text:
Reference on abuse of stimulant medications among professors to enhance academic performance?
Various research articles1 have been published on the prevalence of stimulant medicine (Adderall, Concerta, Ritalin) abuse among undergraduate students.
By "abuse of stimulant medicine," I am referring to the practice of students taking prescription medication that is prescribed to someone else (or, that is prescribed to them under false pretenses) in order to improve their focus and concentration while studying.
There is some anecdotal evidence of university faculty taking Adderall and related medications to enhance academic performance (and not to treat an attention disorder).
Is there any reference to research2 on the prevalance of stimulant medicine abuse among university faculty?

1 Here is a review article that covers some of them:

Varga, Matthew D. "Adderall abuse on college campuses: a comprehensive literature review." Journal of evidence-based social work 9.3 (2012): 293-313.
  DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2010.525402

2 I am looking for answers that are a reference to such a study. I am not looking for answers from anecdotal evidence not supported by a study or citation. I am also not looking for answers explaining why such a study is unlikely to exist, or why it should not be trusted if it did.

Paul Erdős was a frequent amphetamine user (read Ron Graham's biography of Erdős, "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers" for an interesting story about that).

And remember what Erdos said about the impact on mathematics of him being clean for a month. :-)

I've always wondered - if indeed there are drugs which generally enhance performance (as opposed to removing a deficit such as ADD) at the research level, given the strong competitive pressure and the large number of brilliant academics we should expect that almost all of the top researchers are drug abusers, since those that abuse naturally rise above those that refuse to. You could argue by pointing out rampant abuse among students, but students are not rational (incidentally, the abuse is not correlated with success AFAIK), nor are is exam equivalent to general research ability.

William Halsted had a long history of abusing cocaine (which is a stimulant) and morphine (which is not).

@Superbest There are no drugs that enhance general intellectual performance. Any drugs taken would be to enhance or modify some specific aspect at the cost of some other aspect (such as LSD, giving you creativity while removing logical thought), or to correct an existing, known imbalance such as ADD. However, the efficacy of these drugs is not related to the question of whether people abuse them. And taking enough of a drug will create the imbalance that the drug will then correct (i.e. caffeine dependency).

@Feij I don't know on what authority you assert that there are no such drugs, but that aside, I think efficacy is very relevant. As I explained, existence of effective performance enhancing drugs leads to testable predictions about demographics of abuse (ie. the top level). It is much easier to decide whether all top researchers abuse drugs than whether a small minority of all researchers abuses them.

I find it noteworthy when Googling something reasonably meaningful returns nothing. This is the case with "stimulant use among faculty".
You probably would have to dig in at the university library and do systematic digging through publication and thesis databases (UMI/ProQuest etc.) and play with keywords to get anything at all.
I would suggest expanding search to any adult professionals (doctors, lawyers etc.) to get some hits that are categorically closer to professors (as working professionals, as opposed to students).

As for reasons for lack of research:
One is probably that so much attention is focused on stimulant use among students and that use probably outpaces the like among faculty in terms of pure numbers (a lot more students than faculty out there!) that it renders research on the latter an afterthought.
Another likely reason is that faculty probably resort to "relaxants" (i.e. alcohol, marijuana) rather than "stimulants" because, unlike students, there is less need for them to be extremely focused for very short periods of time like a 2-hour test or an all-nighter cramming session.

I would think that alcohol abuse among faculty would be a more relevant/worthwhile research topic, due to significantly higher incidence rates and more dire consequences (addiction etc.).
No matter how loaded, faculty schedules are probably more forgiving in terms of greater latitude in deadlines and ability to manage time effectively. Nevertheless, interesting question and I'd be curious what you dig up.

@Aymor I appreciate the comments. Thanks :) I agree that this research is not exactly low-hanging fruit. Hopefully even if there isn't a "real" answer now, there will be sometime in the future - and someone can post it then.

Agreed. ^? Maybe there is a niche there. In the meantime you could do some looking and maybe answer your own q, or state more explicitly in the question what literature research you have or have not done up to now. This will improve the respondent's understanding of what is needed of them beyond what's been already done.

I suspect that it might be better to phrase this question as asking about "use of stimulants", not "abuse of stimulants".  "abuse" carries a value judgement that is not relevant here; it seems irrelevant to your question whether use of stimulants is good or bad.

@D.W. I explain in the answer what I mean by "abuse" - taking prescription medication that is prescribed to someone else or prescribed under false pretenses. It's a standard meaning of the word "abuse" in the context of prescription medications. Stimulant "use" would include those who take medicine prescribed to them by a doctor after an honest accounting of symptoms.

@Superbest but students are not rational — And faculty are??

Why would university researchers rat on each other about drug use? I think that is why there isn't more research.

@JeffE Faculty are more rational. Think many-valued logic.

If you are experimenting with stimulants you might have to stop. Watch your symptoms! And call your doctor if you get insomnia.

There were several prominent publications in Nature, spurred by a survey that they conducted of their readers who were able to broadly identify their area of work.  See this link here for information about the survey, which also cites the papers that were published in Nature.  http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/1309
In researching this topic, I used google scholar and the search terms "stress stimulants faculty -students" and published 2008 or later to arrive at meaningful search results.
The most likely reason there is more work published on student use is that students as a demographic group are both easier to study and are a more similar group of cohorts than faculty as a demographic group, which are more diverse in age, race, ethnicity, etc.

Thanks, this is a great find! I added another answer with more details based on the link you gave.

This is a more detailed answer explaining the results of the survey given by Sydney E. Everhart's answer.
The results of the informal 2008 Nature survey1 found that

One in five respondents said they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.

More specifically, a comment attributed to the author of this article clarifies:

For the record, our poll didn’t parse out academics, or practicing scientists very thoroughly and the overall results can’t really be tied to scientists exactly. But our demographics do allow us to make some assumptions. We asked what category generally describes your field and included among the limited choices, Biology, Chemistry, Earth & Environmental Science, Engineering, Medicine, Physics, and Education. So if we assume those are ‘academic’ fields and academic respondents, we have 817 respondents out of a total 1,400 that fit that loose demographic. Of those we found that 106 (13%) used neuroenhancing-type drugs for medically prescribed reasons. And 159 (19%) used drugs for non-medical (i.e. cognition-enhancing) purposes. That’s pretty consistent with the overall distribution in the poll.

Unfortunately, the data from that survey - which was previously freely available for download - seems to no longer be online.

1 Maher, Brendan. "Poll results: look who's doping." Nature 452 (2008): 674-675. DOI: 10.1038/452674a


text:
Is it possible for average students to get admitted in good colleges for MS?
So, if I get a 320 plus GRE score and have a CGPA of 7.0 with no research paper but a lot of social and extracurricular activities, is it possible for me to get admitted to a good college in USA? I have studied computer science and I am interested in getting a MSc degree in Artificial intelligence or Data Science. If yes, how much exceptional my SoP and LoRs should be, since I am an average student and I don’t think I would be getting exceptional LoRs. More importantly, is it possible for me to get admitted in top colleges like Georgia tech (not CMU or UCLA since they are too top notch and I don’t think they would accept me)?

I am sorry i am new to the place , I will try to edit it as much as i can though i am not good with grammers.

Learning good English is necessary for writing a good SOP and for being able to study in the USA. You should definitely work on that, before applying.

@jakebeal well actually it is for MS and what i have heard the admission criteria for phd's are quite strict as compared to MS.

@Alexandros I understand, am already working on it I can speak good english and i have a good verbal approach but, I have been weak with grammers and punctuations , Since my childhood.

@AtharvaPandey Much of the advice regarding Ph.D. admissions also applies to research Masters admissions.

Yes, I believe that it is possible for average students to get into Masters programs in the US. From my experience, your chances are high if you do well in the GRE Math section and can pay the full tuition. Research experience is only relevant if you intend to enter a PhD program. Focus on your GREs and your personal statement. That way, you'll stand a good chance.

ok I can pay for full tutions and i am good with quants thankyou ... i guess now my preparations would be worth it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I inform my bosses that I'm about to start doing a PhD research?
I was recently admitted in a PhD program, I haven't started any research yet and Intended to keep my full day job and try do a research while working.
I think my bosses are unaware of this for now but the thing is that I would like to brag about me doing a PhD by posting on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Doing a research will probably put some additional pressure on me and from a certain moment on, I will probably have some duties at the University which might obligate me to spend some time on campus. That will affect to some degree when I'm able to work an probably my performance.
Would it be safe for me to post and update profiles on Social and Professional Networks and do I need to officially inform my bosses first?
PS. My Job is something of a embedded programmer and the future research will be about image analysis and pattern recognition. I think the job I do and the research are not directly related but after all there are embedded devices running vision algorithms. I also think that my boss could agree to a more flexible working time.

Intended to keep my full day job and try do a research while working This sounds completely impossible.

@MJeffryes Not really, I have a classmate who works as a manager in an IT company full time and also have a good publications record. In some areas such as Computer Science for example, it seems that the PhD can be done with a full-time job.

@MikeyMike Is your classmate's company unaware of his PhD studies?

@MJeffryes The company know about the PhD and encourages my classmate.

@MikeyMike I would guess that the company are making allowances in productivity and working hours which would not typically be afforded to someone who is working full time. I am saying that working full time and completing a PhD without the knowledge/cooperation of your employer is impossible.

@MJeffryes Thank you for you comments, I also have heavy doubts if this is even slightly possible, although I know people that claim to work 8+ and are doing a PhD but I'm really suspicious about the quality of their work and I even doubt if there is any real contribution to the area researched but ...

@MikeyMike Thank you for your comments and the encouragement, but should I inform them or not?

@DNikolov IMHO you should inform them before updating linkedin or another social networks.

You might be violating both the terms of your employment and the terms of your PhD program.

"Not really, I have a classmate who works as a manager in an IT company". When you become a manager you might pull it off. But programming for eight hours in your work and then programming another 8 hours for your computer vision algorithm paper does not sound very realistic.

Apart from the law-relevant issues already brought up, "bragging" on near-public social is never a good idea, and most certainly not in things which may create problems. Less said is better said.

@Scott Seidman l'm not violating the terms of my PhD,  I' ve cheked with the University, they Are informed of everything that concerns them. I' ve cheked the rules of the University and all of this is accetable. I' did this before even applying.

Of course you should!

Certain duties such as a committee meeting would require you to ask for a leave permission from your company. If you break it then, you'd be in trouble. In certain institutions, it is mandatory to provide an NoC (no objection certificate) from your company as part of the PhD admission process. You should've done it before, but the earlier you inform him, the better.

Thank you for the answer, maybe it was a good idea to inform them earlier even before apllaying, and discussing actually if I could research an area that would be useful to them, but many factors came into play and what is done is done. Many things scare me and one of them is counting only on the scholarship to support myself and the government not recognizing a PhD research as working experience.

@DNikolov: "recognizing a PhD research as working experience", well that is another good question for Academia.SE. But just refer this post before you think about asking that one.

I' ve wanted to say that altough not telling my boss abouth the PhD may not be nice, I didn' t find any evidence by now that this is against the law ( in my country )

If the boss finds out later that you hide the whole scenario from him, he might get angry and if the boss sends a letter to the university that you're not allowed to study while working because their working schedule is not flexible enough, then you're doomed ;), you will just kicked out from the university or the university will ask you to prove that you'll be having free hours to study while working, so, you better inform your boss about the scenario.
P.S: To the people who ask if the university working for the boss: No, but, every university has a minimum study hours (self study hours apart from standard lectures which are held at the university) that should be spent by the student, if that requirement cannot be fulfilled by the student, his course becomes invalid, so, I just pointed out a major possibility, if the boss sends a letter, that the company doesn't allow him spare time to study (strict work schedule) then the university has the proof that he can't spend minimum compulsory self study time and then the student will be kicked out. Studying part time doesn't mean that you don't have to put minimum effort towards studies.

This answer doesn't make sense. Why would the university kick out the student if the OP's boss informed the university about the working. schedule? Do you think the university works for the boss?

@scaaahu: I've edited the answer, in a way that'll suit you mostly ;)

@Pretty_Girl, insulting people would not improve your chances of getting upvoted. Moreover, what you write in the first paragraph is unrealistic both from the boss' side and the university side.

While you are free to disagree with what other people write, and to explain why you disagree, you may not call them "dumb" for writing it. (Similarly, any name calling is against policy here - see the Be Nice policy that is required of all users.)

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


text:
Why does the director of graduate studies want me to keep my TAship, even though I obtained a scholarship of my government?
I am a first year math phd student. I could get a scholarship from my government and notified the director of graduate studies of my department (which is now my provisional advisor) that I wish to decline my TAship position for the next term. He advised me to think more about it and told me to think about it 2 more weeks. He told me that I should keep being a TA.
Well, my TA duties are a burden and I do not learn nothing of math from it. Besides that, it drives me crazy. I do really detest having to deal with those undergrad students. I prefer to devote myself to learn and then do my research. But my advisor wants me to think more about it, Why? If I am not a TA, I could have more time to work on my advisor's projects. Besides that, I do not think my department would have any trouble to find another TA. My school is not Harvard but it is ranked among the 30 best of USA, so there is a lot of people that want to be a TA there.
Why does my advisor want me to keep being a TA?

Have you asked the director why you should continue as a TA? One possibility is that future career paths may require at least some teaching, and so you should be learning to teach mathematics..

I speculate that possibly the DGS is being a little bit selfish, and is worrying more about staffing courses than with your professional development. I would consider getting a second opinion from another professor in your department. That said, if you detest undergraduates, I would strongly urge you to eventually look for a career path which will not require you to teach them.

What kind of career are you planning on?  If you want to go into industry, or work for the NSA, it might be fine to skip TA duties.  If there is some possibility that you may want to become a professor, you should how to teach, and how to tolerate teaching.  If this is your attitude, though, I really hope you do not become a professor...

Why are you asking us what he thinks, instead of asking him?

@StevenGubkin: “If this is your attitude, though, I really hope you do not become a professor” seems a bit harsh — lots of students have a pretty immature professional outlook, but it can change completely as they go through grad school.  I’d rather wish the OP success in their career, and a change of attitude about teaching.

You need to ask your advisor, since nobody else can say for sure what his reasoning might be, but here are some possible explanations:

You do a great job as a TA, much better than whoever might replace you, and the department would be unhappy to lose your services.
You do a poor job as a TA and need to take this opportunity to improve your teaching skills before they interfere with your career.
Having more teaching experience on your CV or better teaching evaluations may help when you apply for jobs, even aside from whatever you might learn in the process.
If you "detest having to deal with those undergrad students", you may be miserable working in academia.  It's much better for you to figure out now whether/how you can handle teaching successfully without having it feel like a huge burden.  Delaying confronting this issue isn't necessarily in your best interests.

Why not just just ask your advisor? They said something and you don't understand it - asking them for clarification is the obvious next step, whether it's about mathematics or anything else.
With that said, your program might have a requirement that all grad students serve as a TA for some number of courses, and your advisor wants you to get the requirement out of the way now; if nothing else, they are probably trying to help your career by ensuring your teaching record is not empty when the time comes to apply for jobs.
P.S. While your temperament about teaching seems to have improved since (what I assume is) your previous post, I strongly recommend you reconsider using the word "detest". If I were your student and were on the receiving end of such an attitude, I'd feel quite bad and certainly not motivated to learn anything more about mathematics. On a more selfish note, if it becomes known in your department that you have such a negative attitude about teaching, it can affect the teaching letter that will be sent as a part of your future job applications.

+1. I find the open hostility towards teaching "those undergrad students" worrisome. Few people enjoy grading Calculus I, but it's not as if, when a professor, you can just focus on research: you still have to deal with kids who at least contribute to your salary.

I think the OP should be honest above anything else.  It is OK to detest teaching.  That said, perhaps he is not in an appropriate place and he might be happier elsewhere.

Another potential reason is that you said you could get a scholarship next year, but could is different from will. Is this scholarship guaranteed? If not, your DGS might be advising you to wait until you are 100% sure you have funding before you decline the TA position.

The other answers so far are good, but there is another possibility.
"so there is a lot of people that want to be a TA there."
Elite universities still get TA shortages.  They compete for the best qualified graduate students.  Sometimes enrollment falls below projections, and sometimes alternative funding for graduate students exceeds projections, resulting in a TA shortage.  University rules may limit the power of the director of graduate studies to acquire additional graduate students in this case, so the director might ask students to TA when they do not have to.
If you agree to TA when you are not obligated to do so, try to get something in return.  Beware that your government scholarship may run out at a time when your department has a TA surplus, leaving you without funding.  I was threatened with this situation once (I resolved it by winning some outside funding).


text:
AAUP standards for timing of recruiting/resigning a faculty position: Do they really mean anything?
According to the American Association of Union Professors (AAUP),
A faculty member should not resign, in order to accept other employment as
of the end of the academic year, later than May 15 or 30 days after
receiving notification of the terms of continued employment the following
year, whichever date occurs later.

...
An offer of appointment to a faculty member serving at another institution
should be made no later than May 1, consistent with the faculty member’s
obligation to resign, in order to accept other employment, no later than May
15. It is recognized that, in special cases, it might be appropriate to
make an offer after May 1, but in such cases there should be an agreement by
all concerned parties.

The few relevant comments in this thread
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,163851.15.html
(e.g. comments 23, 26, 27) seem to indicate that this standard isn't important/widely observed.
However, it appears that some universities do observe it (or some variant), e.g. University of Pittsburg and University of Louisiana and Lafayette.
My questions are

Is this etiquette widely observed? That is, would this be a reasonable barometer of what is "ethical", or is the standard dated (if ever relevant), as indicated by the commenters in the linked thread above?
should I let the existence of this AAUP standard modify the way I handle accepting a pending offer that would require me to go beyond this May 15th deadline?

I'm soliciting anyone with knowledge of these matters but information from deans, department chairs, or anyone who has resigned at this late stage would be especially valuable. Thanks for any info.

Note: Previous posts of mine give a bit more (probably not relevant) background:
I want to leave my tenure track position before fall. I have great prospects but no new position "locked up": when should I break the news?
Proper "notice period" for resigning a tenure track position?
The second one is closely related but is distinct in that this question specifically is about observance of the AAUP standard that I learned about today while reading the chronicle.

Note 2: Mine is an AAUP school but does not have any explicit policy like the two mentioned above.

It does not seem like a practical policy given that multiple sequentual offers often need to be made to account for higher ranked candiadates turning the offer down.

In my experience, yes, this policy is formally followed — deans do request permission from other deans to steal their faculty after May 1.  But my impression (likely skewed from working at a large engineering school) is that permission is granted almost routinely, both to avoid angering the target faculty member and to avoid reciprocal refusal later.

On the other hand, I find the "30 days after receiving notification of the terms of continued employment" provision hilarious, since I sometimes get that notification after the semester has already begun.

I have seen faculty leave or take positions at all kinds of times during, before, or after the semester or even right after (or during!) sabbaticals.  The AAUP guidelines are nice, but, ultimately, everything depends on the schools involved.
If you are concerned about ethics, I would recommend being upfront with both departments (the one you are leaving and the one where you will be hired) and coming up with something that leaves both of them satisfied.

Given that generally universities do not provide faculty with the supposedly-relevant information (salary increases... but, also, anything else that will be top-down foisted upon us) in any sort of timely fashion, it is absurd to imagine that we (faculty) have any substantial obligation to make future promises... when none have been made to us, etc.
Yes, this situation is deeply disturbing! Why can't we find ourselves in situations where both sides have made sincere, binding commitments, in all good faith? Ah, well, we should all know better than to think that any such thing is the norm in human conduct... (E.g., this is why we need unions.)
That is, the two sides are wildly disproportionate: the institution will always find a way to cover its ... obligations/butt... but it is not nearly so easy for an individual. If you are simply honest with your colleagues, but not allowing yourself to be set up for disaster, it is entirely morally correct. Ethically, sure, easily.
Such questions are analogous to asking whether it is "unethical" to try to prevent a tiger from devouring you. The only possibly ethical/moral issue is whether you escape by leading the tiger to your friend, a slower runner, and less aware of the danger. >:-(


text:
What should the chemist who synthesized a drug expect regarding coauthorship of papers on clinical trials?
An industrial chemist conceptualized, first synthesized, characterized and patented a novel drug. They then transferred the synthetic technology (at the 3kg scale) to a CRO for preparation under cGMP conditions, substantially helped in drafting the "clinical trial investigator brochure", and provided advise throughout the trial. Should they be granted coauthorship of the paper reporting the trial?

To me, the key point in this is the fact that the person participated in formulating the experimental protocol for the trial (assuming that's what "Clinical trial investigator brochure" means).  Everything before this has presumably already been reported in other papers, which means citations, not authorship (if it somehow hasn't, then authorship is warranted).  Significant participation in the design of an experiment, however, is generally sufficient to warrant authorship, and I see no reason it would be otherwise in the case as presented.

The ICMJE guidelines says that authors must meet four requirements:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Without knowing your field, it sounds like you think you satisfy the first requirement. It doesn't sound like you meet the final three. While I disagree with the guidelines and think hat everyone who meets the first requirement should be given the option to meet the other three, the guidelines do not require that.
This sounds like a situation where you should talk to the lead investigator. Ideally the conversation should have happened early on, but now is better than never.

I disagree with this assessment: my understanding is that these guidelines are primarily intended to prevent inappropriate "gift authorship" (e.g., to senior PIs for political purposes or to help get a paper accepted).  If you've done #1, then there is no reason the other authors can't easily include you in the rest unless you opt out.

@jakebeal "The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors" it sounds to me like the guidelines are to make sure those deserving authorship get it and not to prevent gift authorship. As I said, I agree with your reasoning that if you meet the first criteria, you really should be given the option to meet the rest and the lead author should have to explain why individuals who meet the first criteria did not meet the rest.

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


text:
Who pays for travel for a conference paper completed at previous job?

I'm currently a Postdoc at Research Institute I.
I had a paper accepted at a conference. The conference will be in two months. I'm the single author.
Next month I'll start working as a Postdoc at Research Institute II.

Question: In this kind of situation who pays the travel? I should note that both research groups have enough money for travels.
On the one hand I'm hesitating to ask my current advisor to pay for a trip to a conference which I will attend after leaving the group. On the other hand, I'm hesitating to ask my next advisor to pay for a trip to a conference about a paper which was completed before I arrive there.

Why not ask them both? If they know each other, that may simplify things. I'm also curious about the "norm" on this tho.

Who will get the credit (in terms of funds, acknowledgement, evaluation - co-authorship is, as it seems, not relevant here)?

Sometimes, bureaucracy will prevent institute I to reimburse you once you are no longer working there, although "morally" they should pay for that trip (and get the credit for the work).

The organization you worked for when writing the paper will add this to their research output and be rewarded financially which should cover various expenses. They should therefore pay for dissemination including travel.

Sometime, the Institution do the reimbursement, in that case you may have some difficulty as you already left Institute I. Therefore, ask both as suggested in earlier comments.

Sounds like a classic economics/game theory problem.

First of all, I would recommend that one never submit a paper to a conference unless you have some idea who will be going to present it and how their travel will be supported.  I would thus have advised you to discuss the possibility of travel funding with your current advisor before you submitted.  Of course, it is too late for that now, but it may not be for others who read this answer.
That said, depending on the particulars of arrangements, it could easily be either institution that pays for travel.  I have often known people to have one last trip paid for by their former advisor, since it is the completion of their last piece of work.  More often, however, I have known the new employer to foot the bill, as presenting at conferences is generally part of their work as a researcher---it's worth noting that the new employer will be paying for the trip in terms of your salary, even if they don't cover the travel expenses.  I have also at some points known people to end up having to pay for their own travel on a junction like this, but that is unusual and can indicate trouble building with the new employer.
Bottom line: it could be any arrangement.  The old employer may be willing, especially if you arrange before you leave. The new employer is more likely to be willing, if they are truly interested in your training as a postdoc and not just exploiting you for cheap labor.

Yep, I find it surprising how many times we read here of people who submit work to conferences without a clear idea on who is going to present or fund, and with no backup plan in case of issues.

@MassimoOrtolano Isn't that just the normal early career uncertainty? It's often impossible to plan for the future. When you don't know in which country you'll be living half a year from now, you either switch careers or keep working and assume that you'll eventually figure out something.

@JouniSirén It is exactly for that uncertainty that one should make plans, together with their supervisors, to avoid critical situations in the future. Many questions that we receive here present problems that are a consequence of a serious lack of communication between the poster and their supervisor.

@MassimoOrtolano Let's not forget that many of these questions are over rather trivial issues such as conference travel. I personally forgot bigger things the first time I moved abroad, because I was so swamped with the arrangements and paperwork. Also, it's hard to make plans if you don't even know whether your future employer allows you to attend the conference. You might not be able to find an academic job, after all.

I have to agree with Jouni Siren -- all early career researchers will have this year-to-year uncertainty and should keep presenting and be productive no matter what. Travel should be paid by 1st place since that is the work you are presenting. Backup options are: write travel grant, gently ask new place, self-fund. If none of those options are possible consider sending your slides to 1st place for someone there to present or in the worst case, withdrawing.

My own experience has actually been that it is more likely for the new employer to provide funds.

since these are postdoc positions it is to present work led by a PI with a permanent position at these places. Generally one PI doesn't pay to present some other PI's work. It is possible if the second PI is especially generous.


text:
Switching advisers in the same group
I am currently in a PhD program where I have it good. My adviser and my group are both about as good as one could ask for. My adviser is patient, helpful (albeit sometimes unclear), and happy to mentor grad students. My group is supportive and cohesive. However, I have recently come to realize that I really do not like my particular area of research.
My particular area (my adviser's specialty) is kind of a sub-sub-specialty of my field. Think of it like:
FIELD
----SUB-SPECIALTY
--------SUB-SUB-SPECIALTY1
--------SUB-SUB-SPECIALTY2

My adviser's group is part of a larger group of a handful of faculty studying the sub-specialty. My research interests initially fell in a different sub-sub-specialty, but funding/openings pushed me to accept the offer to my adviser's group. I never really took to it early on, but I decided to stick it out for a while believing I might grow to appreciate the research problems once I learned more about them.
However, I feel that at this point I have given it a fair chance, having worked on a few projects and published a paper, but I still really struggle to fake a passion for this work (along the lines of "fake it 'til you make it"). At this point, I think my best option for success--both in the short term and down the road--is to switch to the other sub-sub-specialty. The tricky part is that the handful of faculty who work in the sub-specialty all work together frequently, and the groups are intermingled throughout the lab space.
So, my questions are:

How to I even broach the question of switching without committing a major feux pas?
What other options are there if there are no opportunities to switch? (Currently I'm fully funded by my adviser)
Assuming I can switch, should I expect heavy pressure to succeed immediately? That is, will the assumption be that in a "better fitting" research area, I should be well outperforming my previous work?

The funding issue pushed you to study your current sub-sub-specialty in the first place. Will you have funding issue  if you switch to another sub-sub-specialty?

Did you consider mentioning this to your advisor? If the groups are intermingled, then switching your research project should not be a problem.

Do you really need to switch advisors to work in the new area, if all the professors in the sub-specialty really do work together frequently? You may be able to keep working with your current advisor and collaborate with faculty in the other area, or even bring on a co-advisor from the other area.


text:
What's the best way to get academic references for a masters program 2-3 years in the future?
I graduated with a BSc approximately one year ago and have been considering my career options since. I have finally decided that I would like to enroll in a masters program, however I likely won't be able to apply for another year or two down the road.
Regretfully, I was a quiet student during my undergrad, not knowing for sure whether I had it in me to pursue a masters degree in the future. As a result, I did not make as many connections or relationships with professors as I now wish I had when I had the chance.
The program I am interested in requires two academic references. My fear is that my lack of overall impression, despite obtaining decent grades, will have resulted in my professors being unable to relate my name to my face and will therefore be unable to provide me with a suitable reference when required for submission a year or two from now.
Can anybody provide me with any suggestions? Should I reach out to potential professors now to see if 1.) they even remember me, or 2.) if they are comfortable with providing references in a year or two's time? I'm concerned if I ask in a year or two when the references are required, they will undoubtedly have forgotten me.
An important note may be that I am moving out of the town where I attended university in a couple months, which will likely make it harder to redevelop any relationships in person if required.

I would strongly suggest that you make the connections immediately since you are moving out of the area. Take this time to meet with three or four of the professors in whose classes you did the best or got the most out of.  I would see if you can get some face to face time so that they can put a name to a face.  You might be surprised that they actually do remember you! And then explain to them your dilemma and ask them what you asked here... Would they be comfortable giving you a reference?  I've found in my experience that most people want to help when they can... they just need to be asked. Good luck!


text:
Reviewer wants me to do massive amount of work, the result would be a different article. Should I tell that to the editor?
I received a major revision decision. But it is a strange one:

Reviewer 1 loved my article, called it excellent and recommended publication with very, very minor comments against it.
Reviewer 2 believes that my article's scope is too narrow and wants me to take on much more research, which would yield a different article with the same structure but longer. R2 has no other major problems with the idea or content of the article, in fact I believe that R2 liked the idea and that what R2 wants me to do is enlarging the article to provide additional support for what it countenances.

To take on all the additional research and writing for a much longer article would take time away from my current PhD research. Should I tell the editor that my article's scope is what it is and that I think it does a good job whitin that scope?

You are aware that the rebuttal letter first goes to the editor anyway, right?

@Karl I'm struggling to understand your answers: first you say that discussing what to tell the editor is a kindergarten approach, and then point out that any answer I give goes first to the editor, so that would be the reason for discussing what to tell the editor... Right?

Yes, with your mentor. You cannot upload your whole manuscript including the review here, so we cannot recommend enything. I wrote "kindergarten" because it sounds like you want to just complain about that guy R2. Sorry.

@Karl Ok... So as I understand it you are basically answering me that I should ask my supervisor instead of asking questions here. But this is a website for questions. And some of the answers that I've gotten have been really helpful for me in the past.

@Karl Thank you.

@Karl: But, of course, with the understanding that if the editor agrees with R2 that the paper isn't strong enough without those changes, then your paper will be rejected, and you will have to look for somewhere else to publish it.

In response to reviewer 2: publish houses of brick, not mansions of straw (ironic that this shows up in nature)

@Karl please post this as an answer, don't post answers in comments no matter how short

There is still an ongoing discussion about how we want to handle answers-in-the-comments. That said, I agree that Karl raises some good points that would make a nice answer, particularly if the language could be made more kind.

@Oct18isdayofsilenceonSE It wasn't an answer.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit OP: "@Karl Ok... So as I understand it you are basically answering me that I should ask my supervisor instead of asking questions here..."

@Philosopherofscience Sure, this is a site for asking questions. However, your advisor can give you advice that is specific to your situation, whereas we can only give general advice. We don't know what your paper says or exactly what the reviewers said. Your advisor has all of this information, and direct experience of your field. So by all means ask here, but you need to ask  your advisor, too.

Are you sure R2 wants you to start a whole new research project? Perhaps R2 just recommends that you spell out the relevance of your paper and explain its implications for a wider audience and for the broader state of the art, beyond your particular research question. This could be done by improving your literature review, and by revising the introduction and conclusion. It would be a matter of re-framing your existing project without undertaking any additional substantive research work.

@Oct18isdayofsilenceonSE Doesn't matter what wording the OP used; what Karl posted was not an answer.

I've been R2 a few times: I consider the paper's quality clearly below the standards of the journal (because of lack of detail, for instance, to the point where I can't fully understand the paper's methodology; or lack of sufficient evaluation), so that in principle I should just reject the paper outright. On the other hand, there is something about the underlying idea that has promise, and I don't want the authors to get so discouraged that they bury it by resubmitting the paper to some third-tier venue.
So I use Major Revisions as a kind of contract with the authors, laying out exactly the changes the authors would need to make in order for the paper to become acceptable, even if these changes are very extensive. The ball is now in their court: they can either take the time to make the required changes, with a high chance that the paper is then accepted, or, if they really don't want to spend the time, they can resubmit to a lower-tier conference or journal.
And of course, Major Revisions is also an easier recommendation for the editor to ignore than Reject, in case my views are not aligned with those of the other reviewers. In your case, it sounds like you only have two reviewers, who drastically disagree. You could submit only minor revisions, and hope that the editor agrees with R1 that the paper is acceptable without a lot of extra work. Or R1 might look at the revisions, and R2's review, and say to themselves, "oh, R2 is raising a lot of good points. They're right, this paper does need more detail to be understandable/reproducible!" The only way to know for sure is to submit a revision and see what happens, though one potentially useful piece of information: if the editor really did agree with R1 much more strongly than R2, they would have required minor instead of major revisions.
(PS: Writing up your research to a sufficient level of quality that it passes peer review does not "take away from your PhD research." It is your PhD research.)

This answer is a good one, but that postscript almost earned it an upvote all by itself.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well: the paper is not part of my PhD research, although it is on the same general subject.

I interpret the totality of the response is that your article is probably just about right as is, but you have the opportunity for a follow up. I would make the changes you feel are warranted and send in the revised version with a note that you will consider another article to follow that will address R2.
If it gets done, fine. Otherwise, don't worry about it.
Of course, the editor may suggest more, but I doubt you need to ask first. In general, the reviewers don't take ownership of your paper. It is still yours to update with the suggestions. You should consider all suggestions, but don't need to explicitly change anything based on them. But the editor still gets to decide.

But you also can communicate with the editor about what you intend to do, and see whether they are agreeable towards publishing with the modifications you want to make. If they are not, then there's no point to doing anything at all.

@WolfgangBangerth, yes there is a point of rewriting the paper unless you intend to completely abandon it. The author has some valuable advice to improve the paper. If one journal won't take it, another might. I don't say you should not ask the editor, but given all the reviews, I don't think it is necessary in this particular case. Perhaps I'm just a bit more willing to push the editor in the direction I'd rather go than you would be.

I'm all for pushing the editor, but I'm also for figuring out up front how far they are willing to be pushed :-)

This is a very frustrating aspect about academic publishing. Reviewers are supposed to be referees who evaluate a paper's quality. But as acceptance rates for journals keep dropping, many reviewers seem to have branched out into becoming critics, program managers, or just the old guy at the bridge who demands you solve three riddles before you can cross.
However there are real reasons reviewers behave this way. Science fields today have widespread problems with reproducibility and publication bias. And the increase in submissions (which caused the acceptance rates to drop) also lead to pressuring people for reviews a lot more. So you very commonly get reviewers who clearly don't want to read your paper (making for a terrible test audience) and of course they are afraid to simply give you benefit of the doubt and recommend acceptance due to all the bad science going on out there.
Of course there are other reasons reviewers make their demands. But this is one you may be able to solve by addressing the above problems with the text. Assume they are not clear what you have done, so try to clarify it further; think of a better way to "market" the result in terms of a picture and description for a general audience. As they apparently do not think you have many (or really any) results, be very specific about emphasizing the results which are novel starting and emphasizing their value. Many authors tend to be overly-cautious about claiming novelty as you can never be sure what everyone else has done. You need to take the risk and claim what you think is there. Use "to our knowledge" as needed.
Don't just argue with the reviewer. Give a response that both clarifies to them what you have done and makes a case that you have plenty results and these results are important.  And make significant changes to the text to communicate these same same clarifications for readers. Yes the manuscript already has  text for this but rewrite it anyway, adding more if possible. Point out to the reviewer how you changed the text for them. I have done this and (somewhat to my surprise) reviewers have accepted it.
Another tactic is to hold back some results when you submit a manuscript. Then add these "new results" at revision time to placate demanding reviewers. It isn't what they asked for but hey here's more work just for them. Yes it's ridiculous.

“Another tactic is to hold back some results when you submit a manuscript. Then add these "new results" at revision time to placate demanding reviewers.” Shades of salami slicing, here? Not sure how ethical it is.

@nick012000 Well I already called it ridiculous, but thanks for the accusation. It certainly is a cynical tactic, which I'd describe as more related to sandbagging.

I fundamentally dislike this answer because it is entirely opinion-based. If you think that acceptance rates are dropping, reviewers have become critics/program managers/old guys on the bridge, then please provide evidence that this is true. I could make similar complains about your second paragraph: You seem to have opinions about the "deep state" in academia, but I don't think any of this is founded on evidence or, in fact, the truth.

@WolfgangBangerth Thanks for the rather ironic review, complete with demands for more research. By the way uncited facts are not the same thing as opinions. And given that all answers here contain opinions and lack citations, I suspect here is something more specific that triggered you. If it's the "deep state" in academia, then erm no, I have no opinions about any such conspiracy theory except that it sounds silly.

I agree with @simple algorithm We saw and experienced many time if we have one possitive and one negative review Editor side with negative. Or if there are problems with major revision Editor just decline paper. If there are no two possitive comments in most journals of even moderate impact factor you can't publish.

"This is a very frustrating aspect about academic publishing. Reviewers are supposed to be referees who evaluate a paper's quality." "many reviewers seem to have branched out into becoming critics, program managers, or just the old guy at the bridge who demands you solve three riddles before you can cross." In other words, academic peer reviewers are like being on stackoverflow. At least they don't throw a fit over pronouns.
yet...

@ASimpleAlgorithm -- I just don't share your bleak view about how pretentious and self-aggrandizing reviewers are. I've been a member of editorial boards for more than a decade, and an editor-in-chief for the past year. I read a lot of reviews -- probably more than one a day. I see reviewers who are lazy, but the vast majority of reviewers is doing its level best to provide a balanced assessment of papers. I don't see the ones who think that they are holier-than-though. I can say the same about the editors in charge of these reviews.

@WolfgangBangerth It depends on the topic. I have by far most of the time seen productive or lazy reviewers, with this I agree. However, I have (in rare cases) seen absolutely appalling reviewer behaviour and I know from colleagues in other topics that seriously unethical behaviour seems to be condoned in some fields. I cannot share your confidence in judging Simple's complaints as entirely unfounded. The correct answer is, as so often: "it depends".

@WolfgangBangerth I think it's just my bluntness that bugs you. Because now instead of dismissing me as a mentally ill fool, you are quibbling about the difference between my statement "many reviewers" versus the number left after removing "the vast majority of reviewers". Seems fairly minor. You should at least read past the first paragraph before providing your assessment.

@ASimpleAlgorithm: I do agree with paragraphs 3-5 of your answer, so maybe "entirely opinion-based" wasn't quite the right statement. But I do disagree with your paragraphs 1 and 2.

Typically editors will want to see that you are being reasonably cooperative and that you gave due thought to each point the reviewers make. The strategy here will be to essentially argue the case you are making here in your supplemental letter. Obviously, diligently implement the minor points made by R1 and express your gratitude to R1 for these helpful points.
When it comes to R2: In your revisions, try to address any reasonably implementable points made by R2. Then, in your response letter, address each of the reviewer's points one by one. Wherever you have been able to make changes, point them out and be thankful to the reviewer for their excellent points. In all cases, acknowledge the reasonable kernel of truth in the reviewer's point. Then, in cases in which the reviewer is asking you to go way beyond the scope of the project, simply say so and explain briefly why you think so.
At that point, it's up to the editor to decide. If the editor rejects, move on to another journal and don't think twice about it.
EDIT: Also, I would reinforce from the comments that this is something you need to be getting advice from your PhD advisor on. It is absolutely part of their responsibilities to guide you through this process. I would forward the reviews in full to your advisor and strategize with them.

Just say no.  It is normal to have to constrain research and even to write up "what was done so far" when funding runs out. As long as you are honest, then it is fine. IF not, then just move to another journal.
Note:  I would be VERY resistant to doing extra experiments.  It's one thing if there is a questionable interpretation or the like.  But extra work?  No.  Be like Nancy Reagan.  Just move on if needed.  Don't even waste much time.
You need to dig in your heels on changing actual scope.  Provided you don't oversell the interpretation, almost any reasonable set of experiments can be written up and reported on.  I have literally (and not how the millenials use that word) reported, in the lit, good journal, and included comment that a sample was missing as it was dropped on the floor.  If anything the ballsy honesty surprised them and my papers went through without revision.  But if not...just boogie.

Just saying no is often not enough. In academic communication, it is important to explain and justify your position. Reasonable constraints are normal, but salami slicing publication is discouraged. If the result is really too small, the reviewers may have a good reason against recommending this work for publication.

Just move on, then.

Moving on without a publication may be detrimental to the success of the PhD project. In some countries, successful publications are required to obtain a PhD.

Sometimes a paper really requires more work—if they've bungled their statistics, or are missing error bars, the reviewer cannot let it be published as is. But it probably isn't the case here—the author should state their case and let the editor decide.

Forgive me my ignorance and curiosity, but what does "Be like Nancy Reagan" mean and refer to?

The answer of reviewer #2 as you describe it here doesn't make much sense. An article doesn't have to be long, and if your article would only become longer without different structure or arguments, this point rather to the fact that you didn't understand the reviewer or the reviewer has not much experience what is expected from him. In the latter case I would contact the editor to ask reviewer #2 to clarify to you.
In experimental fields, it can be necessary to do extra experimental work and measurements and without it likely no reviewer of any journal will accept your article (e.g. showing necessary but not sufficient results that you have produced a room temperature superconductor). Interpretation of data can be difficult and the reporter wants to see what he wants to report...
But either you or reviewer have not understood originality and significance of scientific research, if you both argue about the length or scope of the article. The scope fulfillment was partly made by the editor sending your paper to the reviewers. This varies among journals, for some the reviewers make a comment or even highlight the article in the journal, for some it is the job of the journal staff to decide if you article matches the scope of the journal. The reviewers have to testify the plausibility, the possible reproducibility of your results and the conclusions. If extra work is demanded they have to clearly state why and what, you are not submitting a book chapter or review where a gap of done work in community would be detrimental to the future reader. If you announced in abstract and introduction more answers to questions which are not appearing then in the manuscript, this could be a matter of missing content/scope

What is the scope of the journal? Your supervisor and/or the Editor will be able to tell you what's going on here.
It can be that R2's desires fall completely out of the journal's interest --- only short papers accepted, theoretical vs practical, etc --- or that they exactly describe it. It was the Editor's job to make this somewhat clear to you (maybe unless it's a very well-known journal where it can be seen as understood), so contact them for clarification:
It saves the Editor time (and reviewer-goodwill, that limited commodity!) having to re-review your expanded version just to reject, if you're headed the wrong way anyhow.

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


text:
How to show graduate schools my strong self study background?
I'm taking some time off between my undergraduate and graduate studies. I've definitely kept up the practice of my field during this time through self-study. My question relates to how I can show this to graduate admissions next year. Let's say I've been working through some very important books/papers of my field which prepare me for research. What's a good way to show this? Simply stating this on my statement of purpose isn't sufficient as I've seen first hand people mentioning  or exaggerating the extent of their study/projects and there'd be no way to tell if what I'm doing is any different. Should I be typing up notes as I go along and uploading them somewhere? This to me seems like a tedious task which would take time away from the actual study. Or should I upload my hand-written notes? This on the other hand seems a bit unprofessional.
Edit: For clarification, I should mention that my field is theoretical physics.

Create a blog (or use ready-to-use blog engines on Quora, Medium or Tumblr, if prefer) and post notes and/or annotations for the literature that you're reading. Additional benefit of producing and posting annotations (with keywords) is that it will make your life easier, when/if you decide to perform a formal literature review for a thesis or a project (even if you won't need a formal review, you will have a much better understanding of research streams in the area of your interest).

"Should I be typing up notes as I go along and uploading them somewhere?" I find that this is a good idea anyway: it helps you suss out mistakes, and writing things in your own words forces you to make sure you understand.

Your subject strongly affects advice here, I think... E.g., in some subjects "research" is eminently feasible without much prep or guidance (apparently!), in others less so (to say the least). Please clarify?

@paul garrett: I've edited the question to address this.

Re the last question: typing up notes is much better than posting handwritten notes.

This is what I was searching. Stackexchange community never cease to find me solutions to my problems, thank you.

Yes, things like typing up notes, writing a "learning/seminar blog" and being active on SE sites are good ways to help indicate the level and seriousness of your studies.  However, unless you are spectacular at this and manage to become well known this way, on most admissions committees, no one will have seen this stuff before they look at your application.  This means that they can check out your blog, notes etc but probably will not unless they are interested anyway, or it gets hyped up by your letter writers.  Consequently, this will be of some advantage in alleviating concerns of your time off, and is certainly worth doing for your own preparation, but it is better if you have something more reliable in your application.
Here is one suggestion: if there is an appropriate professor from your undergrad, preferably one you were fairly close with, you can try contacting them to let you know what you're studying, with aims to go to grad school, and ask if they can spare a little time to (i) suggest reading materials/exercises/projects, and possibly (ii) answer occasional questions you may have.  They may also be able to (iii) give feedback on your notes/blog, though it makes more sense to wait to ask about this until you have something in hand to show them.
Professors are busy people, so someone may or may not have/make time to help you, but we enjoy working with good students, so at least you should be able to get some suggestions on reading materials.  On the other hand, there's also the possibility the professor is willing to work rather closely with you.
In addition to providing valuable guidance to your own studies, this will keep at least one professor abreast of your continued studies, which should then come through in your recommendation letter from this person.

+1. In other words, you suggest seeking an academic mentor - seems like a good idea to me.

Kimball, the self-study may not mean much to admissions committees, but it may mean, well, something if not much to potential PhD supervisors? Or do you intend to answer broadly as in PhD or master's and then admissions committees or potential supervisors? (This comment assumes potential supervisors are not part of 'admissions committees' which refers to, well, the people besides potential PhD supervisors you have to convince to accept you. Something like research assistants/postdocs are recruited more by professors but grad students are accepted more [or relatively more] by universities)

Further to Aleksandr's comment regarding creating a blog comprising your notes to the literature, consider doing some small projects that are essentially, research projects.
Any graduate admissions board will want to see evidence of your capacity for doing research. A good, digested, annotated literature review is a great start. You could show yourself in the best light if you attempt to pose a problem, and attempt to solve it.
Note: you don't have to come up with an answer in these research topics that you set yourself. You want to demonstrate curiosity, self-determination, process. Blog about what you're doing. Ask questions on a relevant .se board, for instance, evaluate the responses, read further as a result, review your assumptions, recast a hypothesis, attempt an amended experiment, analyse your new results. Repeat. Show -- i.e. record -- the process that a research scientist would follow. Show that record in your application.

As in my comment above, this advice may or may not be to-the-point, depending on subject, I think. E.g., in my field, mathematics, a literature review is not really to the point, although would be an interesting change-of-pace. But, yes, indeed, demonstration of curiosity is a never-fail plus. In contrast, the detailed manifestations of the "research scientist" is a bit more subject-bound, I think.

@paulgarrett I always interpret "literature review" in math as "survey."  Though at some point, when I was first getting into the relative trace formula, I had trouble remembering what cases were studied or in which papers, so I wrote a sort of an informal "literature review" for myself, summarizing what was done in different papers.

One thing you can do is audit one or more graduate-level classes at a local university, if this is feasible. Usually professors will let you sit in on classes and even grade your work. If your performance is at a high level this will make a positive impression on graduate admissions committees.. it shows you can do advanced work and also are highly self-motivated. You might also get a letter of recommendation from the professor in the class that way. And you might be able to pass a qualifying exam upon arrival.


text:
Is there any job security for tenured academics in Denmark?
There recently was some bad press regarding job security for tenured academics in Denmark. A critical article in a newspaper edited by University of Copenhagen employees mentions the firing of two professors, one of them (Thomas Højrup) due to a "cost-cutting measure".
To get a balanced picture of the matter, I looked into official information as provided by universities, and found the following explanation by the Copenhagen Business School:

A position as associate professor or full professor at a Danish university is a permanent position. The employment and working conditions of academic staff employed at Danish Universities are primarily regulated by collective agreements between the Danish Government and the trade unions. According to the collective agreement [...] Danish Universities, however, can dismiss a member of the academic staff, employed in a permanent position, but only in special circumstances, due to either disciplinary offenses or as a result of considerable budgetary restrictions or other unexpected institutions circumstances.

This sounds to me like a university could easily get rid of any tenured employee they don't like anymore (for whatever reason) by declaring a new "strategic orientation", which results in an unavailability of funding for said employee.
Consequently, I wonder is if there is any job security at all for tenured academics in Denmark. Specifically, are there usually any "safeguards" that prohibit a university from firing a person they don't like by reallocating their funding?

I don't know anything about Denmark specifically, but in the US, it is common to have such "escape clauses".  However, they come with various safeguards.  For instance, at my institution, it is possible to dismiss tenured faculty in the case of "financial exigency", but there is a complicated process that must be followed.  Faculty must be dismissed in reverse order of seniority, and offered their jobs back before the university hires anyone new.  So it wouldn't be so easy to use this process to get rid of a specific person they don't like.

I would be fairly surprised if the union contracts in Denmark don't contain similar safeguards.  Union negotiators are pretty savvy people and they won't leave obvious loopholes.

@NateEldredge Thanks, that's a valid concern. I edited my question to explicitly ask for any such "safeguards".

For the record, there was a now-deleted comment which pointed out that the mentioned firing practices are in line with Denmark's flexicurity model. The commenter also suggested that employees are supposed to negotiate a good deal (with input from trade unions) during hiring. Of course, I would be interested in any resources providing guidance on such matters.

I have recently been employed at University of Copenhagen in a temporary position. The current situation is definitely problematic.
Denmark has the general problem (shared with many other countries), that basic funding for universities has been cut over many years, and transferred to project specific funding for research centers or individual grants - more often than not provided by private companies and foundations, rather than the state.
This means that the extraordinary circumstances have become rather ordinary, and the case of prof. Thybo mentioned in the article, is not the only known case. Adding to this that many younger people are now being hired in assistant professor positions without tenure, although being at the age and reputation where they should really get tenure track positions or tenured positions, it certainly seems that University of Copenhagen is phasing out the concept of tenure.
To summarize: I think the conclusion that there is no job security at all in Denmark is rather harsh, but definitely not without reason. I would recommend anyone aiming for faculty positions in Denmark in general, and University of Copenhagen in particular, to do solid research into the financial situation of the department they are considering joining first.

Thanks for the valuable answer! Probably a question of its own, but do you have any recommendations on how to start with researching the department's financial situation (in particular the trajectory over time)?

It is quite department specific. Sadly I don't think you will learn much by looking into the public records, as department books can be quite inflated by project grants. Best bet is probably to contact someone you know at the department, and if that is not possible, I would look to the professor/student ratio, where numbers can sometimes be found on the web.

As somebody teaching in Sweden were the general mindset is similar, it really makes no sense to talk about "tenure" in Scandinavia - as an associate professor, I have a non-time-bound appointment with a university. Same as any other employee, they can't fire me "just because", but given an objective reason (job performance, strategic, or financial) I could be on the street by the end of summer.

But - and this can't be stressed enough - saying that I have "no job security" is wildly exaggerating. I still have more job security than virtually any employee elsewhere, even if it isn't quite as absolute as tenure in the US or Verbeamtung in Germany.

@xLeitix Is this hypothetical or are there actually cases of associated professors being fired in Sweden, for any of the reasons you mention?

@lighthousekeeper As of today I personally know of none (although it has certainly happened), but this may change - my university has severe financial issues, and talk of "downsizing" some divisions has emerged. But this is what I mean - what protects us is mostly a strong social contract (and the strict Swedish labor laws), but that's still a much better protection than virtually any employee in a company enjoys, even in Sweden. However, "tenure" in the normal sense of the word it is not.

I agree that there is not complete job security anywhere, but the academic tenure-position in Denmark is special. First, management such as the Dean is not voted in by their colleagues. It is actually hired as a manager from a hiring committee that evaluates the candidates cv. So when a new dean comes to office, often they want to arrange faculties to their liking and move budgets around, which often result in firings because the new research agenda changes. So they fire people simply because they do not fall into their research agenda using the excuse of "money problems". No freedom of research. It has happened in my faculty. Like 6 years ago a new dean from the economics department was hired in the Faculty of Social Sciences at SDU and a round of firings happened, affecting heavily the management department. Last year, a new dean came in, one who had been fired in the previous firing spree. He now attacked the economics department from which more than 30 people were fired.
The problem lies in the way institutions are formed at Danish universities in addition to the Danish labour law. A senior academic who has worked for 9+ years will get a 6 months notice (the maximum) and no monetary compensation for being fired. This is the Danish law which applies equally to every profession. Independently of whether the market for an academic is not as fluid as the market for instance a programmer. So a few months of notice is not enough when it takes like one year to find a new position.
This is a greater problem for non-EU foreigners who only have a few months to pack their bags (meaning sell property, find a new school for kids, etc) and leave as they are not allowed to stay too much longer after their contract is over.
Summarising, a tenure position in Denmark does not correspond to a tenure position in the US, UK, Ireland or Australia and definitely not to a civil servant position like in many other countries like Germany, Italy, France and Spain.
Note that this is not a criticism, but a description of how it works and something foreigners should know before moving to an academic position in Denmark.

No one has job security in a bad economy or in an institution with poor leadership. Nor will tenure protect you from bad behavior.
Tenure isn't an absolute guarantee of a job.
Universities close. Wars happen. National politicians make bad decisions. Departments are closed fairly frequently in fact. And they are cut back for lack of students or research funding even more frequently.
Tenure protects you from being fired for what you say and think and write; not from everything. That is why it exists, not to make you comfortable.
Tenure exists so that you can properly follow your research even in to corners that offend other people, and especially important and influential people. It is a particularly strong form of free speech.
But tenure won't protect you in cases of misconduct and the actual treatment of others. This is the issue in the case cited. The professor has been charged with misconduct - with breaking rules and norms, not with what he has said or written. I won't and can't judge the case from afar, but tenure won't protect you from charges of, for example, pressuring junior colleagues in improper ways - coercion, extortion, and such.
The case of cutting someone for financial reasons is fairly common - especially if departments need to shrink for financial reasons. But if the university has competent management they are more likely to have a plan in place for such situations. In the US there have been cases of the university offering to "buy back" tenure for, say, a year's salary. This can be used to encourage older faculty to retire so that new faculty can be hired. But that takes planning. There is no job security in the face of incompetence of management unless there are laws that let, for example, governments step in. And that assumes government will be more competent.
However, in any decisions affecting your employment, you probably have rights at law. This depends on the country, of course, but most places such decisions can be contested within the university and/or outside it. In many places a decision on propriety might come down to intent. If the university moves funds around with the intent of getting rid of an individual it would be seen (and judged) as improper most places. So, tenure isn't the only right that an individual has in such situations though it often provides a presumption that you can remain employed.
There are abuses of the tenure system, but it is usually on the side of not firing someone who is being offensive - especially if they are being offensive outside their normal duties. There is currently a case in the news in the US (Indiana University) where a professor is being racist and otherwise offensive. The Chancellor of the university counters his comments in public very strongly, but refuses to attack his tenure. He stays. He can say what he likes. But others can also call his offenses out and they can do it without fear of loss of tenure.
If he is racist and spouts it he can probably keep his job, but if he acts it out, say by refusing to teach non-white students, then he would likely be gone in an instant.
I know of another odd case. A major university (R1) wanted to form a new department for an emerging field that overlapped some others. To form the initial faculty, administrators asked heads of those other departments to "contribute" faculty to the new department. What happened was that those departments sent over their tenured incompetents who they would have liked to fire, but could not. The individuals kept their tenure but the other departments were now free to hire better people. The new department struggled for quite a while but eventually overcame the original situation.

I fully agree that absolute job security would be undesirable for society as a whole, but I'm concerned whether the particular positioning of Denmark is anywhere near the sweet spot. For the case I cited from the article (Thomas Højrup) there wasn't any misconduct mentioned, unlike for the other, more prominent case in the same article (Hans Thybo). I find Højrup's case more remarkable and wonder why the authors of the article didn't expand more; there doesn't seem to be much information on the web either.

I only looked at the first article, which did mention misconduct. I can't judge it or if the charges are false. I know several faculty at Aarhus, who seem completely secure. But an individual case may not say anything general about a national system. Perhaps some administrator is acting badly, for example.

The article mentions two cases, Thybo (fired for misconduct) and Højrup (fired in the context of a "cost-cutting measure"). I appreciate the insight about the situation at Aarhus. Surely institution-specific factors may play a role, as also reinforced by the fact that the article speaks about the situation at University of Copenhagen.

But too many people think that tenure means something that it really doesn't mean at all. Hence my long reply.

My latest edit tries to answer your most recent addition to the question.

Thanks! That's indeed one possible safeguard, but frankly, I'm not sure how safe I would feel with it - I wonder how one would prove the intent of a university in such a lawsuit. In contrast, the rules at NateEldredge's home institution seem compelling for the purpose, and I wonder if institutions in Denmark have similar rules.

One measure of job security is how willing the other faculty would be to walk off the job in protest to a poor decision. Even threatening a walkout is very powerful as universities don't like adverse publicity. My guess is that you would be perfectly safe if you stick to the business of education and treat others well. (Absent wars and depressions, of course)

Isn't this answer missing the point OP was asking about? You first state that misbehavior doesn't protect your tenure, which is true. You then give examples where tenured faculty did not misbehave, their departments/universities still wanted to get rid of them but could not and instead had to make offers or tried to shift the faculty to different positions. OP was asking about a situation where a tenured faculty did not misbehave and was then fired due to cost-cutting measures. Your examples seem to rather show that this can not easily happen and departments try hard to get around it.

@nabla, I make no such assumption or statement. But most places, especially one like Denmark, does have some labor protections enshrined in law. Those laws are what I refer to here. I would actually expect Denmark's labor laws to offer better protections than in the US, but don't know that.

(Sorry, pressed enter to early - here is the full comment)
I think your answer miss the mark regarding this question, as it assumes that labor laws from the US can be applied, they can't.

Employees in DK have very little protection by law, everything is governed by agreements with the unions.

In general the labor market in DK is quite flexible, in return employees have a strong social security net. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity

The universities have, however, chosen to uphold principles of tenure anyway, due to arguments of free speech as you mention.
(cont.)

It is true that the university argued that the Thybo firing was due to misconduct. This was seen mainly as an excuse for firing him, and later the labor board judged that the firing was in fact ungrounded (source, only in Danish: https://uniavisen.dk/fyring-hans-thybo-usaglig/). This did not mean that he got his job back, as this is generally not a possibility in the Danish system.

Like so many things, this will depend on the country in question. For example for Germany, your introduction does not really apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamter#Advantages

@CarstenS, yes, of course it depends  on the country. But even in Germany, laws and protections can change - poor leadership and bad behavior. Very little in life is guaranteed absolutely.

@Buffy Sure, if you think pessimistically enough nothing is ever certain. But for all practical purposes you actually are unfireable in Germany (same in Austria) once you get the respective status (Pragmatisierung in Austria, Verbeamtung in Germany). The safety net, both legal and through societal conventions, is very very strong.

@xLeitix, for "all practical purposes" it is probably the same most everywhere. But we live in uncertain times and many (many) conventions are breaking down. Look about you.

@xLeitix "Pragmatisierung" has been abolished in Austria already quite some time ago (formally in the 2002 university law).

I will share my personal experience. I became an associate professor at UPCH. During the interview, the head of the department told me that this is a tenure position and that I could not be fired. When I arrived, the same person announced that 20% of the permanent employees were going to be released due to budget restrictions. Also, my permanent position meant that I had to bring in 3 months' worth of my salary to the section’s budget each year because everybody is doing that (even full professors). This situation extends to everything because, as many have mentioned, there is limited basic funding from the government.
All this led to the following situation: If you apply for, let's say, an NNF proposal with 5% overhead, the head of the department enforces you to apply for another 15% (at least) for "permanent" employees (lab technicians, professors if allowed, etc.) plus 3 months per year for your salary (of course, you can apply for only part of it). Everybody knows this—the NNF, the UPCH, the journalists—and everybody thinks that this is normal. I am very happy that I found a W3 position in Germany.
On the good side, of course, there is a lot of money in third-party projects in Denmark, meaning that if someone is successful, they can really build up a big team, but these are most of the time applied research projects.

A tangential "answer": in the U.S., for example, "tenure" creates a higher thresh-hold for getting fired. So, mostly, it's not worth the trouble for an administration to fire tenured faculty. Still, as can be observed, given sufficient motivation, administration can make a tenured faculty person's situation quite unpleasant... whether or not literally firing them. (Office in a broom closet, crazy teaching assignments...)
Unionized situations in some places in the U.S., and other countries, certainly shift the rules of the game, but, in the end, I'd think it'd come to the same.
Plus, there seems to be a perception among university administrators that systematic panicking of faculty and staff is useful to set a context in which there will not be good raises. "Financial contingencies..."
(Yes, in bad times, it is plausible that we won't have good raises at all, but, hey, wait, how come in good times we don't have good raises, either?)
And, yes, also, in many/most R1-style universities in the U.S., the dept head is not quite elected by the faculty, and certainly does not have decision-making power determined by the faculty... but, by the Dean. And, similarly, the Dean is not determined "from below", but "from above". Most days, this doesn't lead to anything ridiculous, but it does color the whole system here in the U.S.
The whole situation here, in the U.S., to my mind is comparable to the idea that "citizens have civil rights". Well, ok, sure, until, as we see now and then, a powerful person or group decides to do a thing despite one's "right" to not have it done. As an extreme case, we've seen that being declared an enemy combatant will really do a number on your life. My point is that "rights" exist at the whim of powerful people/entities. "Tenure" is similar, actually, I think.


text:
Can I conduct psychology research involving my restaurant customers without their explicit consent?
I will be working as a waiter to make extra money, but I am also an ardent academic. I want to know if I can make audio and/or visual recordings of interactions with customers without having them sign some sort of waiver. Thus I won't necessarily have the names of participants.
Can I later publish some papers without actual evidence other then someone listening to the tapes and concluding they are not all me pretending to do different voices?  It's in the interest of social psychology - will anybody consider this too invasive without permission? And is it less invasive and acceptable if i just try and conduct research on game theory (e.g., possibly trying to manipulate purchases between two customers as competitive relations)? Will it just be considered anonymous contribution, or am I soliciting information while withholding my actual objectives during interaction?
I have no ethics committee monitoring me.
There are 3 days before I start my job.

Depending on the country/state, recording without permission could be illegal under wiretapping laws.

In addition to the academic issues, what is your employer's view of you recording customers?

IANAL but from what I remember, you can legally observe behaviors of people in their natural setting if you take absolutely no action to modify those behaviors. For example, if you have a set of stairs next to an escalator, how many people take one as opposed to another? Do more people take the up escalator than the down escalator, etc. While I don't know the specifics of what you're wanting to do, I assume that you would probably be attempting to prompt certain behaviors in this exercise, so the participants would need to be informed.

No ethics committee mean no publication.  So then what will you do with this research?

@Sidney: What is legal is kind of irrelevant here.  Law.SE is that way -->.  We're concerned here with academic ethics, which says clearly that you have to have the supervision of an ethics committee or IRB.  Maybe they will say you need informed consent, maybe they will say you don't.  But the key is, the researcher isn't entitled to make that decision all by himself/herself.

@Sydney if - you can legally observe behaviors of people in their natural setting if you take absolutely no action to modify those behaviors - were really true - then participating in an online forum - like StackOverflow - without prior IRB approval would be illegal.  I would not be allowed to attempt to modify my son's behavior by reading him a book without first consulting the IRB.  Do you really believe you live your life without at least trying to modify the behavior of others?

Also, check with your local laws regarding wiretapping. In the US, depending on state, it can be illegal to make audio or video recordings in a private (as opposed to public) space.

@NateEldredge if you think it absolutely necessary, then the OP can hire one of the several for-profit IRBs that will likely rubberstamp his research proposal.  Alternatively he could form his own IRB to review his proposal and save the expense.  Or he could do as I suggest and forgo the IRB entirely.  Unless he think this research will lead to publication, he does not really need IRB approval.

You may be allowed to.  But you definitely will not be allowed to publish the research if you haven't gotten IRB approval, and after the fact IRB approval isn't generally accepted.  So - go talk to IRB.

@emory: The question specifically mentioned the possibility of publishing - clearly that is something that is a goal of the asker.  Again, we are not talking about what is or is not legal - that would not be on topic for the site.

I think this might be a better fit at cogsci.se

Publish where? That is the question. Different fields have different standards. And different publications have different standards.

If I was your employer and discovered you were conducting research, monitored or not, on my clients you'd be out of a job so fast you wouldn't have time to draw breath.

I assume you are in Namibia, based on your profile. It is actually very hard to determine what the relevant laws of Namibia are, so I suggest contacting one of the senior faculty in Human Sciences at UNAM, who are most likely to know what the review procedure is (for instance, what the committee is called -- in the US, "IRB", which stands for "Institutional Review Board", has the authority to review human subjects research -- they will know how "human subjects research" is defined locally). For example, you would want to know whether it is against the law to photograph or record persons in public without their consent. It is possible that there is no law regarding privacy, beyond Article 13 of the Constitution, which would not be relevant here. Even if there is no statutory restriction against citizens conducting unapproved research, it probably could contravene university rules, and you could be expelled for conducting such research, or you could be forbidden from using the research. Plus, the owner of the restaurant could fire you for messing with his customers.

"You would want to know whether it is against the law to photograph or record persons in public without their consent." True but probably not relevant. A restaurant is not a public place: it's private property to which the owner allows the public access. I don't know the situation in Namibia either but, in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the property owner can set conditions for entry, such as "If you come in my restaurant, you consent to be filmed," as long as customers are notified of these conditions.

What does your advisor thinks of that?
What does your ethics committee thinks of that?
Because, as far as I know, every and all experiments that remotely involve humans need to be approved by an ethics committee.
I'm from computer science but I had a few experiments involving people and that is usually the rule...
And remember, each country has its own set of laws, make sure you know yours!
Apart from that, my first impression was "bad idea". Even if it is, by some weird loophole, legal, it is not very ethical, at least IMHO...

And if you don't have an ethics committee approving your experiments, then please PLEASE don't conduct them!

In particular, human or  animal studies conducted without the oversight of an appropriate ethics committee or IRB will normally not be accepted for publication in any reputable academic journal.

Absolutely discuss this with your advisor and your friendly ethics committee first. Then again, if your "research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm", then you may not need informed consent as per section 8.03 of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

@StephanKolassa HAH! I love how close my wording "strictly observation with anonymous convenience sampling" matches the APA's code "naturalistic observations in public places". Been almost 10 years since those classes and I'm still pretty on the mark :)

Is this really the case with the ethics committees? E.g. if I do a user study with participants grading the quality of denoising on a set of images, do I need an ethics committee approval for that?

Usually, yes @Angew...  Mostly because sometimes the 'line' between what should need and what shouldn't is hard to place, therefore AFAIK, the line is usually "if involves other people"/invasive to anyone. In most cases, such as yours, the process should be straightforward and quick.. Better safe than sorry

@Angew See my answer below, on the flow-chart recommended by HHS for determining when you need an IRB.

@StephanKolassa A restaurant isn't a "public place". It's private property to which the owner allows the public access. (This is a significant distinction.)

@DavidRicherby: I would assume that this means you'd need the owner's consent, not the subjects', doesn't it?

@StephanKolassa Yes, you'd almost certainly need the owner's consent. In some (most, I guess) jurisdictions, the owner would need to inform their customers of any unusual conditions that apply to their entry and I'd imagine that "By entering this restaurant, you agree that one of the waiters can film you for their psychology experiment" would come under that. In the UK, for example, I think you have to have a sign by the door if you're filming, to say why you're filming, what the data will be used for (e.g., CCTV cameras for security), and who to contact for more information.

You indicate not only that you plan on recording their likenesses, but also that you intend to do some degree of experimentation.
Sometimes if you are strictly doing observation with anonymous convenience sampling, your IRB will let you get away with it, but the moment you start manipulating variables in any way, that is experimentation, and that requires informed consent.
You need informed consent.
You might be able to get away with doing your social experiment to write it up for your blog, but you almost assuredly would not be able to use this for any degree of academic publication.

Other answers have covered the actual academic aspect of this - what you need to do to produce publishable research. There is also an aspect that is technically off-topic here, but would be on-topic if you asked about the same plan on workplace.se, which I recommend doing.
There are at least two reasons your employer might disapprove of you recording customers in the restaurant:

If/when it comes out that an employee has been recording customers, and using them without consent as research subjects, it will damage the restaurant's reputation, not just the employee's. Depending on local rules, it might also expose the employer to legal liability. That is regardless of whether your activities require consent for academic publication.
Recording customers, and doing research on them, is likely to distract you from doing your job. Your full attention, during working hours, should be on taking orders, serving meals, and any other tasks for which your employer is paying you.

For the United States, at least, there is an excellent set of human-subjects decision flow-charts published by the US Department of Health and Human Services.  Some aspects are US-specific, but most of it is a generally good guideline for thinking about the ethical boundaries of "What ethically counts in human subject research?" and "What precautions do I need to be thinking about when conducting research with human subjects?"
Navigating these charts with respect to the scenarios that you have proposed, I find the following:

From Chart 1, both are clearly research involving living human subjects, therefore sending us to Chart 2 (possible exemptions).
Recording customers without their knowledge:  This is observation of public behavior, except the information you capture can identify people and its release could possibly cause harm (e.g., by revealing that a person was in this restaurant when they were supposed to be somewhere else).  Therefore, it must be treated with care, and requires external review by an IRB.
Intervention with the aim of studying effects on customer purchases:  Intervention definitely requires external review by an IRB.

A particular release of information that's already public might be implicated in the harm, but calling it causative is a stretch.

@BenVoigt Not quite sure what you mean.  The point of review, however, is to confirm that a researcher's assessment of possible harms and likelihoods is reasonable.

How is "public behaviour" defined? In law, a restaurant is not a public place: it's private property to which the owner allows the public access. (That is, if "public behaviour" means "behaviour of people in public", this isn't it; if it means "the behaviour of members of the public", then it is.)

@DavidRicherby Cars driving down a public street would clearly be public behavior.  People's activities inside their own houses is clearly not.  In between... that's why we've got review committees, to try to make sure that an individual's judgement on how to draw such lines is at least vaguely in line with the judgement of others.

@jakebeal I agree that "check with the review committee" is absolutely the right thing to do. But, still, it would be useful to know if "public behaviour" refers to the behaviour of people in public places or to the behaviour of members of the public.

Just wanted to ask why you don't simply observe and take field notes, why record people?
In UK you would also have to deal with data protection and maybe freedom of information legislation.
I think you can still produce a high standard of work without having to use tabloid journalist tactics :-)

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні