text:
Comparing two conventions: erase when you finish teaching, or erase when you begin
I feel like there are two reasonable conventions when it comes to board etiquette for when to erase.

Everyone erases the board before they start teaching.
Everyone erases the board after they finish teaching.

Benefits of (1):
(a) Convenience for students: You can leave your writing on the board for students who want to study it after class.
(b) Stability: You're always forced to erase before you start anyway, so nobody gets disadvantaged if someone fails to erase before them.
Benefits of (2):
Honestly the only benefit I can think of is: If you're rushing to class and barely make it by the start time, you don't want to delay class by spending the first 1-2 minutes erasing. However, this doesn't seem like a real benefit, since if you abide by (1), then you're also saving 1-2 minutes at the end of class, allowing you to get a jump on your next task.
Somehow, (2) seems like the standard etiquette, to the point that many professors get upset if the board isn't empty when they arrive. However, it doesn't seem especially logical to me. What arguments are there for (2) that I haven't considered?
EDIT: At this point we already have a lot of interesting answers, but if anyone is curious, I initially asked this question from an informal policy point of view — I.e., which convention, if adopted by most people, would make the community better off as a whole? Another minor clarification — I was thinking of blackboards, but it’s an interesting point that dry erase markers get harder to erase the longer they remain on the board. IMO this tips the scale towards favoring (2) for whiteboards. For blackboards I still feel that (1) is better.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

I very much prefer option (1) as a general blackboard cleaning policy, mainly for the reasons mentioned in the questions, but there are some other points:

Efficiency: Where I am, cleaning staff cleans the boards once a day, so that they are clean for the first lecture of the day. If the last person a day cleans it, the staff will clean it again unnecessarily.

Standards: Other people may have very different interpretation of what a "clean blackboard" is and I have seen a lot of "cleaned" blackboards which we not at all clean by my standards. When cleaning before class, everybody has a blackboard meeting their own standards.

A minor point (which I still like): Finding a blackboard full of stuff from the previous lecture gives me some impression of what else is going on at my place, it may give me opportunities to approach the person who lecture before me and chat with students about what is still there.
Experience from where I taught: In math (and partly in CS) people realized that (1) is the superior approach, all other departments were (sometimes strongly) insisting that (2) has to be done (without being able to explain why except for "that how it should be be, period").

Precisely this. Everybody cleaning their own writing from the blackboard would mean that I would often have to clean it both at the end and at the beginning of my lectures, because many people apparently confuse "making parts of the blackboard wet and drying parts of it afterwards" with "ensuring that the blackboard is clean".

When I've worked in places with blackboards, rather than whiteboards, the cleaners gave the board a wet clean, but users cleaned it dry so the cleaners' effort was only partially wasted(and writing on a wet blackboard isn't great anyway)

Please clean up your own mess
You could just as easily broaden your enquiry to cleaning up any resource that is used by multiple people in a communal fashion.  Should I put my rubbish in the bin, or just leave it on my table for the next person to clean up prior to their own use?  Should I wipe up my spilled coffee on the tabletop in the office kitchen, or leave it to the next person to clean up prior to their own use?  Should I use the toilet brush after doing something foul in the gymnasium toilet, or should I leave it to the next person to clean up prior to their own use?
To ask these questions is to answer them --- mature adults clean up their own messes.  While there may be some tenuous marginal benefits from the contrary practice as it pertains to a whiteboard, it falls within the same general ambit of being rude.  Whilst the same amount of total cleaning obtains in either case, leaving your mess out for the next person to clean engenders the general "enshitification" of society.

You seem to confuse some thing here. The question is "If we should have a policy for blackboard cleaning which everybody has to follow, which one is better?" This is not the same as "Should I clean the blackboard before or after the lecture?" You seem to address the second question.

This answer seems to be based on a wrong premise encoded in the word "mess". All the examples you give do indeed include a "mess" in the sense that they involve dirt or hygienic issues (or even safety issues, if you spill coffee on the floor). Another example of a mess would be leaving one's tools scattered in a workshop (that would be a "mess" in the sense of "disorder"). The situation for a blackboard is different - there is no waste, it's not about hygiene, it's not about safety, and there is no disorder that would make cleaning other people's writing more time-consuming than one's own.

The most upvoted comment here takes issue with the word "mess", but this is a very superficial point. Ignoring the word "mess" completely, a universally acknowledged general principle is: after you use a shared resource, you should return it to a state where it is ready to be used by others. This applies to dishes, kitchen appliances, shared computers, shared cars, bathtubs, books taken from the shelf, etc. etc. etc. Why on Earth would blackboards be an exception?

The rest of this discussion has been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

I admit that I am firmly in camp (2) --always erase at the end and leave a clean board for the next class. But I also recognize that I'm sure some of that is just "the way we've always done it."
I like the simplicity of knowing I'll be starting class with a clean slate (sorry, couldn't resist). As I am coming into the room, I have my laptop to set up, homework/exams/whatever to pass back, maybe students coming up and asking questions, whatever.  Prepping the board is something I do not have to worry about -- and so I can also do that final "did I get the handouts off the printer," etc run through in my head. The professor leaving at the end of class, in general, will have fewer of these -- and is not about to start teaching; or, if they are, they'll be walking to their next classroom where the clean board there will give them the ~30 seconds or whatever to get in the headspace to start class.
However:  One good argument I can make for (1) is the serendipity that often occur on an un-cleaned board:

One semester, I was teaching Calculus II right after someone else was teaching Combinatorics. By luck one day, they had been talking about formal power series and generating functions right as we were starting Taylor Series. As my students came in to Cal II, a few had questions and I gave the short 3 minutes of "it turns out these are much more powerful than just a way to approximate sin(x) as a polynomial."
Likewise, when I am teaching back-to-back in the same room, especially when I'm going from more advanced to more intro level classes, my new students will filter in before I have a chance to clean the board and sometimes this leads to interesting questions.

I think @Lars Seme's answer captures my sentiments already pretty well, except that I would add the following argument:
Let's just all be good humans and do something nice for the person who comes after us, by cleaning the board for them.
There already isn't enough kindness in this world. Chances are that the person coming after you is in the same department, and will be grateful for the act of kindness.

Lars Seme does not appear to have made that argument (?)

@Allure Precisely, which is why I thought it's worth making in a separate answer.

I guess we got confused since your point is written in a quote.

Fair enough. Let me fix this then.

I've been erasing before-and-after for decades, and counting on allowing time for it. Once-upon-a-time I tried to argue with people about whether they should erase (or not) at the end of their classes (before mine), but that proved to be a waste of time, or, worse, a waste of time and having people yell at me about their privileges.
It's not only "erasing", but turning off the computer projector, raising the screen, and lots of other stuff...
Btw, it's not at all good to wash blackboards every day, because that takes away the pore-filling "seasoning", making it harder to erase, etc.

One again I am amazed how good the blackboards in Germany are. There is no such thing as "seasoning" here. Wash them as often as you want and each time they will be good as new. For decades.

@Dirk, Hm! Very interesting. I'd thought that the best slate blackboards here in my 100-year-old math building would have been as good as there, but maybe not! :)  (And, to be clear, one of the benefits here of "erasing again" is to help fill the pores in the slate (after the previous night's washing... :) )

As Dirk I'm quite surprised about blackboards that deteriorate if you wash them everyday. Most blackboards in our math department over here in Wuppertal are probably cleaned 5 to 10 times per day (with water every single time). No sign of wear and tear on the blackboard surface. In contrast to the mechanics to move the blackboards up and down, which is in my experience more prone to malfunctions. And in contrast to the building itself which is only about 50 years old but feels close to falling apart... ;-)

What is the culture of your institution?
This is, in my experience, very much a matter of institutional culture.  In the mathematics department where I earned my BA and MS, the culture was very much of type (2):  you were expected to erase your board when you finished teaching.  If you did not, you were likely to have someone complain to the chair of the department, and then get a stern talking to.
On the other hand, at my PhD institution, the culture was of type (1):  instructors wandered into class a minute or two before the start, erased whatever was on the board, and taught their class, then wandered out, leaving whatever was up on the board for anyone still taking notes.  This was expected, and no one complained about boards not being erased.
And then there is type (3):  at my current institution, most instruction takes place at a distance.  I will typically have two or three students in the classroom with me, and many other students in other classrooms across our service area.  My "board" is a large touchscreen at the front of the room (a SmartBoard, specifically).  There is nothing to erase, neither at the start of class, nor at the end of class!  Yay!
Erase the board at the end of class, anyway...
All of the above having been said, I always erase my boards when I am done teaching (again, I haven't had to bother since getting to my current institution, but...).  If you are at an institution where the culture is of type (2), you are expected to do so; and if you are at a type (1) institution, no one is going to complain if you leave the classroom with clean boards.
I would rather walk into a classroom with clean boards so that I can get started right away.  Moreover, if I come in on Monday morning after someone taught on Thursday night, it is very possible that the board is going to be harder to erase (dry erase markers get harder to erase the longer they are on the board), and I am going to get a bit annoyed about having to really scrub the board or track down some board cleaner.  I think that it is a small kindness to the person who needs to use the classroom next if you clean your mess up before they arrive.
Regarding the idea that students may still be taking notes: they can pull out their smartphones (even my students, many of whom don't have running water or electricity at home, all seem to have smartphones...) and take a picture.  Or get a copy of the notes from someone else.

Frame challenge: Don’t clean the board yourself
Rather, it should be your students that clean up when they don’t need your notes anymore. This can be right at the end of the lecture, or while they discuss with you afterwards, or after you left, or before you come in, or even as you are about to start your lecture.
Whatever suits them and lets you use the board is fine.
Now of course this depends on your students cooperating. Hopefully you have a good relationship with them and it just works. A simple means to get them motivated is just not to start until the board is clean and cut into Q&A time to compensate.
Or do it as one (in-) famous lecturer here does: Every new batch of students would miss cleaning the board once - and only once as he would just write on the dirty board anyway. After all, the writing was for the students, not the lecturer.

"and only once as he would just write on the dirty board anyway" I once had a teacher at highschool doing this. More than 20 years later is still role my eyes when I think about it. Of course, it's the way to go if you want to signal to your students that you mainly care about their compliance rather than their learning. In any other case, it's just ridiculous.

@JochenGlueck I thought so too back then, but in retrospect realised it gave people an active role and reduced the barrier between us plebs consuming silently and the untouchable professor doing their thing. Yes, scrambling together the notes for that one lecture was a challenge (though very doable by finally engaging with auxiliary course material) but is number two on my personal ranking of lectures that had a positive  impact on my studying mindset. There’s more to teach than the stuff you can read in a book anyway.

This may be appropriate if your students are no older than 13.

@JochenGlueck When I briefly visited Taiwan, I noticed that students (even grad students) often cleaned the board for the lecturers. I suspect this may be a general practice. In fact, in Korea and Japan, students go so far as to clean the schools — mopping floors, etc.

@WillChen: Yes, sure. When I was a highschool student (in Germany) the students also had to clean the blackboards in class (well, I'm not convinced that this made much sense, but it wasn't much of a problem either). My objection is against the idea to "educate" the students by just writing on the full blackboard if they forget to clean the board in time.

@JochenGlueck You don’t "forget" cleaning a board right in the centre of attention of a 300 people lecture hall if you are older than 13 and value your own learning over, well, frankly I don’t even know what.  I’m not advocating for everyone to follow the anecdote but I am seriously surprised how it is ridiculed.


text:
How to attribute authorship to personal non-academic friend who made significant contributions
I'm working on a paper which involves the application of a particular equation to sets of experimental materials science data. I devised the idea for the equation and collected/collated the data. With my PI, I then drafted an initial form for the equation. Once I applied it to the data, though, I caught an error. My PI was really reticent to change it and I had a hard time convincing him it was necessary. Neither my PI nor any of my coworkers have a strong math background, so I turned to a personal friend who was a math major in college to help me show that a better equation exists.
My friend helped me to identify the correct functional form and, critically, drew up a mathematical proof showing that the resulting equation gives a particular value if and only if our assumptions are true. This basically shows that the equation is not just right but also meaningful for interpreting the data, and that's a huge deal for the paper.
I feel like this warrants co-authorship, but... my friend is currently unemployed and last worked as a middle school teacher. I checked their work (I was a math minor and am confident it's right) but it is their original contribution, not mine. My friend also hopes the publication of this paper could help them land a "more serious job". I just don't know how to note their affiliation for a journal and have no clue how I'm going to sell this to my PI.
How should I properly attribute authorship for an unemployed non-academic? I also welcome ideas of how to convince my PI that this authorship is necessary, but that's much more subjective and I'm not asking for an answer. I have told him that I had a "math major friend" assist in the development of the new equation. He seems ok with the new form because the proof exists, but he didn't read the proof when offered. I'm worried he'll reject the paper if he decides my friend's credentials are insufficient when we go to submit, but I'm not going to lie and say the proof was my work.

There are two questions here, one about how to attribute authorship for your friend, and one for selling it to your PI, which is potentially domain-specific. Please ask one question per quesiton.

That said, I'm not really sure why he'd "reject" the paper. PIs don't "reject" papers, and credentials are not part of the peer-review process.

@AzorAhai-him- Edited to clarify what I'm really asking, ty. As for rejecting the paper: in my group the PI has final say on whether to publish any paper in the group. That practice is pretty much ubiquitous in my field. I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried to publish without consent, but it would not look good for future PIs in my field and there might be some issues with attribution of funding (award went to PI, not institution).

This is how I ended up as a last author while being an uni dropout - with no affilation and no degree prefix. The PI was not happy, but my friend was not happy with them either. If you think this is the right thing to do, it is unusual, but possible.

One doesn't need to be an "academic" or even employed to be an author. If the person has made significant intellectual contributions to a paper then they are rightfully an author. Your friend can be listed as an "independent researcher" or, perhaps even, an "independent mathematician". "Unaffiliated" might even be acceptable to a journal.
Your PI probably has to agree to this, and I hope they do, as it is probably the ethical path. But fighting with a supervisor isn't a viable path and you might need to settle for a "significant contribution" statement in an acknowledgements paragraph or section.
But, it seems to me that authorship is warranted, since it makes the result feasible. "Huge deal" is almost always authorship. In math related things, even very short conversations can lead to authorship if they provide key insights.

I like the idea of "independent researcher" - that's what my friend is and likely will remain by the time the paper is published. Good phrasing.

It is also fairly common. Being retired, I'm currently "unaffiliated" and would be listed as such on any publication.

I like "unaffiliated" better than "independent researcher". Somehow, the latter has the whiff of "crackpotism", I feel, that the former does not.

“One doesn't need to be an "academic" or even employed to be an author.” Nor, indeed, even be human…

"'Huge deal' is almost always authorship." - And if they wrote an actual proof, I can't imagine it not being worth a coauthorship.

Academia has never opposed unaffiliated researchers or independent researchers for being unaffiliated or independent; what it opposes is their frequent rejection of a rule that goes back to grade school: "Show your work."

A recent example of the term "independent researcher" appearing in the wild: the research group that investigated the launch pad failure which occurred during the launch of SpaceX's Starship Flight 1 solicited photographs, videos, and samples of deposits from the dust clouds from a variety of journalists, residents, and spectators on social media, all of whom received co-authorship on the paper as "independent researchers". (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.10788)

My work is in law rather than mathematics and that has different norms, but in law it is not at all uncommon to authors listed with no academic affiliation and simply leave that unmentioned.

Congratulations to your friend, they have made a great coauthorship-worthy contribution to an academic paper. And congratulations to you for having such friends and for having a better paper now.
An important thing you need to keep in mind as you enter the discussion with your PI is that there is nothing to “sell” here. Academia simply does not frown on unaffiliated researchers in the way you imagine it does. If your friend would have deserved coauthorship if they had been a “proper” academic who had made the same contribution, then they deserve coauthorship in the current situation.
Your PI may not like the idea of adding a coauthor, for a variety of reasons (all of them unethical) that people have for making such objections. I wish you luck with this discussion, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that a lack of affiliation would be a serious issue. I see no particular reason for you to even mention the affiliation issue yourself unless the PI brings it up - it’s simply immaterial to the discussion. However, if it does come up, be honest and don’t use euphemistic or defensive language to disguise the true situation.
Finally, a small note of caution. You wrote:

My friend also hopes the publication of this paper could help them land a "more serious job".

This seems unlikely to be true. Not that many people outside of academia care about scientific publication, and one coauthorship in a paper (which will probably take quite a while to get published) isn’t going to make a huge difference to anyone. Even in an academic context, a single coauthored publication doesn’t carry much weight these days.
Well, anything helps of course, but your friend may want to temper their expectations on this particular issue. Regardless, they still deserve the coauthorship.

I don't quite agree that academics generally hold no bias against independent researchers. Right or wrong, people will be more skeptical of work coming from someone who doesn't have formal qualifications or a support network of peers to discuss their ideas. See this question which describes work from independent researchers as "99% wrong" without so much as blinking an eye: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/211904/why-does-independent-research-from-people-without-formal-academic-qualifications

@NuclearHoagie I disagree. The discussion you link to is in the context of amateur scientists claiming to have solved “big problems”. In that case, the “99% wrong” estimate is surely correct (and may be an underestimate). To fairly predict, based on a real understanding of how the world works, that someone’s work is very likely wrong, is not “bias”. OTOH, to unfairly assume that an ordinary scientific contribution is wrong because an amateur came up with it - that would be an example of bias. I stand by my claim that that type of bias is very uncommon in academia.

I don't think it's common to simply assume that any work by an amateur is wrong, but I'd say it's less likely to be taken at "face value" than work done by a prominent academic who works closely with other credentialed individuals. It's not too different from why peer-reviewed work is generally more highly regarded than work that isn't - it indicates that someone other than the author thought it was correct. Affiliation suggests the researcher has an accessible network of knowledgeable peers.

@NuclearHoagie A paper by a single unaffiliated researcher is a red flag, and I will dread reviewing that paper (but I'll still do it fairly, even if I know how it's likely to end). But a single unaffiliated researcher on an author list with a bunch of people from a university? No worries, since if it was a crackpot paper, one of those people would have called them on it before it went out for review.

@DanRomik I thank you for your note of caution and I agree completely. From the beginning I tried to make clear to my friend that a paper =/= a job. They just feel like having last taught middle school math makes potential employers less confident in their skills beyond, say, prealgebra, and that the paper could be useful "evidence". I suppose it goes back to the discussion of academics and independent researchers, and I hope everyone involved just takes the math on its merits.

This kind of thing is not uncommon. In this paper of mine, a good friend is even first author. He is simply listed by his name and the city he lives in. He works for a company in Germany, but worked on the paper in his spare time and so no affiliation is given. The example shows that whether or not any author is actually employed, or where they are employed, is not important. What is important is that they contributed significantly to the paper, in which case they should be co-authors.
As for how to break that to your PI: In an ideal world, they would always have known about your friend. If someone contributes to a paper, all current authors should know. It's not clear to me how your friend contributed to the paper, but it's for sure awkward that they contributed a whole method and a proof and you never mentioned that to your co-authors. If I had been one of them, I would be upset with that, given that you made it look like it was your contribution rather than someone else's. In any case, this would be a good time to come clean on this with your co-authors and explain why you think it is ethically the right thing to make your friend a co-author given their contributions. This would also be a good time to be honest and forthcoming with what precisely they contributed, rather than beat around the bush.

From what you say, your friend should be an author. List them as an author. You don't need to tell your PI that your friend is unemployed. If an affiliation is asked for, just list them as "unaffiliated".
I am not sure why you think your PI will reject this. Are you concerned that they will not have confidence in the proof given the source? Show them that you have checked it yourself and invited them to do the same. Are you concerned that they won't want to share credit with a non-academic? This suggests that you have a rather poor opinion of your PI.

Actually, lack of honesty with your PI isn't a good path. What happens when they learn and think they were misled.

@Buffy I agree -- the OP should be honest with their PI. Listing the friend as "unaffiliated" is honest, and tells everyone concerned that the friend is not an academic. Sharing that the friend is unemployed is no more relevant than sharing what the friend has for breakfast or what health conditions they have.

@Significance I appreciate your thoughts as an "unaffiliated" observer :) I agree that honesty is the best policy esp. with a PI. My concern is more that he was reluctant to accept that his initial math was wrong. I think he believes that he and I have at least the same amount of math knowledge here and he did not spot the error. Yet he knows my abilities, hopefully trusts my honesty, and can see the data indicating the error. With my friend's proof, I'm relying on the data to make him trust what he has already been reluctant to accept, and I want to make sure he knows the proof is valid.

John Citizen, Independent Researcher.

Perhaps, it is best to show all your working and to be honest regarding all contributions big and small. Reluctance in doing so, may only show why your friend is reluctant to accept the proof is valid.

In some cases, it is possible to call your co-author a visiting researcher or visiting scholar at your institution. This will require, at minimum, approval by your PI. There may or may not be any formal process at your institution beyond that.
We often do this when scientist and engineers at major companies contribute outside of their employment, often students who graduated. The company is fine with the employee's help, but doesn't want their name associated with something they aren't involved in, and often requires a lengthy approval or review process on their end.

Actually it might require agreement from the institution not just the PI.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How broad should the research Interests of an undergraduate applying for grad school be?
I'm an undergraduate student applying to grad school. In my Research Interests section in my CV (or somewhere else), I wonder how broad should my interests be.
For example, I have worked on topics about plasmonics that fall under condensed matter physics. Now can I write condensed matter physics as a research interest? I actually like most of subjects in condensed matter physics, and have quite accidentally worked on this specific subject plasmonics. Limiting the research interests to just plasmonics may limit my choices for application, while being too broad may cause me look like someone who has not even explored current research areas.
As an applied physics and engineering student, how broad should by research interests appear on my application?

I personally make it a little more specific to the department. Something like, "condense matter physics, in particular, the faculty Prof. A and Prof. B looks interesting in that (etc)."

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


text:
Difference of a PhD program for students entering with BS and MS
Students who have a BS can apply for PhD programs like students with a Master's degree (in the US). I was thinking why should students with only Bachelor degrees be admitted while many with Masters degree apply too. I thought the program may differ for these two admitted students. So, my question is basically this:
Is there any difference between the PhD program that an admitted student with a BS starts, and the PhD program that a student with a Master's degree goes through? (assuming they are admitted to the same program at the same university)

PhD programs in the US typically have coursework requirements in addition to the PhD dissertation, and depending on the program, these course requirements can be quite significant (as much as 50 credit hours or 2-3 years of course work.)  A student who enters the PhD program after an MS will often be given credit for much of these course work requirements based on their previous MS degree.  However, it is often the case that students are required to "make up" particular courses that they have not previously taken.
Most programs have minimum credit hour requirements (total credit hours including courses and dissertation credits.)  A fairly common rule is "60 credits past an MS degree or 90 credit hours past a BS degree."
These rules vary a lot between universities and even within the same university, so it's important to understand the local rules that will apply to you when you apply to enter a PhD program.

The title and body of the question are a bit at odds with each other.  To answer the question in the title of the question, a student with only a BS may have better grades and be more talented than a student who has an MS with worse grades.  It will probably take the student with a BS longer to complete the PhD program, but they may be more likely to complete a good dissertation.

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


text:
Public accountability for academic work
I have realised that my performance improves when I make my progress publicly accountable. For example, my jogging times improve and I lose more weight when I enter myself onto a public rankings list. I would imagine that my academic progress would also improve if I make my progress publicly visible.
I'm wondering what online rankings or any other publicly visible progress reports might be available in academia? I've heard of impact factors, but is there anything else? I'm sure there are people against turning academia into a competition, but I find some sort of competitive element really improves my performance.

I think there are two pretty different questions being asked here: "Ways to do it" and "Does it work".

@StrongBad I think the question here is clearly "ways to do it". I am also not convinced it would work, but the OP seems to be convinced that it does.

@SteveJessop Yeah, but doesn't the OP want to compare himself in a "public rankings list"?

The cliche is to google the topic of interest, and see how far down you appear.

You can always compare the length of publication lists, e.g., using Google Scholar, ResearchGate or even your colleagues' homepages.
Summaries of publications and their impact are (attempted to be) provided by the h-index and similar measures. (Impact factors really pertain to journals, not researchers... but indices for researchers may take into account whether the researcher publishes in a low- or high-impact journal.)
There can be, uh, lively discussions about the merits or not of such measures, especially in the context of hiring and remuneration decisions.
One problem with using such measures for short- and medium-term motivation as you propose is the lag between the work and the publication - feedback is far too slow. If you are looking for motivation, you may want to check Productivity.SE.com.

Some more ideas to complement StephanKolassa's answer.
Another possible idea that crossed my mind multiple times in the past is making a Trello board showing my papers in different columns according to their progress status, with a scale such as:

0: preliminary idea, not clear if it will even work
1: some experiments or theoretical work done, seems promising; will likely lead to a publication but lots of work needed
2: most of the experiments/proofs ready, still to write down in coherent form
3 draft mainly ready
4 published as preprint and submitted
5 first round of positive reviews, awaits modifications or already resubmitted
6 published; congratulations!

Other random ideas: if you are writing a long document such as a thesis or a book, you may want to publish online a graph tracking the number of pages written vs. time. Similarly with lines of code. If you are using git you can gather lots of statistics using GitStats (example)

Microsoft Academic Search maintains top-something lists of researchers in different fields (e.g., top-100 researchers in software engineering, top-20 researchers in WWW in the last 5 years, etc.). Clearly, you will only start showing up in these rankings after you already had some number of cited publications, so it is probably not useful for your PhD research. Also, as I have experienced myself, the ranking is weird, so I wouldn't say it is exactly a reliable way to measure your progress. Finally, it should be noted that the feedback achieved by these rankings is going to be very slow. In fact, you will (theoretically) see improvements in these rankings years after you wrote high-impact papers. It is not exactly that you can use it to track how good your last week was.
You could also use Google Scholar and compare your profile against profiles of other people of similar academic age or standing. The good thing here is that you should at least show up as soon as you have co-authored something. However, similar restrictions to above apply - progress will be very slow, and any comparison based on e.g., Google Scholar h-index will be a noisy heuristic at best.

"the feedback achieved by these rankings is going to be very slow" This is, I think, why this is not going to work for improving performance.

As many answers already pointed out, academic progress is slow. Changes in comprehensive rankings will take their time. I assume this is the reason why people say that a person in academia must endure frustration and have tons of patience. On the other hand, humans seem to usually need a much more frequent feedback in order to actually motivate yourself.
I find one little trick particularly helpful: find colleagues that work on closely related topics. Share information and work together on the same project. Seeing someone else having success on his or her share of the work will surely make you want to contribute as well (if not more). I must admit, that this will only work, if everyone involved aims toward the success of the project. There are various ways of measuring, publishing, and rewarding progress in this case: the tool can be as simple as a progress bar on an intranet's webpage that steps along as milestones are reached, money for visiting a conference on the condition of a publication, or the already mentioned Trello board that just visualizes how the contributions of different people in your group help a project advance.
Sharing information in a small study or work group breaks down the long-term progress into the small steps that academia actually enforces: idea, thinking, trial, and finally success or failure. Adding discussion at any state of this progress will help to uncover misunderstandings and sure failures faster than if you would work on your own. Linearizing your thoughts to actually tell them so someone enforces a clear picture in your head, again ruling out possibly overlooked details.
Furthermore, swapping ideas will help everyone in your group gain insight and see the same world with different eyes. To every topic (how old and worn out it may be) there is a perspective or context that has not been considered yet. Finding out about these is something I found particularly motivating during my time of study. Keeping the discussion with colleagues and friends alive will surely help you with this.
My approach to answer your question is: choose a method of feedback that suits you and try to shorten the intervals. The method of feedback does not matter as much as the time you have to spend without.
Lastly, a small excursus: We have some source code for numerical computations that we share among the PhDs in our work group. It is always a bit frustrating to find oneself spending hours of debugging someone else's mess.. Recently, we started offering bounties (you know those coconut-chocolate-bars?) for bugs someone would find in someone else's source code. Now one has one more reason to watch out bugs on your own (to avoid spending a "bounty"). Moreover, the frustration is somewhat mitigated in case a bug is found since one receives a (small) compensation.


text:
Asking a professor for review on paper draft before submitting to a journal
I have conducted independent research, and wrote a paper based on it, and want to ask the opionion of some expert before submitting it to a journal. I am contemplating whether I should ask someone or not.
I met a professor at a poster session who gave an impression that he is interested, he is an editor of the journal I want to send my work to.
Do you think I should ask for a professional opnion? Or does it look like a big favour, and I would put him into an awkward situation? I want to know if it is publishable and if this specific journal is suitable.
What would be a polite email template?

why did you conduct and 'independent research'? You did not have supervisor, or your supervisor failed to do the job? From what you write you need a mature and supportive supervisor, rather than editor comments. You may ask him to co-author and work with you on the manuscript...

@Intelligent-Infrastructure Nothing wrong in doing independent research, imho. And if the paper is ready, they do not need a co-author at this stage.

You can ask, worst he can say is no I am too busy.

Since you have already met him it is fine to ask for his opinion on your paper and whether it seems ready for submission.
Unless you have already corresponded a few times, remind him of your meeting.
I'll assume that this is also in his field. In this case it isn't such a big favor to ask.
I won't try to provide a template, but my method would be to ask if he is interested, sending only the abstract or introduction and a page count of the paper. I'd wait for confirmation before sending the paper.
Don't ask for an edit or corrections, but just his opinions. Let the journal or conference reviewers make editing suggestions after you submit. This way it doesn't read like you are asking for a co-author. I would avoid suggestions of that. If collaboration happens, let it be on future work. You might get a few suggestions for improvement in any reading whether you ask or not.

What kind of edits do journal reviewers do in CS/comp math? Grammatical only? or in the presentation style too?

Far more than that, actually. They will point out problems in your evidence/proof, for example. They will point you to other related work. Presentation and style would be the least of their concerns unless the paper is very poor.

Do they usually ask for codes in the first submission? Or if at all? @Buffy

That would depend on the paper and how necessary it is to evaluate the code in order to evaluate the paper. But they wouldn't ask for the code unless they ask for the code to be included in or linked by the paper.

A professor you ask, might want to see the code, however. But not journal reviewers except as noted above.

Firstly, people in a conference generally show interest. It is the objective of a conference to initiate discussions and collaboration. There is no guarantee they would follow through.
Personally, I do not ask for anything unless I could offer something back. Reviewing a paper is not easy and unless its a colleague I do not review papers of people I meet at a conference. People in general are busy.
Having said that you are within your rights to ask for a professional opinion. Mention in your email that you would like to send the paper to a journal in a week and his opinion would be invaluable. If they reply in a week, great, else go ahead and submit the paper. Let the formal reviewers read your paper and comment.
Congratulations on being able to do independent research. Best of luck with the paper.

"Personally, I do not ask for anything unless I could offer something back." The OP is a PhD student (going by their other posts). I don't think this is a good principle to apply to interactions between PhD students and senior scientists (like journal editors).

I was a PhD student once and  I followed the same principle. But maybe world is less transactional than I think it is or was :)

Here are some remarks:

Do you think I should ask for a professional opnion?

You could, but do not expect to have a full review of the paper.

Or does it look like a big favour, and I would put him into an awkward situation?

If you ask for a complete read of your paper, it might look awkward. Concerning asking for a favor, I wouldn't worry about it. In worst case you'll get a direct/polite refusal.

I want to know if it is publishable and if this specific journal is suitable.

Here are two main issues you point out:
a) You don't know yourself if the result is publishable or not. Some things are just not publication level, even though they "feel" new to someone. You should be familiar with the bibliography regarding the paper you wrote. If you are absolutely certain your work fills a gap and is genuinely new, then you will be able to publish it somewhere.
b) Learning if a specific journal is suitable can be done in a few steps:

read the scope of the journal. They will mention what subject the journal focuses on.

learn about the reputation of the journal. A top journal will only accept exceptional papers. Even a decent paper will be rejected there.

ultimately, you can submit your paper there, but you will find out the hard way (reject/accept) if the paper is suitable or not.

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


text:
Should I review papers for a nameless conference?
I received an invitation to review papers in a conference that is not very famous. However, the conference has a web site, and it has been held less than 5 times. Should I review papers for this conference? What is a judging criteria for deciding whether or not do the paper review for conferences?

Example criteria are: Are the people in the Program Committee (PC) known in your field? It is clear that this is not a "spamference"? Is it clear that you have been asked for a review because the PC members actually took the time to find a expert in the relevant subject area?

Look at the programs of the previous years. Do a good proportion of the talks sound at least mildly interesting, relative to the relevant area of expertise?

Yea careful. Some of the 'world conference in x' held in China are basically sham. Also, it sounds like busy work that won't help you advance your career, but that's just an opinion

Does it help you?
A good criteria are the people organizing the conference. Have you heard any of their names? Do you want them to know your name, too?
Also look at the papers published the previous years. Is there anything you like? Because that is probably the good papers you get to review (there will always be much worse submissions additionally that do not get accepted).
If you don't see anything interesting for you & in your expertise, then don't review.
Beware of 'pay to publish' conferences (is the publisher on Beall's list of predatory publishers?). There are companies that live of publishing article no matter what quality. To give at least the impression of being legit, they need names on their program commitee - and they reach out to low-ranked people and invite them. They want to abuse your name!
Don't get me wrong, there are really good small conferences (in particular some with 20+ years of history). But usually they have A) top names on the board, B) very interesting articles and C) no shady publisher, but e.g. Springer, ACM, IEEE, and some just put the papers on the website, or host them at a university library.


text:
Second masters degree or PhD?
So this year I'm finishing my masters degree in Security of Information Systems, in a third world country University (best in my country but still) , and I might have a chance at a fully funded scholarship in a way better university abroad, I was thinking of getting a second masters degree in robotics, Artificial intelligence or Cognitive systems.
Is it worth it ? with a bachelor degree in Computer science and a masters in SIS do I fulfil the requirements ?
There is also the matter that I'm going to be fully relying on the scholarship's funding, and of course I still can try to apply for a Ph.D scholarship abroad, but I heard it's more difficult to get it.
Getting a PhD in my country would be fairly easy, but that's not something I'm really interested in for several reasons, First the pace and level of research over here is not really that good. Second, I'm thinking an experience abroad might really help me at many levels. And here comes the point I'm not really sure about, does having 2 masters degrees give me a chance at a better job ? or a better chance at getting accepted for a PhD ?
PS : The graduation project I'm working on right now is a mix of Forensics, Security, massive parallel computing and artificial intelligence.
Thank you
EDIT :
Okay, I am to rephrase my question, I'm a passionate learner, I want to have the experience of studying abroad, I enjoy many fields in computer science, my question is, can this actually hurt my career ? personally I don't mind "postponing" its start, as long as it's harmless and I'm doing something I enjoy.

Search the site and you will find many similar questions to your own.

Thanks, I did a check them out, and i thought maybe i could get something more specific for my situation.

I'm not sure you can get a meaningful answer to this question. You ask "is it worth it?" but that depends so much on what is important to you. You ask does a second masters give you a chance at a better job but what kind of a job? If you add all the details, I'm concerned that the question will be closed as being too specific to you (and not helpful to others). Perhaps you could find a way to re-word the question to be more answerable without being too narrow?

Hope this helps.

Why not get the phd abroad after taking the second master's?

That is kinda my Ultimate goal, but I've been told getting accepted for a PhD abroad isn't that easy, especially getting an extended scholarship. Maybe if I get a part time job/summer job there while getting my masters and save enough to afford staying without the need of a scholarship, that would be worth it.

To my opinion you better get PhD rather than second master. It will put you on a different position and it will be easy to find job.

Given your edit, your new question ("can this actually hurt my career") seems to be an exact duplicate of one that's already asked on this site.


text:
A paper with copied material
We recently submitted a paper to a conference. However, I just noticed that one of the collaborators have copied three paragraphs from another paper of mine, though that part is not our main contribution.
He claimed that he has written that part, and he showed his work, but he has forgotten to apply the changes to the final version. I was wondering if I should withdraw the paper to avoid getting flagged as plagiarism or I should wait until the review results are out and then make changes to the paper?

I'd definitely confront your collaborator about this; it should be pretty easy to prove him wrong if he claims he wrote it himself

First, deal with your collaborator, then notify the conference asap. If they figure it out and you then are like "oh, yes, sorry, I know, I will change it." you are in a bad place. Not only did you waste the reviewers time with a version you knew was wrong/has to be corrected, your late excuse might also not seem honest.
If, however, you inform them yourself, apologize for the inconvenience and the mistake and give the corrected version, they might well forgive you.

There are two options.
1) Wait for reviews and then update the paragraphs.
2) Write to the conference chair and explain the mistake, offering a rewritten paragraph, and let her decide what to do.
It's hard to recommend which one to choose. It depends on your risk aversion. I'm tempted to suggest the second one, as it is the safest route, with very little possibility of anything going wrong.


text:
Is it wise to change my supervisor in the late stages of my PhD?
I have been doing my PhD for 3 years, and my supervisor has been a real pain. This has made my life like a hell. His behavious includes yelling, bullying, and demeaning me. He has no regards for me and he does not keep the privacy about my work. Since, other people in our group are all from his country, I am the only one with whom he speaks/yells in English, so almost everybody at school is aware of the situation. His bad manners are not limited to this, it is much worse, but I don't want to write about him, rather I want to write about my problem.
I wanted to change my supervisor in earlier stages of my PhD, but the school suggested only one option whose research area was quite different from mine (We work on similar problems but completely different approaches). Also, because my stipend was sponsored by his grant, I had to apply for another scholarship. In the end, I decided to keep working with the same person (ignoring this bad behaviour) and avoid a new unknown situation.
Later in my PhD, I came to know other supervisors at school and started working with them. Though, I kept working with other professors, and I kept my main supervisor notified about what I am doing. He was also happy, because he could see that I am much more productive. However, his behaviour remained the same. Every time that I talk to him, he kills my motivation and self-confidence.
Now that I have finished 3 years, the scholarship has ran out and the supervisor failed to provide me with any financial support. Unlike him, other professors has been really supportive and provided me with some financial support. I still have a thesis to write and I really cannot tolerate his behaviour. I was wondering if changing my supervisor at this stage is a wise decision. What are the drawbacks of this decision?

Are you asking if it "ethical" which is what you say in the title or if it is "wise" which is what you say at the end of the body. those are two different questions really.

@virmaior Thanks, I changed the title and the body.

I don't see how that fixes it... Now you're just presenting two different questions in both the title and the body.

@virmaior It now contains my main question (wise or not wise). Should I open another question (ethical or not ethical)? Because that one is also important for me.

His behaviours includes yelling, bullying, and demeaning me. — Fire him.

@JeffE OP explained why that wasn't possible.

There is no harm to change supervisor if he is not supportive nor encouraging nor friendly. Because in most of the cases, he is the only person whose recommendation you need to get your next position. So first of all, think how much of your present work can be added to your final thesis if you change a supervisor. If you can add more than 50-60% of your present work, then it would be a great decision to work with another good supervisor who is really supportive and interested to work with you. It is not a good idea to change a supervisor, if you plan to do everything from scratch again as it is already passed 3 years.

I know that changing supervisor has a negative effect on my current supervisor (because of the requirements of his grants). Would this decision make him develop some adversary reaction?

Definitely yes, but if your new supervisor will be supportive enough, then it won't be problem. You should not be think much about the career of your present supervisor who does think about the same of yours. Moreover, you need to build your career, but not to spoil it.

negative effect on my current supervisor — That is so totally not your problem.

@JeffE Yes but I was concerned about the adversary reaction.

@orezvani - Ask a department administrator or veteran professor for advice. // The word you need is "adverse." // Make sure you are solid for the switch with the new professor before you burn your bridges by telling Advisor #1.

This problem is actually quite common. My advice is to try and get a new supervisor. It is pretty clear to me that the situation with your current supervisor is only going to get worse, not better. You can’t change someone’s personality. I know two graduate students who changed advisors at a late stage in the program. In both cases the students were popular with other professors in the department. This support base (and other things) convinced the department chair to let the students in question make a change. If you have a good relationship with the department chair go to them first. If not, speak with other professors who you are on good terms with and explain the situation to them. Get these people behind you and then speak to the chair. Good luck.

Case 1. A supervisor calls up his PhD student in the middle of the night and tells him: "You are full of **** and you will get a PhD over my dead body." (Both were friends of mine, and sad to say, the supervisor was correct in his assessment but obviously wrong in how he handled this.) The student changes to a less discerning supervisor at a different uni and enters a career not as a PI but as research manager (suiting his people skills).
Case 2. A PI is a rubbish supervisor in every possible way. One of their students walks into my office with a technical question, which I answer in a strictly technical manner (as behooves me) and a week later she comes back to ask if I will be her supervisor. It is at this point that I learn who her current PI is, and knowing his temperament, I confer with the departmental PhD tutor to learn that indeed, the PI has already embarked on a defamation campaign against me, before I have done or said anything about a possible takeover.
So things can work out, but they can also backfire - badly. Within an institute the leadership almost always sides with the party that is most difficult to get rid of (i.e. not the student). So it's best to find a new supervisor at a different university.


text:
Apply for assistant/associate professor at same institution as postdoc?
This was a conversation I was having with a colleague earlier today. He was offered a postdoctoral position and doesn't want to move after that. It's a very highly regarded university so it's understandable that he doesn't want to leave, but it made me wonder how common this is. Do postdocs frequently advance in the ranks at the same university or is it still the norm to go to school A for PhD, school B for postdoc, and school C for professorship?

It's not common to stay at the same university after doing a postdoc.  When you do a postdoc somewhere, you can certainly apply for a faculty position there afterwards, the same as anyone else, and you might get it.  The fact that the department is familiar with you and your work could be a modest advantage, but there may be disadvantages as well.  For example, the university already has someone in your general area, namely your postdoctoral supervisor, so they may feel less need to hire you as well.
Without some special reason to think otherwise, the chances of being hired at this university are probably roughly the same as they would have been had you done a postdoc somewhere else.  That generally means they're low.  In most cases, you can't just pick a university to focus your attention on and hope to get a faculty job there.  Even if you're qualified, many other applicants will be as well, and some may be even more so.  Of course you may be exceptionally accomplished, or in a hot field in which recruiting is very difficult.  If that's the case, then you may be in a strong position to stay, but otherwise it will take a lot of luck.
Another way to look at it is by counting.  Most major research universities hire a lot more postdocs than faculty members.  (An average faculty member will supervise quite a few postdocs over the years, but the university isn't growing exponentially.)  Probably most of the postdocs would like to stay, but there just aren't enough faculty positions to hire them, even if nobody were hired from outside.  In other words, it's the same argument as for why most graduate students can't expect to find faculty positions at institutions comparable to the one they graduated from.

Makes sense, that's what I thought would be the case (unless there's a situation akin to your supervisor retiring).


text:
How to respond to a two very different referee reports?
So, I just received my manuscript back from a journal and the editor said that I should "make the moderate revisions necessary as outlined in the referee reports and then send back the final manuscript".
One of the referees gave grammar, structural and content advice, while the other one said he does not believe this manuscript expands the current body of knowledge.
These are vastly different reports and the editors wording makes it seem like the paper is "nearly finished". How should I handle the referee reports? Obviously, I will make the straight forward corrections that ref 1 asks for, but:
How should I respond to a referee who believes the content of a paper contains no expansion of the current scientific knowledge in a field?

Follow carefully the indications of the editors, and to the best of your ability try to follow the ones by the referees. Usually both agree and so there is no conflict. When there is, then the editor's opinion wins, as they are the ones with the power to decide whether your manuscript will be accepted or not. That being said, it is wise to not ignore the comments from the referees even if they seem to have been ignored by the editors. If the referee claims your work does not add anything new to the field, what would you answer? I would try to see it as a valid criticism and answer it the best I could. Think that this kind of question can come also in e.g. a conference! In that context what would you answer?

To me the comment that your paper appears not to extend the current body of knowledge indicates that your contributions are not clear. Add a paragraph, or more, to explain explicitly what is that the article adds, and why it is worth readers' time. Carefully contrasting the proposed work with the related work that the readers' are familiars with helps as well. For example, X solves problem Y, but fails at Z. Out method extends the ideas from X to handle problem Z as well.

And always assume that the reviewers will read both your rebuttal letter and the revised manuscript, and that you will meet them at the next conference.

Thank you everyone, this has provided all provided a lot of clarity!


text:
Can a supervisor extend the paper and change the order of authors?
Background: In my area, people extend their conference paper to a journal version by adding only 30% contribution. This means that you get a second paper, with the same content (introduction, related works, motivation, etc). Secondly, the order of authors matter in my area.
Story: I published a conference paper, which is one of major contributions to my PhD, and I planned to prepare an extension of that paper to be submitted to a journal. However, I postpone the extension, as I was busy with my other projects (also related to my PhD). Recently, my supervisor has secretly given the (almost) extended paper to another person to do the extension and has submitted it with a different order of names.
My supervisor and the person who extended the paper did not tell me anything about it and kept everything secret, until the last minute of submission. Although my supervisor knew that I had planned to do the extension, he ignored all my previous efforts. He even sent my already extended version to this person. However, I should acknowledge that both of them had minor contributions to the initial paper, but I am not sure if that gives them the right to extend it.
The question is whether my supervisor had the right to do so? He knew that I have planned to do the extension (as I had already extended some parts of it --I added 4-5 pages of a proof of a theorem and extended experiments).

I have two questions. (1) What's your field? Theoretical Computer Science? (2) What was the reason you did not have the 4-5 pages of a proof of a theorem in your conference paper? Thanks.

To be clear, are you saying that the supervisor submitted a paper, on which you were an author, without getting your approval of the final version (including author ordering)?  That is the major ethical breach here, in my view.  He has no right to submit a paper until all the authors agree it is ready, and that includes all of them agreeing on author order.  Up to that point, it might be discourtesy or bad management practice, but not unethical publication.

@scaaahu (1) compter science (database), (2) the conference paper in my area like CIKM are at most 10-12 pages, and people don't care much about your proofs.

@dan1111 The person who did the extension is the first author and I am the second one.

@NateEldredge Yes, and to be honest, I would not agree with the content neither (the same as the authors order). The extension was basically minor modification of what I had done. Parts of that ethics is that supervisor is supposed to keep my work confidential, not giving my work to others for extension, while I am counting on it. Is this right?

Some minor comments. A) Everybody needs to publish papers. You, your advisor, the other co-author B) Everybody needs to publish papers fast C) Journals may require 12+ months to accept a paper D) Many people need to publish co-authored papers fast and then they focus on their core work, i.e, leaving other co-authors wait for you is not nice. In this sense, although I agree that changing author order was not very nice, you also made a mistake for postponing a work that others also depend on it.

One possible model is "the project belongs to the lab".  Just because you started the project does not mean you own it - the priority is to get it done, and the PI might assign different parts to different people to achieve that most efficiently, so long as the final authorship reflects who actually did what.  I don't see that as unethical.

So, basically, you did not bother to finish the journal article, and are surprised that your advisor found another way to get it done? And was it really 'secret', or did you ignore the hints that it should get done? At some point, advisors stop telling you what to do, and you are expected to get things done.

@JonCuster Well, this is not true. I had already extended some parts of the paper and I had a plan to finish it. The supervisor ignored my plan, shared my draft with someone else and did not mention anything about it (it actually was a secret). Of course, I prioritised my works and I was busy with another project at that stage (so I wasn't goofing around doing nothing).


text:
Should I mention (double-blind) submitted conference paper in CV?
I am from computer science field specifically from Computer Vision field. I need suggestion if I should list my paper which I submitted but not yet got any acceptance/rejection. I am more confused due to the fact that the conference's review process is double blind. I would not include that in my CV, but true to say my CV is not so rich yet with publications.

"I am more confused due to the fact that the conference's review process is double blind." - why? Please explain why that is relevant in the described question.

The biggest factor here is the stage of your career. If you're a grad student, for whom a single submitted paper might be a very large fraction of your research output. it's OK to mention it in a CV, provided you're upfront about its submitted status. However, beyond that it's counterproductive, and should be avoided.

This makes sense, but still the question is, would that violate the double-blindness of review process?

My experience is that "yes, it can be helpful", especially if you have good reasons to think that the papers could be accepted.
When applying to both of my postdoc positions I mentioned submitted papers in my CV. It just happened that these yet-unpublished papers were more relevant to what the positions were looking for, compared with the rest of my publications. The admission committees were apparently interested in these submitted-only papers, and had questions about them either during the interview or at some point during the admission process. In one case I proactively emailed the responsible faculty member to notify him that the paper was accepted (we had had an email exchange before, so it felt natural to update him). Overall, I think that having these papers visible in my CV helped me to get the positions.
A couple of obvious caveats:

Make sure the submitted-only papers are very cleary
distinguishable from the rest; put them in a different section at
best.
If the papers end up being rejected before you have the
admission interview, having them may reflect on you negatively.

The question is, would that violate the double-blindness of review process?

Applying for jobs is the one time that listing submitted papers (or grants) may make sense.  You may more effectively communicate who you are, and also who you see yourself becoming, including who you are working with.  That could be useful to the committee.
If you choose this strategy very clearly flag it.  I would preface the item by unpublished (bold face) and follow it by "under review by [journal/conference name]," "to be submitted to [name]", or even, just "in prep".  I would also clearly state in the cover letter that I'd taken the unusual step of including unpublished papers and why (e.g. to show that I was working on moving into the areas of interest to the committee, or that would qualify me for the recommended criteria for the position.)  I'd also say when I expected to learn about whether the papers were accepted, so that they could ask about that in the interview or what not.
It's good that you worry about the double-blind review process, but a job is IMO more important than a single publication, so it's worth risking having to resubmit it somewhere. It's probably fairly unlikely your CV will be seen by one of your reviewers (unless you're applying into the lab of someone who might review it).
What you might worry about more is whether the committee will believe you (there's no way to verify claimed in-progress publications), or whether they do not think it's right to include unpublished papers.  Most committees like as much information as possible, but some view anything deviant as suspicious.  As with any job application question you should always ask the person named in the advertisement for "informal queries" about this sort of thing.  That's exactly what they are listed for.
Also, contacting the assigned contact point with a sincere question improves the chances they will notice your CV.  If nothing else, they know you can follow instructions and are communicative, both important skills in academia.

No, submitted conference papers do not go on a CV (irrespective of the review process). To the extent that getting a paper accepted at a competitive conference is valuable, that value comes from being accepted. Anyone can, after all, submit a paper to any conference or journal.
You can list your paper under an In Progress section. This is particularly valuable when you have a version of the paper available that you can link to. Without a link to a paper, it's difficult to guess what stage the project is in, but it can still be a good way to show what you are working on if you don't yet have related publications.

This may be field-specific. What field are you in?

Economics, but I'd think this holds for all fields. Anyone can submit a paper to any conference, after all. To the extent that getting into a particular conference is competitive and prestigious, it gains value only once the paper has actually been accepted.

I'm from CS as well, and no, a submitted paper for a conference really doesn't have anything to it.

I disagree with this answer.  I have always listed submitted papers in my CV, together with a link to the submission.  I agree that listing a conference submission alone is pretty useless, but actually providing a link to the paper and stating its intended publication venue is not. (Note: My subfield doesn't have double-blind reviews.)

I think it changes once you have a paper publicly available, in which case it's valuable as in progress work. I'm editing my response to account for that. Although I still wouldn't list it as "submitted to conference X."

Yes, you can. But you have to be more careful.
In my CV, I have a separate sub-section under Publication, called "Pre-prints/Working Papers". In which I have added all my submitted papers.
For each submitted paper, I add the author name(s), title of the paper, and instead of the conference name, I just mention "Submitted to major CS/ML/CV conference, under review.


text:
What citation / reference styles explicitly tell the reference's type?
Is there a - or more properly are there (considering the excessive amount of syles existing) - reference/citation styles which have the following feature?
In the reference the type of the reference is explicitly mentioned, i.e. it is stated explicitly as a word in the reference.
To make this clear find some examples below:

a book

Authorlast, Authorfirst. (2015) The meaning and importance of citations in science. Publisher: Publishlocation. [BOOK]

or journal

Authorlast, Authorfirst; Coauthorlast, Coauthorfirst. (2015) Suggestions for more traceable reference lists. In Journal of Ergonomic Academia, 34(2), 23-34. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]

or book chapter

Authorlast, Authorfirst. (2015) Title of book chapter. In Editorlast, Editorfirst. Title of the book Publisher: Publishlocation. [BOOK CHAPTER]

or webpage

Stack Exchange (2015) Academia Stack Exchange:. Retrieved February 19, 2015, FROM https://academia.stackexchange.com [WEBPAGE]
It would be great to not reinvent the wheel here and invent yet another citation style, which motivates my question. I am sure that it is only in this current phase of multi-media (types) in which new varieties of digital sources of knowledge can found (video, blog entry, manuals, government documents etc.)
Since my hope is that the idea of having citations an reference is the ability to reuse and make traceable knowledge and concepts developed elsewhere the type of the reference would be amply helpful in finding the sources.

What sort of publication are you targeting?  Most places that you write a paper for will have a required citation style...

This is quite off-topic here. You can do whatever you wish basically, you just write it there. If you ask how to do it in LaTeX (BibTeX or biblatex), then the right place is TeX.SX.

@yo' He is asking whether such style exists or not. He is not asking whether it is better or not to cite like that. He is not even asking about a technical feature. I think his question is on-topic for this site. Moreover, it will not be cross posting a question, if he post a question on TeX.SE asking about some technical features of his question there.

@EnthusiasticStudent Such style exist, the OP has just created it. That's the problem: there's no "standard of standards" for citation styles, so whatever you create and satisfies the minimal criteria for valid citations is fine. I've made an answer in this manner.

Well, as you see, such style exists, at least in your question. Remember that while references have to satisfy some minimal criteria, there is not much more rules and the styles vary a lot. So certainly, if you take any widely used style and you add (book), (journal article), (webpage) or whatever at the end of each citation, you create a new bibliography style that complies with the rules. If you really need to distinguish it like this, then what you shown looks usable, just please for Gutenberg's sake, don't make it all-caps.


text:
Putting link of full text of paper in Google Scholar
I have several papers in IEEE Xplore. I have uploaded their pre-print versions in academia.edu. But when I search in Google Scholar, I can't find the links of those I uploaded in academia.
What should I do to show up the link of my free papers alongside with the original published ones in Google Scholar search? Where should I upload the free versions?
I am an undergrad student and I do not have any official website/e-mail.

Do people in your field use arXiv?  That could be a good option.

nope... Is there any other options ?

Be patient.  It may take time for Google to update their index.

If the preprint version of the paper has been indexed by Google Scholar, then Scholar should show that version of the paper as well.  Assuming that it's permissable under the publisher's rules, you could post the paper on your personal web site and Scholar would eventually find and index it.  However, you can't explicitly add anything to Scholar's index.

However, you can't explicitly add anything to Scholar's index - Not strictly true, you can request inclusion of a site, including a personal site.


text:
Best way to politely remove someone from paper authorship who planned to contribute but did not?
(There is a similar question but not exactly.)
When you write a paper, you need various views. So you invite collaborators and it often works well. But assume that out of 5 invited, for example, one or two, don't contribute to the paper much but are kept on the email thread with updated versions of the manuscript.
How do you politely remove them from the author list (paper) and how do you say that politely in email. Do you just send them a separate email or a general "authorship rules" email to everybody?

Please [edit] your post to add a link to the similar question you mention.

Removing people late in the preparation stage of a manuscript is always prone to bad feelings. It is of course unfortunate that this is a fact. This is why it is always a good idea to try to set up some ground rules for authorship (or contributorship). There are many posts under the authorship tag that discusses the Vancouver Protocol which is a set of rules under which authorship/contributorship is determined. I usually provide the link to ICMJE as an example. The basic idea is that to be listed as author you need to fulfil certain criteria. Some have even devised a point system to calculate if a person is worthy of authorship/contributorship.
But, to answer the question when you face the fact. There is no easy answer. You could decide to be strict and simply state that no sufficient contribution has been made (quoting the Vancouver Protocol list). How badly this is received is something only you can evaluate. And, only you can assess if you think it is worth it if the consequences are in some way "high cost". You can also decide to let this one slip through and make sure you have a clear arrangement around the next manuscript you write. I also think it is a good idea to start introducing ideas around authorship/contributorship in your research environment. I am sure many will dislike the topic but you are on safe grounds. Remember, many, maybe I should say more and more, journals request lists of contributorship and provide a basis for evaluating them (usually following the Vancouver Protocol list)

This is an interesting topic. What if the collaborator's contribution was small, but still accomplished the requested work. Would it be correct in this case to remove him/her later from the author list?

@ddiez Then it would seem that it was incorrect to add him there in the first place.

i guess what the OP needs to do is, for each co-author presently on the list, state what each author did contribute and juxtapose the contributing authors with those not contributing.  so that when you tell this non-contributor that his/her name is being removed from the list, this person can see clearly why.  tell him/her that you're sorry to have to do this, but to leave that person's name on the list would not be forthright nor scholarly.

Some journals provide guidance on who to recognise and not recognise for authorship, e.g. ICMJE.  You could also take a look at PhD on Track's page on this topic
You should discuss this issue with the other co-authors.  I'd assume that some might have more experience in this area.  Any such decision needs to be taken with the consensus of the remaining co-authors.
Finally, if the non-contributors did in fact provide some useful input during conversations, etc, then maybe you should acknowledge that in a section after the conclusion.  This is sometimes even done for anonymous reviewers when there has been a couple of iterations through the review process.

Of course, Peter Jansson is correct to define the rules ahead of time.  If you have not, and from your question it is hard to know if you already have authorship order in mind (if this is appropriate for the field), then you could ask to receive contribution statements from each person.
Sometimes, it is hard to gauge others idea of how much they contributed or how other collaborators feel about the others.  Instead of making a direct decision without warning, you could email everyone asking for a contribution statement (as Peter Jansson mentions, some journals will require it).  From there, everyone can see the contributions from the eyes of your collaborators, and some collaborators may willingly mention to take them off as they had little input.


text:
How to answer the question "Why do you deserve a scholarship?" when applying for a scholarship?
I'm in the process of applying for master of "Parallel and Distributed Computer Systems" in VU university. The university requires me to write a letter describing why I deserve a scholarship. I have written this letter multiple times, but every time I read it from beginning to end I feel it contains pride words and I think this will not help me to get scholarship.
Can someone help me to write effective letters like this?

What level of study are you applying for (e.g. undergraduate/masters/PhD)?  The answers might differ a bit depending on this.

@TaraB question updated

Committee must be convinced that the money will be well used. It would look best if you told you would invest the money to become better at the field of your studies (buy literature, go to conferences, pay for some courses or certifications, publishing your articles in journals). However, trying to look perfect could backfire. In my country it would be reasonable if you wrote that part of the scholarship would be spent on something not related to education. But that depends on the country, culture, traditions, committee members etc.
You must also convince the committee that you will do good in studies. That is why you should mention your study results and achievements.
You must convince the committee that you like the field of your studies, you are passionate and will keep working hard. If your studies have helped you at your work, mention that. Also mention your short and long term goals - educational and professional.
You can also mention your strongest characteristics and give arguments. (example: leadership abilities, you lead a student team in project x which was successful. )
The motivation letter as a whole is the answer to the question "Why do you deserve a scholarship?”
edit #1: I changed the part about spending scholarship money on something not education related, because of the comment by Trylks.

"I think it would be reasonable if you wrote that part of the scholarship would be spent on something not related to education." Like buying food and staying alive, then you could say that you want to be healthy to have an optimum cognitive performance, for your education, but committees are not known for their sense of humor, so better don't do that.

@Trylks that is a good point, I edited my answer.

No, sorry, I didn't word that clearly. The scholarship in VU is probably meant to be a sort of salary, so that you can do your "work"/research/studies and survive with that salary (which is just enough for that). So the point to make is explain why you are the best candidate for that "position" and how are you going to bring the greatest glory and fame (through academic performance and merit) to the people/institution/organism/thing "paying" (funding) you (your work/research/studies). In short, basically stating: past achievements, current interests and enthusiasm and other success predictors.

I think one of the main reasons why questions like this are included in scholarship or fellowship applications are to distinguish exceptional candidates from each other. In most programs, a lot of applicants will be quickly eliminated by the selection committee on the basis of various criteria: because they didn't complete the application form correctly, because their previous experience doesn't suggest they'll benefit from this program, because they have access to other funding sources, because they aren't outstanding academically or socially, because they didn't interview well, or any number of other criteria.
However, once that filtering process has ended, the selection committee has a list of exceptional, driven applicants who would clearly benefit from the funding -- but may not have enough funding to support all of them. That's when they start comparing those applications in detail, and that's where an applicant who can demonstrate why they'd be even a slightly better candidate than the others has a better chance of getting funded. This question is an opportunity for you to demonstrate what makes you unique when compared to other exceptional candidates.
In line with this, you don't need to say, "I would benefit from this funding because I have an exceptional academic history and I would be unable to take this opportunity otherwise", because the rest of your application already proves this. Instead, think about the committee comparing you with the best candidate that you can imagine: someone just as smart as you, just as accomplished as you, and someone who would benefit from this funding as much as you. What could you tell the selection committee that would convince them to pick you instead of this other candidate?
Some suggestions:

Are you (individually) particularly suited for this opportunity? Maybe you have previous experience with distributed systems that you can apply to this Masters degree?
Is this opportunity particularly suited for you? Maybe there's a professor at VU you'd really benefit from working with, or maybe their program focusing on some aspect of distributed systems that are really important to you.
How will selecting you benefit your hosts? What is something interesting you could bring to VU that other applicants can't?
How will selecting you benefit your sponsors? Find out exactly what the scholarship's goal is: is it to give students access to opportunities that might not otherwise be available to them? Is it to transfer some skills to your country or community by educating you in those skills? One of the people at my university pointed out that one of the biggest benefits they get from international students is that their local students -- who might not otherwise be able to afford international travel or the chance to work closely with people from other cultures -- could now do exactly that without traveling anywhere! Whatever the sponsoring organization is doing, figure out how sponsoring you will help them advance their goals.

As with all application questions, do not lie or exaggerate, or try to anticipate what the selection committee wants to hear: figure out what's unique about you, and figure out the best way to explain this to them. All the best!

Scholarship is the grant for those students who are either extraordinary and talent or who are unable to pay their college or university fees due to low economic status of family.So the reason differs to individual.And I feel that student need to write their true story seeking for scholarship such as if his/her family cannot pay the sum maybe because of poverty or the individual is extremely good or expert at something and can contribute to the welfare and fame of university.And needless to say, the student need to meet the criteria of scholarship scheme and should write accordingly including their true need of scholarship.


text:
Should I apply to tenure-track positions if I'm fairly certain I won't be staying?
I hope to receive my PhD in Mathematics in May of 2015, so I am currently applying for jobs.  Due to life circumstances, I'm fairly certain that I will only be staying at my next position for about 2 years.  Does this mean I shouldn't even try to apply for tenure-track positions?  Will a hiring committee not even consider me for the position if I'm not willing to commit to staying with them for a certain amount of time?
I would love to get a teaching/lecturing position at any institute of higher education (4-year research university, liberal arts school, community college), but as I look for openings, a lot of them are tenure-track assistant professor positions.  Should I go through the effort of sending in an application, or will that be a waste of my, and the committee's, time?
Thanks for any advice you have!
Edit (to address Nate's comment):
My wife is currently applying for 2 year graduate degree programs in various cities in the US, so I'm applying for jobs in the same cities.  When she finishes her program, we plan to move outside of the US (Africa or Southeast Asia), where I do hope to remain in academia, teaching mathematics to college-aged students.

What'll your answer be to "so, where do you see your research program in 5 years?"

Apply.
If you accept a position, you are committed for the following year. Leaving after two years will disappoint people, but it happens fairly often, and the potential consequences of you not applying to these jobs are perhaps more serious than the potential consequences to the departments if you leave after two years.
Besides, I don't know what your circumstances are, but you are presumably not completely sure you won't stay.

Thank you for this helpful perspective.  You're right to say that I'm not completely sure I'll be leaving.  I'm just not sure how I would deal with any questions about "long-term" plans in the interview.  To be truthful, I would have to suggest that my long-term plans do not include staying with the position for more than a few years.

If it comes up at all, "My wife has been accepted to the graduate program here in XXX, and we definitely plan to stay here for the next two years. As for afterwards, we're not sure yet." Which you're not.

But you might be able to avoid these sorts of questions if you show genuine interest in the programs at the universities where you interview. Ask them lots of questions, and do your homework: show up knowing something about the courses the department offers, and the research interests of its faculty.

Assuming this is a job in the U.S., it's better not to mention your spouse, and the university can't ask whether you are married. I don't think you will help your chances of getting the job by mentioning any of the topics "forbidden" to the interviewers (spouse, children, religion, etc.)

Faculty come and go all the time at universities. Although we may hope a tenure-track hire will stick around for a decade or more, in practice we know many examples of people who have left voluntarily before getting tenure. So the disappointment that your departure might cause will probably not be very significant.  (My personal viewpoint is that it is much better to hire the "best" candidate who applies, even if she only may stay for a short time, than it is to hire someone else just because they will stay longer.)
Regardless of how long you plan to stay, when applying for a tenure-track university you are likely to need to write some sort of teaching statement and some sort of research statement. These will be scrutinized by the hiring committee and neither can credibly say "I am leaving in two years". So you need to develop a plan for the possibility that you will stay in the tenure track position indefinitely, and use that plan when applying.
The bigger concern I have is when you write

I would love to get a teaching/lecturing position at any institute of higher education (4-year research university, liberal arts school, community college),

Those three types of schools are very different, and they are looking for very different types of faculty (and there is a fourth type, "non-research-intensive moderately large public university", with its own idiosyncrasies).  Very few candidates have a vita that is competitive for hiring at even two different kinds of institutions.
If you have not yet started thinking about which sort of institution you want to specialize in, now is a good time. I am in mathematics myself, and I have seen many candidates try an ineffective "shotgun" approach where they apply to huge numbers of schools for which they are not competitive. Remember that even a non-elite school is likely to receive hundreds of applications for a single tenure-track position in mathematics these days. A generic application is not likely to rise to the top.

Thank you for this response!  It is very helpful.  Concerning your "bigger concern": I feel I am best suited for a position with a large teaching load and little to no pressure to publish.  I enjoy teaching (and I think I'm good at it), and could see myself teaching something like calculus for twenty years or more.  Does this information help narrow down my focus in your opinion?  I'm not planning on applying to high-profile post-docs, but if a lecturing position became available at a research university, I feel I could submit a competitive application.  Where do you think I should focus?

First of all, this isn't really answering your question, but you should seriously discuss with your advisor or another trusted senior mathematician about what sort of jobs you should be applying for; even mentioning research universities as a new Ph.D. makes me wonder if you have been told the "facts of life" by someone.  It is much more likely that you'll be able to find a short-term position anyways.
That said, I don't think you should worry about the fact that you want to leave in  2 years.  I can speak from the experience of having left two TT jobs within 2 years of starting.  Of course, it's not something to be proud of, but it does happen pretty often, and I don't think it offends anybody's sensibilities too much.  Honestly, I don't think you need to worry about people asking you about your plans (as long as they don't read this question and follow the link back to your webpage); leaving to move to Africa is so far outside what most people will imagine that they won't even be considering it.  They assume that if you're applying for the job, you're at least thinking at the moment that you'll be in for the long haul.
I think if you do mention your plan to anyone involved, it will hurt you a lot. No one actually wants to hire someone into a TT position who will leave in 2 years.  It's a huge amount of wasted work and money, so I think it's only worthwhile apply to TT jobs if you feel comfortable just not mentioning it.

Thanks Ben.  This is helpful.  Concerning the "facts of life," I think I'm fairly aware of how competitive the job market is these days, and I don't have any grand visions for my first job out of grad school.  A quick follow-up question: do you think that less desirable, heavy-teaching-load jobs are also fairly hard to come by?  Might I have an advantage in the sense that I would willingly and happily accept a job that is mostly or entirely teaching?  Your opinion?  I do have a helpful advisor from whom I'll seek advice.  Thanks again!

Might I have an advantage in the sense that I would willingly and happily accept a job that is mostly or entirely teaching? @Jared In the sense that there are some people who prefer leaving math or taking another temporary job to taking one at a community college.  I don't really know what the applicant pool of, say, a community college looks like.  But I know a lot of people who would be happy taking a teaching-heavy job who have struggled to find a TT position.

To expand on @Anonymous answer, even if you are certain now about what you plan to do in two years, you do not really know what life has waiting for your. In two years your certainties may be very different- and you may regret not having applied for those positions.

You're absolutely right.  I do need to keep this in mind.  Thanks for the input.