about other topics altogether.

@OswaldVeblen: I meant the subfield whose primary long-term aim is to resolve P vs NP and related problems.  Usually that's called something like "complexity theory", whereas I think the subfield you are referring to I usually here spoken of as "recursion theory" (which I agree is studied in mathematics departments).

I can't say much about the CS side, but I can write about what it would mean to study computation on the mathematics side. Perhaps if someone else writes about the CS side, the OP can compare.
In mathematics, computability is studied as part of mathematical logic. The key initial concept is Turing computability, but the focus is just as much on non-computable objects. So the structure of the Turing degrees is a key topic at first. Within computability theory, there are many areas: "classical" computability, higher computability, Reverse Mathematics, computable analysis, and crossover with areas such as proof theory, effective model theory, and effective descriptive set theory.  Topics such as computational complexity theory, compiler/language theory, and automata are not studied as often in mathematics departments.
The methods used are very mathematical. Mathematical computability theorists tend to focus much more on proving results than on implementing anything.  For your qualifying exams, you will need to learn several other basic areas of mathematics at an introductory graduate level, such as real analysis and/or abstract algebra. An undergraduate degree in mathematics, or very good mathematical preparation otherwise, is required to be admitted to a PhD program in math.
The field of computability is not extremely large, which can make both finding a PhD program and finding an academic job more challenging.   Essentially, mathematical logic as a whole is only as big as a subfield of many other areas of logic, and then computability theory is only a part of mathematical logic.

Check the curricula of prospective schools, contact potential advisors/research groups. I'd wager that graduate studies in theoretical computer science will rarely include the kind of subjects you want to avoid, at least not as mandatory classes.

I was just in this situation, graduating with a PhD in Theory of Computing. I would recommend looking for an Applied Math department. Although most applied math departments are oriented to scientific applications (like partial-differential equations), you may find that they offer a great deal of flexibility in coursework. I was able to take all the math classes and all the CS courses I wanted. I was able to skip a lot of the non-theory CS classes (operating systems, databases, etc.) and a lot of math classes that didn't appeal to me either (analysis, algebra, etc.)


text:
Abandoning vs. further pursuing a rejected paper?
My situation is as follows: I spent my undergraduate time at one university and recently entered grad school at another university (both of them in Germany, my field is theoretical computer science).
For my Bachelor's thesis, I worked (for about two months or so) on a topic that had not been considered at the time.
My former supervisor, although he proposed the topic, is not (at least not for the last 30 years) actively doing research in that specific area, which resulted in me ending up quite on my own. However, I could get some new results. They were, of course, not groundbreaking, but sufficient for the undergraduate level and the amount of time spent working on the thesis.
So we submitted the results to a (medium-to-low-ranked) conference in the subfield.
The reviews were quite mixed. Two were rather superficial: One positively and recommending acceptance, one negatively and recommending rejection (actually, the latter one was quite rude).
The third one, however, although recommending for rejection, was quite encouraging. The reviewer liked the idea of the paper, while the results we obtained did not suffice for publication at conference level but (his words) were rather suited for venues for work in progress, e.g. workshops in the area.
I actually agree with the third reviewer, for it would have been quite a surprise for me if a second-year undergraduate would have been able to produce publishable work on his own just like that, so I am not that disappointed.
My problem is that I do not plan on pursuing that specific subarea of research in the future and neither does my former supervisor. However, given that I ultimately aim for an academic career, I think it might be worth some efforts to get something published. Additionally, at my new university, nobody really cares about the area of the thesis, so chances to get some expert here to work with in order to improve the results are rather bad. This means that if I want something to happen, I would have to invest a vast amount of time and thoughts into a topic I don't want to pursue in the future, instead of entering new areas of research as quickly as possible.
So: Should I improve the results and finally get them published or should I invest the time for acquiring knowledge in a different area (and start publishing later) and abandon the work that has been done (giving away a possible publication) (w.r.t. the impact of the outcome on my academic career)?

For CS conferences, it's unfortunately common for one or two of the reviews to be very superficial, often little more than a paraphrase of the abstract and a recommendation to accept or reject. This is at least partly because there are so many conferences and so many papers, each of which requires three or four reviewers (though, on the other hand, one could argue that you only need so many reviewers because so many of them will be superficial). In short, you can mostly ignore the superficial reviews.

However, given that I ultimately aim for an academic career, I think it might be worth some efforts to get something published.

This alone makes me thing that it may be worth the effort - attempting to enter an academic career becomes vastly easier with some publications under your belt. Don't be discouraged by negative reviews - more than one of my papers has gotten reviews back that are essentially "This paper is bad, and the authors should feel bad" that end up seeing publication.
I would continue to pursue your paper for at least another round or two of submissions, but given it's not strictly speaking what you're interested in, if it becomes a burden either in your classwork or in publishing something you are interested in doing (I had a paper become just such a problem) return it to the shelf.

Oh man, now that you've said that, I'm going to be strongly tempted to send this the next time I recommend a paper for rejection...

There is no clear answer to this question because it depends on several factors. First, it has to be said that it is a shame if good research is not published. If you get encouraging comments and know what to do to meet certain criteria you can probably assess how much work will be involved and then if you are willing to put in that effort. having something published is never wrong, even if it is not in the field you want to pursue. If you are not interested or do not want to spend the time then it will be harder to generate the necessary improvements.
So, if you want to pursue a career in research, having something tangible published is always a plus. It is a question if you want to take a chance to "waste" your time; if you think it is worth it.

So we submitted the results to a (medium-to-low-ranked) conference in the subfield. The reviews were quite mixed. Two were rather superficial: One positively and recommending acceptance, one negatively and recommending rejection (actually, the latter one was quite rude).

I think having a positive review suggests it might be worth factoring in the comments and trying another submission elsewhere, assuming you're confident that the paper is technically sound.
Just to build on the other answers, I can see three options (with decreasing awards):

Work hard on the paper (if possible) and submit it to a conference with a similar level of competition (or perhaps even greater).
Work a little on the paper and submit it to a good/relevant workshop or as a short paper to a conference.
Submit the paper "as is" to the arXiV e-print server (which won't be peer-reviewed, but it will be publicised and the ideas will be marked as yours).

At your stage of career, taking any of these options would help open doors for you later on. Higher options open more doors.
Which strategy is best really depends on the depth of contribution in the paper (ideally you could discuss this in person with a more senior academic in roughly the same area). Note also that the options are not mutually exclusive.
The most generic advice would be to take option 3 now and submit the preprint (since it doesn't preclude submitting to a workshop/conference), work as hard as you can and try submit to another conference; if the reviews are similar, submit to a workshop or as a short paper. This strategy might involve more work but tries to maximise your profit.
A fourth option (which may or may not be feasible) is to take option 3 and then try find somebody else to collaborate with: someone to advise/guide you and share some of the workload in extending the paper towards an improved conference submission.


text:
Can you submit the same session proposal to two different conferences?
Each conference is on a different continent but is in the same discipline
(A & H). If my proposal is accepted, I will be chairing both sessions but will obviously have different speakers.
I am concerned that the governing associations may not be pleased due to a fear of redundancy.
Is this an academic faux-pas?
An 'emerging scholar'.

I would let both conference chairs know that you have submitted the proposal to the other conference. And I would check very carefully that both conferences are not mock conferences that exist only to extract large attendance fees from attendees.

Why must the speakers be different?

re:Debora Weber-Wulff   The two conferences the  two biggest of its kind in my discipline. I just hope that upon informing both chairs that I will not have  to withdraw should redundancy be an issue.

re:gerrit        Different speakers in case I get same audience members.

This may be a discipline specific issue. In my discipline, such duplicate sessions are common. Sometimes some of the same papers will be presented, but conferences are precursors to publication, and conference papers are not themselves considered contributions, at least not meaningfully. In a conference oriented discipline, the norm could be different, similar to submitting the same publication to multiple journals in mine.

How general is the session proposal? Are you accepting paper submissions for the session, or is it more like an invited discussion panel? Does the conference have a peer review process? If both conferences are peer reviewed, your general session topic would end up being very different at each conference.

"A&H" covers very many different disciplines with different practices.
In philosophy, it would not be strange at all to present the same paper multiply prior to publication (to get objections and feedback). Doing an entire panel with the same people and taking it on tour is something I've never seen. But when I say I've never seen it, I mean that I don't track conferences regularly (they're not important in philosophy in the same way they would be in CS). I don't think there's any rule against it within the discipline.
I cannot speak for other humanities and their practices.

Normally, two different conferences with the same session topics will result in two groups of work that are different, but compliment each other.
For example, assume I run a session called "Computer Forensics" at two different conferences. We will either invite different speakers, or use peer review for submissions to the session. In either case the result will likely be two sessions with the same general topic, but very different specific topics.
If the governing associations do not want the same topics, then make the topic title more general, but still related.


text:
Updating a paper on arXiv that was accepted by a non-open access journal
I have uploaded a paper on ArXiv a few months ago, and then submitted it to a non-open access journal. After appropriate revisions, the paper has been accepted by the journal, and will be published in the future. At the moment I would like to replace the old version of my paper on ArXiv with the current one that has been accepted by the journal. The journal’s guidelines are as follows:

On a noncommercial free-access preprint server such as arXiv:
The right to:

Post the preprint prior to submission and/or acceptance for publication by AIP Publishing.

Post the AM immediately after acceptance by AIP Publishing.

Update with the VOR 12 months after publication.

(An appropriate credit line must be included that references the full citation for the published paper, along with a link to the VOR on AIP Publishing’s site.)

I have a few questions:

What do AM and VOR abbreviations mean?

Where do I add the credit line? On the research paper itself? On the front page at the bottom? Or elsewhere? How can I reference “the full citation for the published paper with a link...” at this stage if it hasn't been published yet?

I appreciate all feedback. Thanks.

AM = Accepted Manuscript, VOR = version of Record. Citation and link should be included once the VOR is ready (final publication). I understand the link should be on arkiv description, not on the paper itself, after all, you will have only a pdf of VOR

Please see their web page for VOR and AM.

If you have only a PDF of the VOR, then you should post the AM instead, despite anyone telling you the contrary. The arXiv doesn't take PDFs with no source unless really necessary, and journals also prefer their formatting and design not to appear on preprinted repositories.

[The comments mostly answer this, but posting an answer as well for completeness]
AM - Accepted Manuscript (you may see the term AAM/Author's Accepted Manuscript or "postprint", as well). This is the version of the text at the point the journal accepts it - so with any revisions that were requested by reviewers, but before any final copyediting, formatting, etc.
VOR - Version of Record - the final published version from the journal with pretty formatting, pagination, and so on.
You should add the credit line (effectively a citation to the final version) to the arXiv landing page, but it's always a good idea to put it on the paper as well - perhaps a note on the first page to ensure that the reader has a handy reference for the correct citation.
The credit line should be to the published version (with DOI etc) but if this has not yet appeared, then something like "Accepted for publication in the Journal of Widgets, copyright the International Widget Research Society, posted with permission" will do - you can then update this as and when you have the correct details.

In math, what's typical is to add the "to appear" as a comment.  Then you can add the full citation when you know it without updating your post, but unfortunately many people don't.  I almost never see a note about "to appear" in the paper, but I like the idea.


text:
Conference optionally requests prior versions and reviews - should I submit this info?
Besides the anonymized manuscript of the paper, a conference in my field (HCI) "highly encourages" to also submit

the venue and ID where the paper was previously submitted (and rejected)
a description of the revisions made
(optional) the prior rejected version of the paper (anonymized pdf)
(optional) the full set of reviews on this previously rejected paper (including reviewer numbers, expertise, score, and review)

It is unclear to me what good all this information would do in the review process. (It is also not mentioned who will see the info - chairs only, ACs, or all reviewers?)
I don't see what good it would bring to demonstrate that my paper has been strengthened since the last rejection. That's a given, and only the submitted manuscript should be evaluated.
Should I disclose all this optional information, or submit only the bare minimum?
What is the best strategy here?

This request seems very odd. I can't suggest a strategy since I don't/can't understand what the committee is thinking. But it feels like laziness.

Yeah, and it's not even all info they ask for. They also want to know if you have related papers under review (with conference venue and submission number).

An odd request. That said, thinking strategically, since it's "highly encouraged"  honoring it might increase the chances for acceptance.

Maybe. Or, alternatively, a quick and easy (lazy) way to reject.

@Buffy Maybe. If they want to reject, why not make it easy for them and save everyone's time? If the submission has really been improved based on the first rejection then the comparison might work in the OP's favor. But the request really is strange.

I would say that providing this information will usually not be in your best interest as an author. The only time I would be tempted to do so is if the reviewers explicitly praised the value of the previous submission, but rejected it based on a concern you have now very clearly and completely fixed.
This seems like a rare situation. In most cases you are probably better served with reviewers evaluating the pros and cons of your work with fresh eyes and without being biased by the (presumably negative) comments a previous version of your work has received.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm with Buffy that I suspect the main reason for asking for this is to give the reviewers a quick out to say "clearly the concerns of the previous reviewers have not been addressed, reject". As author I would not be inclined to play along with this game.

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


text:
Prof asked to interview me, now I can't get in touch with him - what's the etiquette?
So here's my situation. I'm currently finishing up my masters (and that's a tale for another day) and have applied to a few universities for PhD.
Late Feb I was emailed by a postdoc who wanted to interview me on behalf of his prof who was inundated with grant applications and whatnot. We spoke on a week later, that went well, and I was told that if I was successful, I would hear from the prof himself. The following week (on a Friday) the prof himself responded to me that he wanted to have a follow-up conversation with me about it.
I replied that Sunday  letting him know I was free any time. I heard nothing, so I sat on my hands for a week and sent another reply letting him know that once again I was available that week if he wanted to talk. He informed me he would let me know but was on his way to a conference. This time I gave two weeks, and yesterday (April 7) called twice, about an hour apart, leaving a voicemail the second time, and sent a follow up email about an hour later as well. So, it's now been almost four or five weeks.
His voicemail mentioned an assistant that I have not contacted and I have likewise not emailed the postdoc since our previous conversation.
Is there anything left that I should do about this? How should I take this?
When I was interviewed by profs the first time I applied for grad school I don't recall having these issues. I want to be assertive/not look disinterested but also don't want to overstep any bounds. How responsive should I expect a potential prof to be?
To my knowledge this question has not been investigated elsewhere on this site.

I had similar issues with contacting my future PhD supervisor when applying and found the most efficient route was contacting the assistant. The professor is clearly busy but definitely doesn't want to be inundated with your emails. The assistant may plan his schedule and can book you in. Contacting the post doc isn't as efficient and can look like you are sidestepping the professor.

Thank you kindly for your response. I was wondering that which is why I made mention of the assistant - I didn't want to look like I was trying every window because the door was locked, so to speak, but what you said makes perfect sense, after all, he has an assistant for a reason.

Why do professors take ages to update their 90's style websites? Time.... From my experience professors are very busy people and thus they tend not to reply to emails as fast as one may hope for (unless it's some kind of urgent matter which must be addressed immediately).
If a professor has expressed interest in you, they won't just ignore all your correspondence. Just give him/her some time (at least a few days) and then send another email.
Be careful not to spam the professor with emails, this will only annoy him/her.

Thanks for your response Dan! This is one of the rationales I was applying, but at this point it's been about 3 or 4 weeks, and I typically wait a week (in the last case two) before sending another email. I can understand if they're busy, but my concern is that if they're so busy they can't even send a courtesy reply, how am I not certain that my email will get buried by the rest of the week's interactions and fall down the list of priorities? If it's not meant to be, it isn't, I would just like to know either way.

I would need to very carefully consider whether or not I want a relationship (a professional one at that) with someone who does not seem to have the courtesy to respond to correspondence within a reasonable time.
At where I work; I try to respond within one day (one hour if it's someone in my department. If I cannot get the technical answer or make an explicit appointment or whatever, I will acknowledge the email saying thank you, I will need to get back with you by  with a answer as I need to do some scheduling/research/whatever.
If I get emails from strangers on my personal account (and I am reasonably sure they are not spam but are questions about my hobbies or my artwork, I will answer within one or two days with an acknowledgement (maybe say that I can give a better answer later or lets talk about it on the phone because it is very technical.
I have had occasions when someone just does not respond. In one case, it as a distributer of optical fiber I wanted to use for my lighted clothing. I ended up going to his supplier who did answer their emails and got the optical fiber at wholesale prices. The person who never got back to me lost out on a sale.
In your case; do you really want a professional relationship with someone who does not have that basic courtesy?

Hello Mark and thank you for your answer! To be honest, I relate with your reply the most. I worked in industry before returning to academia, and I specifically worked in an industry where due diligence was a rule and not a suggestion: if you failed to respond you get fired because it was extremely litigious. I still conduct myself by these rules and like you, I believe if you can't give a full reply, you should at least acknowledge the person and let them know. In the end, you're right: do I want to work with someone who isn't reliable or accountable? It helps to hear some reinforcement.

I agree with Mark; if the prof can't even respond within a month if he is trying to land his favorite candidate, the chances that you will ever talk to him during your PhD are close to zero.


text:
How should I let a professor know that I don't want to work for her?
I am interested in the research of two professors, (one more so than the other) at a university I am applying to for PhD (let's call one Ms. E - less interested and Mr. K - very interested). I met both the professors and both seemed to be interested in getting me on their research team. I had a second meeting with the Ms. E and she asked whether I was talking to any other professors. I told her about Mr. K and that was it.
Next thing I know, Mr. K under whom I was actually planning to work, emails me saying I should continue my application under Ms. E.
Now I am confused as to how to navigate this problem. They both had planned to pull some academic strings to get me in as soon as possible (I am an international student) and both have promised me funding. I had not verbally committed to anything with either but only told them that I was interested in their research and wanted to talk to them about it further.
How should I let Ms. E know that I would rather work for Mr.K?

I would explain Mr. K the situation and ask his advice on what to do.

I would at a minimum make clearer two points in the question: (1) are Dr E and Dr K on the same research team?  (2) Is Dr K nearing retirement perhaps?

"I don't want to work for her" is not the same as "I prefer to work with someone else". Which one is it for you? Because "Mr. K emails me saying I should continue my application under Ms. E" sound like he is not interested in working with you anymore (e.g., found a better candidate, does not have funding after all, etc...).

... Mr K might be Ms E's mentor, Mr K might be about to go on sabbatical, etc. etc.

Dr E and Dr K are not on the same research team and are in their mid-30s so no question of retirement @virmaior

For me it is more that "I prefer to work with someone else, more specifically Dr K". I met with Dr E on Wednesday, with Dr K on Thursday and had my second meeting with Dr E on Friday. A couple of hours after my meeting I got that email from Dr K. So to me it almost seems like Dr E told Dr K to back-off. Can a professor do that?

You cannot force professors to work with you. If Mr K. changed his mind, (for whatever reason) so easily, then he did not want to work with you that bad, in the first place. Also, when evaluating offers, alignment of research interests is a valid criterion but also eagerness to work with you is another very important criterion. And in that regard, Ms. E offer seems much better.

It isn't much clear as to why Mr. K would insist you to work with Ms. E. It might be either of the following

It might most probably of Ms. E's suggestion/influence.
They might be on the same team (@virmaior's point)
Mr. K has just got another student he prefers over you.

To figure out why and how to react bases on why, @demitau's suggestion would be most appropriate; speaking openly with Mr. K should provide a solution.
If the answer to the last question is what you require (how to let Ms. E know I'd rather work with Mr. K?) then the most diplomatic approach is to say something like this: state that you feel much honoured to work with her. But it seems you current research interest are much inclined to that of Mr. K. Hence the decision.

I would also add “A funding problem might arise and he doesn’t want you to burn other bridges”.