text:
PhD in the US compared to Europe
I start my master studies this fall in quantitative finance/economics in Europe. Since this will just take 3-4 semesters I want to take a look ahead and obviously PhD is one option to do.
So I am wondering if it makes sense to go to the US for PhD, since I will have already a master's degree in two years. I read a lot about the US PhD's which can be started after bachelor and therefore are somehow like a European master & PhD combined.
I saw some PhD programmes from well-known US universities and their curriculum contained almost just courses I will already have in my master. Wouldn't that be a waste of time to repeat them? Specially compared to my country (Switzerland) where a PhD duration is between 3-4 years.
Every input/personal experience will be appreciated.

This doesn't answer your question, however, one thing to take into consideration is the cost of universities. In switzerland schooling is free, while in North America it can be very pricey. The cost of 2 years of a 4 year undergraduate can cost you over $20,000 CDN(canadian ~= swissies).

Thanks for your response. You are definitely right, the difference of costs is huge. But actually this is not what my concerns are about since a lot of phd programmes in the US offer assistantship/fellowship.

The following question may be of interest; http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3503/is-it-true-that-it-is-easier-to-obtain-a-phd-in-europe-than-the-us-on-average

I already read this question. It is definitely interesting, but not exactly what i am interested in. The difficulty level does not matter for me because i am aware that in every country there are so many different universities so you cannot promote a general statement for all. I am more interested in the different system of the US and Europe, and if it makes sense to change from the european to the american.

Your reason for pursuing a PhD at a particular institution (whether its in the US or Europe) should be based on what you want to study, who you want to study, etc.
A lot of PhD programs will try to make you repeat some courses if you did not have them at their institute . If you think you have had the material though you should certianly try to have those courses waived.

I am a first year economics student in US.  I don't have my masters, but about 60-70% of our entering class have already completed a master's degree or 2 (the majority of those are even master's degrees are in economics) before beginning their PhD.  So, that being said, I'm not personally sure whether it is a waste of time to repeat them or not, but there is some evidence that it wasn't enough of a waste of time to make it not worth coming.

You shouldn't forget that the PhD program, be it in the US or in Europe, is a long program. You shouldn't choose merely out of academic considerations: don't forget you will be living in that place for a very long time too, not just studying math. Sorry if I'm saying something obvious to you, but I've seen people forget this.

I think in the end it will be a personal choice based on what you want in your career on where you may do your PhD. Based on some of the queries you had in the comparison between a US PhD or a European one, hopefully the following will be of help.
This link is a good page that shows the difference between the system in Europe and the US for PhD. The main reasons from it why a US PhD would be longer is;

The main difference between doing a PhD in the US and most other countries is the coursework component. In the US, there is usually a requirement that PhD student complete at least 2 years of coursework before they start their independent research. This means that a PhD in the US will take longer to complete.

So yes there is a chance that you will be repeating coursework that you have done in your masters, but there is also the possibility that you may be able to get a wavier for coursework already completed.
I know (in Ireland at least, my home country) there is now a move in some universities towards a structured PhD that will include some coursework in year 1.
As per Piotr's comment it is typical that a PhD in Europe is pursed after Master's, while in US it contains Master's. In some cases in Europe it may be possible to go straight from a bachelor degree to a PhD. I know in my own case when starting out my advisor wondered if I would like to apply to complete a PhD instead of a Masters (in History). My sister also went straight from her bachelor to her PhD program (in mircobiology). Both these cases were in Ireland where you normally would have to have a first in your bachelor degree to be able to pursue a PhD directly afterward.
The page also details some other differences, such as how the committees are slightly different in both systems.
The Coimbra Group, an association of long-established European multidisciplinary universities have produced a Survey on PhD Programme Structures and Administration in Europe and North America that has some insightful information as well.

+1 for the link to the survey. And I would add that PhD in (typically) Europe after Master's, while in US it contains Master's.

To add to gman's answer: it's true that in the US, most students enter a PhD program immediately after the bachelor's, but by no means all.  It's not uncommon for a student to have done a master's elsewhere first.  As such, any reasonable PhD program should be used to dealing with incoming students who already have a master's, and be willing to adjust their requirements as warranted.
It would be perfectly reasonable to contact any departments that interest you, and ask them about your situation.  It's very likely they will tell you that they are able to waive requirements that would be redundant for you, or to let you satisfy them in an accelerated manner (perhaps you take an exam or something).  Alternatively, they might have a compelling explanation for why they won't do that (perhaps their program looks similar to your background but is actually different in some essential way).

This is a good answer, bit I would like to emphasize that completing a Masters at a different institution/department prior to entering a Ph.D program will always take longer than just starting the Ph.D program in the United States. Most programs require a minimum number of classes even if a Masters was finished elsewhere.

One caveat, the systems in the various European countries are quite diverse in themselves, although it is custom to pretend all PhD degrees are equal in terms of outcomes.

The difference is that in the US, Bachelor's degrees take longer to obtain (4 years vs. 3 in Switzerland) and it's considered the actual 'college degree', while as you know, in CH1 it makes little sense to stop at the Bachelor's level because is has no value except to give you entry to the Master's (with perhaps the exception of ETH/EPF Bachelors in informatics that can lead to direct employment, and professional schools Bachelors, of course, but they're off-topic).
In the US, in general you go to 'grad school' which describes both Master and PhD studies. Masters are sometimes given to graduate students who wish or have to stop after a few years of grad school for a variety of reasons. As a consequence the Master's degree is less common.
To the point: what you learned as a Master students will not necessarily be redundant with first year graduate courses. And if it is, well good for you, you will just cruise through the exams and enjoy having time to concentrate on research instead of studying. Note that, since recently, most (if not all) Swiss PhD programs have courses requirements as well.
On the other hand, you will most of the time have less (or no) teaching assistant work. And there are incredibly good research groups in the US, some will give you the kind of expertise and exposure that you wouldn't get in a Swiss university. I don't think having to repeat a few courses should be a killing criterion if you are interested in a given research environment.
Also, I don't know much about the economics domain, but for engineering, natural sciences and humanities, the actual time to get a PhD in CH tends more towards 4-5 years than 3-4.
1 CH stands for Confoederatio Helvetica, the multilingual abbreviation for Switzerland. I hold a Swiss PhD and I'm a postdoc researcher in the US.

For who don't know, CH is an another name of Switzerland

Will you say that in the US, there are more research groups in a field (at least in STEM field) than in Europe?

Let me first point some differences that may help you making your mind, between the PhD programs in USA and Canada on one hand, and in Europe on the other.
In US & Canada you go through a structured PhD program, so it'll be pretty much like your current masters in Switzerland. You'll need to take some classes, then you'll have a semester or two to work on your PhD thesis.
In Europe you start right off with your PhD thesis! so you're basically a research assistant, working on your PhD as part of your job as a PhD student, in that case you'll be doing other work as well for your institute. As a scholarship holder you'll be able to work full-time on your PhD.
As for your question: Having the same course names doesn't mean that the content will be same. It could be that more and/or advanced topics will be covered in the PhD programs you came across. If this wasn't the case, you can try to contact the university to see the possibility of equating the courses you already took, this might involve a test by the department to make sure you'll be as qualified in that area as the ones who took their course.
I'd say that a PhD in USA will give you more knowledge through the coursework, you'll get to learn more stuff that you might or might not need. In Europe, since you're jumping directly into your thesis, you'll get more of the academic life and you'll have to learn, on your own, whatever's going to help you with your thesis, which can be difficult at the beginning if you're not self-driven.

Regarding your last paragraph: in Europe virtually all PhD students would have finished a Master's already, which as far as I can see is largely comparable to the coursework part of a US PhD program.

"You'll have a semester or two to work on your PhD thesis": This is a drastic underestimate in most fields.  More typical in the US is 2-3 years of classes and 2-5 years working on your thesis.

This is answered already, but for some reason never straight to the point. If your mind is set to pursue a PhD in the US, just go for it right now (after your bachelor, and before your masters). Once they accept you, you simply go through the courses you needed to go through anyway at your European Masters, but then there are no additional applications, negotiations, hard decisions to make.
You can on the other hand start a PhD in the US after a Masters in Europe, but you will have to negotiate waiving the courses - and it's not granted they will waive them all. Coursework is very comparable, but it will be your responsibility to prove it.
Summary: pursue a Masters in Europe only if you are not sure you want to commit for the next 4-7 years (the PhD length in the US is not fixed, but typically depends on being able to publish original research). The total PhD length may actually be shorter in the US if you work hard.

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


text:
Faculty or industry applications without phd advisor's letter
How is an application for an academic position seen if there is no reference letter from the graduate advisor? Are any of the potential issues for academic positions the same for industry positions? Do industry positions request letters of reference from phd advisors? I'm concerned I will not get a glowing letter from my phd advisor. Is a mediocre letter better than no letter?

Speaking as a faculty member, if you made it as far as the short list and there was no letter from the graduate advisor, the first thing I'd do if I were on the search committee would be call that person and ask (1) why not and (2) for a candid assessment of your potential.

As someone who has served on academic search committees, I would say that you certainly raise a red flag about your application if you don't have your Ph.D. advisor as one of your references.  Not having your advisor as a reference is not a deal-breaker, but it does raise questions.
A couple thoughts for you:
1) Your advisor may have a much different (i.e., higher) opinion of you than you might expect.  They did choose to work with you, after all, and most advisors want their advisees to be successful.  Unless you've done something to cause your advisor to actively dislike you, I'd suggest reconsidering asking your advisor.  Even if the review isn't glowing, it could still be quite positive.  [For example -- I wasn't sure how positive a reference from my advisor would be, but it turned out that he was able to say positive things about my grad-school experience and training that I had neglected to highlight in my application.  His mentioning of those additional skills helped me get my first academic position.]
2) If your relationship with your Ph.D. advisor is especially strained, you may want to address your reasons for not including him/her in your reference list in your cover letter, CV, or some other document that you'd send in with your application.  As an application reviewer, I value honesty -- if you state why you didn't choose your advisor as a recommender from the get-go, it sets a tone that you're not trying to hide anything.  (We've all had tough colleagues and heard horror stories about advisors from friends, so we can understand.)  Be careful not to disparage your advisor too much if you go this route, though -- you never know who on the other end might know your advisor.
Good luck with your applications!

If taking option 2, it would be good to get at least one reference from a different professor in your department. That helps distinguish a problem with the advisor from a job candidate who just doesn't get along with people in positions of authority.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Computer Science, MEng or BSci + MSc in the UK?
In Spain, it is fundamental to do the first 3 years of bachelor and the last two years of master to get a job, so I find very difficult to understand the UK system. I am currently enrolled in Computer Science and I have to find out whether I want to do MEng or BSci.
For what I understand:

with BSci I can later do a master MSci for a total of 4 years
with MEng I can in the fourth year choose master courses but MEng is considered undergrad course

The M in front of Eng is really confusing. I don't want to go into research but I would like to get a greater insight of Artificial intelligence and Big Data, thing that I could do either way choosing MEng or BSc+MSc.
What is the difference between MEng and MSc in the industry? Given that I will spend 4 years any way, should I invest my time in MEng or Msc?

Employer's usually take them to be equivalent because there is such a small difference between them, but strictly speaking a (BSc + MSc) combination is higher than an MEng degree, this is because a (BSc + MSc) corresponds to higher ECTS points than a MEng degree.Undertaking a (BSc + MSc) combination would also take 3 months more than undertaking a MSc degree (at least in the UK).

This report from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK gives a breakdown of what it considered a masters degree to be (See pages 20-23).
In the UK a MSci (Master in Science) is generally a taught postgraduate degree, involving lectures, examination, and a short project. Sometimes you can complete a research MSci, where a longer project is required. According to the UK National Qualifications Framework, masters degrees are classed as level 7 qualifications.
A MEng (Master of Engineering) is usually taken to become a chartered engineer, who is an engineer registered with the Engineering Council in the UK. The follow from the wikipedia page explains that other ways can be used to demonstrate entry standards such as a MSc

The MEng degree represents the minimum educational standard required to become a chartered engineer, but there are other equally satisfactory ways to demonstrate this standard such as the completion of a BEng Honours and a subsequent postgraduate diploma or MSc, or by completion of the Engineering Council Postgraduate Diploma. The UK MEng (undergraduate degree) is not recognized in Canada, USA, India or Europe as a true masters degree since a masters degree in these countries takes a further 1–2 years after a 4 year Bachelors degree.

An MEng is also a level 7 degree under the UK National Qualifications Framework. It is considered a Integrated masters which is explained in the report (link above) as the following (pages10-11)

Integrated master's degree programmes typically include study equivalent to at least four full-time academic years, of which study equivalent to at least one full-time academic year is at level 7. Thus study at bachelor's level is integrated with study
  at master's level and the programmes are designed to meet the level 6 and level 7 qualification descriptors in full.

The UK national qualifications framework can be compared with ones from other EU countries here

Does this show that they are considered to be equal?

While they are not exactly the same they are both considered a Level 7 qualification under the UK National Qualification Framework. You can compare these levels to other EU countries at this link. http://ec.europa.eu/eqf/compare/ie/fr_en.htm

Short answer: They are viewed as both roughly equivalent. MEng (or MSci for other sciences) is a 4 year course. BSc + MSc is 2 course (3 + 1 years).
Longer answer/other useful info: I studied an MSci in Physics not CompSci so there might be some minor differences between the subjects, I don't think they are significant.
Although not directly asked I also feel its import to point out that MSc and MSci in the UK are different (MSc is one year, MSci 4years).
Generally in the UK a single 4 year course is becoming more popular. Of my physics course ~60% did the 4 year MSci, ~10% did the BSc and then an MSc somewhere else and the rest only did the BSc. Now these numbers are only an example and details will depend on course and institution (many lower ranked uni do not offer a combined course).
In terms of content both options are likely to be similar. Possibly the BSc and MSc tends to be slightly more research/project based. Although this is very course dependent. I recommend you research the course syllabus for each option.
The main factor to recommend the MEng is funding. For UK students student loans are generally only available for your first degree. This means subsequent 1 year masters must be funded independently/by a bank loan, which is often prohibitive for many people. As you are a Spanish student I am not sure what the situation is for you. Obviously this is something you may want to consider.
In favour of the BSc + MSc it offers more flexibility. You can chose a different institution or a more specialized course after your BSc. The flip side is you are not guaranteed a place anywhere. Additionally many jobs do not require a masters so it gives you the option to only complete the BSc (someone else might comment on how true this is in CompSci).


text:
Easy subjects with high grade vs tough subject with lower grade
I have about 80% weighted average (years count 1, 3, 5), I am on my third BSc year and I would like to apply for a MSc afterwards in top university.
There are 2 4th year subjects that I really, really would like to take, but they are known to be the most difficult subjects in my university. The alternative is to take the easiest courses and keep the grades up.
I did a calculation that I should have about 64% this year to pass with a first.
Should I risk it? Will anyone really acknowledge this risk I am taking? Is it really worth it?

A class with low grades but with good knowledge is much more useful than a class with grade 100 but no knowledge. Keep in mind what you learn now shape your research knowledge in the near future (i.e. when apply for MSc).

I also need the grades for the MSc or not? I could always audit difficult classes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Should I risk it?

That depends on the particulars: how useful are the easy courses, how hard are the hard courses, ...

Will anyone really acknowledge this risk I am taking?

Yes, the admissions committee will certainly consider what subjects you studied.

While I agree with this answer, keep in mind that some admission committees may have a minimum grade requirement which they can't override. How about taking one of the advanced courses and one of the grade-raising courses? Plus you could still audit the other advanced course if you feel like it.

If you really want to get into top programs, the (not) answer is to take the tough classes and excel in them. At top graduate schools, the average course difficulty will almost certainly be above the hardest undergraduate courses that are available to you. This might be a different story if the classes in question are graduate-level classes.
In terms of graduate admissions, one of the most important factors is not your overall GPA, but your GPA in known-difficult courses (this is obviously more of a factor if you did your undergraduate at a well-known school). Avoiding difficult classes is a bad signal, but so it getting poor grades in them. Okay grades in the hardest classes will probably be neutral to positive depending on the situation and how well-known your undergraduate program is.

by avoiding difficult classes you mean doing the courses of 3rd year in 3rd year over taking master courses in 3rd year?

@graphtheory92 I may have misunderstood the situation (I'm only familiar with US higher-education). Are the classes in question undergraduate or masters-level?

I am sorry I think it is me! So I am in 3rd year and I have 3 options and I can pick all the 3rd year classes and also 4th year classes. In the UK undergrad is 3 years


text:
Are you allowed to do scientific research on a mental disorder, if you have said mental disorder, and it is not registered in the DSM-5?
I have symptoms of a mental health disorder not registered in the DSM-5 called 'maladaptive daydreaming disorder'. In order for this to be able to get into the DSM-5, more research needs to be done on it, by more researchers. I want to do research on maladaptive daydreaming disorder, but I'm not sure if I am allowed to  considering that I personally experience it. Would my research be considered biased, and therefore not be considered accurate?

I'd be surprised if no researcher working on depression has ever suffered from depression themselves.

Is the "diagnosis" of this a self diagnosis or do you have external evidence?

It wouldn't surprise me if >50% of psych researchers worked on something that affected them personally. It's often derided as "me-search," especially when it's like women researching gender or racial minorities researching things that affect them, which is nonsense.

I guess there is bigger risk the researcher's wish may bias the evaluation, but double blind tests could eliminate that.

@AzorAhai-him- it's not clear whether you mean the research is nonsense or the derision is nonsense.

The research will be considered biased or inaccurate (by reasonable people) if and only if the methodology or the interpretation of the results is biased, inaccurate or otherwise flawed. This is equally true whether you're researching something you struggle with on a daily basis, something you've never heard of, or anything in between. Don't be biased and you won't be considered biased. Of course if you have a strong personal investment in some research, then there's a much greater risk of introducing bias into that research, so that's something to be careful of.

Famously, "the neuroscientist who discovered that he was a psychopath": https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/ (spoiler, many people who's brains have this difference can still behave in socially acceptable ways, i.e. "not like psychopaths", although how they mentally arrive at that point may be different).

@user253751 The derision, of course, sorry for any ambiguity.

Whether or not a disease is listed in some manual is irrelevant for whether or not one can or should do research about it. For example, COVID-19 wasn't listed in any general medicine equivalent of the DSM (specifically, the International Classification of Diseases or ICD) -- because it was a new disease --, but it is a disease alright and research on it is both welcome and has proven to be quite useful.
Similarly, whether or not a disease is listed in a manual does not affect the ethical guidelines that govern what research is permissible and if it is, how it has to be conducted.
That leaves the question of whether someone who has a disease is well positioned to do research on it. That fundamentally comes down to whether the person believes that they can be impartial about what they find. Not everything you will find will please you, for example: medications or other treatment plans you are investigating may fail to have an effect, or may actually be detrimental. Or it may turn out to be difficult to obtain sufficient statistical information about whether something works. In such cases, it may be difficult to separate your wishes and desires from what the data tell you.

I understood the question in a more formal sense: e.g., do, say, ERBs or medical journals require researchers disclose that their judgement might be affected by the fact (or belief) that the researcher itself suffers from the condition.

@BorisBukh They do not, that'd be ridiculous.

@AzorAhai-him- Why would it be more ridiculous that the existing conflict-of-interest disclosures? I thought of the latter as protecting not only against fraud, but also against biases.

@BorisBukh Because it's not a conflict of interest nor is it a good precedent to make scientists disclose sensitive medical information to people like that?

IRB/ERBs are only interested in protecting research subjects, not in ensuring that a research design leads to unbiased results.

@WolfgangBangerth Ah, that makes sense. Still it feels like something that should be watched for (but certainly not the most common or worrisome on the list of things that can compromise studies in this age).

@BorisBukh: Imagine if women had to explicitly disclose their gender in order to write sociology papers about issues related to feminism. Would that make sense?

@WolfgangBangerth That's not entirely true, in that ensuring a study is useful is a key element in ensuring the research subjects are protected. Ethical research is always a cost-benefit trade-off; if the research is biased to the extent that the study isn't useful, then the benefit side of the equation shrinks and even modest impositions on the costs side become unacceptable.

@Kevin Or even worse, if women couldn't do reesearch related to pregnancy, breast/cervical cancer, etc. In fact, it's widely believed that the fact that most medical researcher have historically been men has resulted in biased results against benefiting women.

@BryanKrause Yes, that's true. But the IRB isn't watching the researcher to determine whether they are cherry-picking their data (or using unconscious bias to interpret it). They're watching the researcher to ensure that study participants are not harmed. If a study design is sound and useful, the IRB will approve it regardless of whether the researcher's biases might later come into play when assessing the study results. -- -- But I think we actually agree :-)

@Kevin: Yeah, that would be crazy --- next we would be having people declare their pronouns in their professional work!  Such a thing would surely never happen.

The methodological processes in scientific fields exist precisely to give researchers an objective method they can follow to answer questions, without contaminating the research with personal bias.  Presumably, the kinds of psychological research leading to listings in the DSM involves some objective scientific work based on systematic empirical observation of patients or other members of the public, and it ought to be possible to do this research even if you personally suffer from a mental disorder or have some source of bias on the topic.
Psychology is a discipline that has had some difficulties with methodological rigour and practice over the years, and there are various subfields (particularly social psychology) where there is a general view that methodological processes have been poor and substantial amounts of research bias has crept into the field.  If you are interested in this, I recommend reading some papers looking at methodological issues in psychology (e.g., Jussim et al 2016, Jussim et al 2019, Clark et al 2021).
In any case, there is certainly no rule that would make your condition a disqualifying condition for being allowed to conduct research on this topic.  As to whether there will be a perception of bias, that will largely depend on the quality of your methods and the degree to which your conclusions are supported by objective analysis.  The mere fact that you suffer from the condition you want to study would not strike me as a disqualifying condition.  Indeed, I would be highly surprised if there are not already many examples of previous psychological research undertaken by practitioners who suffer from the conditions they are researching.
(As an aside, there is a long-standing speculative theory that the discipline of psychology tends to attract students who have mental problems or disorders; it is one of the major stereotypes of psychology majors.  I'm not sure if it's true, but if it does have an empirical basis then your situation might not be very unusual.)

Just expect your methodology, biases, conclusions, etc. to be examined, critiqued, etc.

That is a given in peer-reviewed academic work.

You can do research on anything you like, for any reason.
That your own acknowledged experience motivates you will not surprise anyone.
A web search for your topic produces many links to what seem to be respectable sources, so any useful contribution you can make will probably be recognized by that community.

"You can do research on anything you like, for any reason." Beware of phrasing: Dr. Mengele may overhear you.

@R.M. The problem with Mengele wasn't what he was researching, but how he did it.

In my research ethics training, I was taught that there are research questions which cannot be ethically studied, no matter the methods or conclusions.  The example the trainer gave was "Do different races have different intelligence?"  It does not matter what answer you obtain to that question; someone is likely to do something unethical in response to the answer.

There is no problem in researching something that isn’t in the DSM, other than possible funding issues.
Researching a disease that you suffer from might create a conflict of interest — that doesn’t mean you can’t do the research, it just means you need to report the conflict so that others can give your research extra scrutiny.
Research shouldn’t be rejected because it’s biased, but rather because the methodology is flawed or fraudulent. All research is biased in some way or another, bias is inescapable, science is in part about making bias irrelevant, by making the results repeatable and/or explicable.

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


text:
How to contact a potential graduate supervisor who is on sabbatical?
I am trying to manage graduate advisor before I can start my grad school application. There is this particular professor from this university whose research interest aligns with mine. However, this professor is on sabbatical until Dec, 2022 (I am trying to get admitted to fall 23). During this leave the professors takes leave from all kinds of institutional activates (that's what I understood by googling).
Will the professor answer to any graduate position inquiry or should looking for other professor in other university would be ideal option?
What are your suggestions? Thank you.

Have you tried their regular university email? Most professors read that even when on sabbatical. f you get no response after a reasonable wait, try @Buffy 's suggestion.

I've responded to such inquiries, both on and off sabbatical.  But I'm sure other professors have ignored such inquiries even when not on sabbatical.  Both your email/request and the application process itself (e.g., applying to departments vs professors) affect this.

@EthanBolker I did sent email a professor recently to their university mail who is on sabbatical, and got automatic reply that she is on sabbatical. Yeah, I will give Buffy's suggestion a go. Thanks.

I suggest that you ask their department how they can be effectively connected to. They may need to put you together with the professor.
In most cases, I think a professor would be glad to entertain your request, but you might need to have them pinged from an address they are unlikely to ignore.
I wouldn't ignore the possibility that you can make it happen, but stay flexible.

Did you mean "can't" make it happen?

@AzorAhai-him-, no, but might work that way also.

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


text:
I rejected PhD offer and now I want it
I rejected a really good PhD offer for another offer, but now I feel guilty and I want to join the first one. I know that the situation may be irreversible due to the fact that it has been passed 1month (but the position still remains open, as I saw in website).
I know that a made a terrible mistake.
Do you have any recommendation to help me?
Thank you

There is no harm in asking, is there? The chances of success will depend on different aspects (how you communicated with the people involved so far, how such positions are usually filled in the country you live, if other candidates have applied, etc.).

I am confused about the word “guilty” in this question.

There are actually two issues if you have accepted another offer. You need to turn down one to accept the other. That will cause disruption at the place you accepted and, depending on timing, possibly leave a position open there.
But, you can ask, certainly. Both places need to agree.
I'll suspect, however, that it is just a case of "buyer's remorse". You had reasons, in the past for your decisions. They are most likely still valid. If so, you would probably turn out fine if you just let it go and stay with the one you accepted.

Buyer's Remorse: I bought the Ferrari, but shoulda got the Lambo.

"You had reasons, in the past for your decisions. They are most likely still valid." - this is the question that OP needs to ask - are these reasons still valid? I am not sure I agree with the "let it go", because it is not clear what caused OP to change opinion, and without information, I feel there can be no conclusion. But Buffy's test is the absolutely correct one: +1 for this sentence alone.

I would certainly make sure you can still obtain the rejected position BEFORE 'leaving' the one that you accepted.  If they allow you to accept it, I personally feel this is OK, and you inform the other employer, if not, your other employer doesn't need to know about it.


text:
What are some metrics to rank conferences?
I have a fair bit of idea by now that journals are ranked by their impact factor, and authors by their citation index, or sometimes h-index. However, similar to this, how are conferences ranked?

Note that ranking journals by, e.g., citation index, may not actually yield useful information. For example, Physical Review Letters intentionally does not chase a high impact factor, yet is still a premier physics journal. When measuring something, always be sure to fully understand how what you are measuring is meaningful, else you are deeply violating Deming's quality principles.

"authors by their citation index, or sometimes h-index" - note that some of the reasons listed in my answer to another question also apply to authors to some extent.

I have problems with CORE's: "updates processed from time to time by a subcommittee established as needed". This process seems random. Conferences/workshops gets listed, and then not followed up on.

There are multiple rankings for Conferences:
H5-index:
H5-index is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 complete years. It is the largest number h such that h articles published in 2010-2014 have at least h citations each.
(Available at: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng).
ERA (2010):
This conference ranking has been created as part of the Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA). The ranking was created by Australian deans and the Australian Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE). The rankings range from A (=best) to C (=worst).
(Available at: http://www.conferenceranks.com/).
Qualis (2012):
This conference ranking has been published by the Brazilian ministry of education and uses the H-index as performance measure for conferences (Computer Science). Based on the H-index percentiles, the conferences are grouped into performance classes that range from A1 (=best), A2, B1... B5 (=worst).
(Available at: http://www.conferenceranks.com/).
CORE (2014):
The CORE Conference Ranking is an ongoing activity that provides assessments of major conferences in the computing disciplines. The rankings are managed by the CORE Executive Committee, with updates processed from time to time by a subcommittee established as needed. CORA metric for each conference and workshop is calculated by a mix of indicators, including citation rates, paper submission and acceptance rates, and the visibility and research track record of the key people hosting the conference and managing its technical program. Based on the CORA percentiles, the conferences are grouped into performance classes that range from A* (=best), A, B, C, Australasian, and Unranked (=worst).
(Available at: http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/).
Update: CORE 2017 is recently available

Please note the source for details on the Qualis system is specific for computer science. Other fields might use different percentiles.

Unranked does not mean "worst" it simply means the following: Unranked - A conference for which no ranking decision has been made (from: core website)


text:
Telling prof how summer went
I wanted ask how you guys would go about sending a prof/advisor about how a summer abroad trip went? I have a close professor that I have and would like send them a little email about my summer abroad trip.

What do you want to communicate, and why/what is your goal?

What kind of trip? Was it a business trip, such as a visit to a conference, a visiting research position, or a summer internship?

What is the issue?   Does the professor have some odd personality?

Be polite, be brief, and if you have an "ulterior motive", be very clear about any points where you want a response or any specific information you want the person to remember (eg if you want them to write you a letter).
Example (I am clearly making up a lot of details, including that you've already asked this person to write you a letter, but this is just to give you an idea)
Dear Professor X,
I just wanted to let you know that I had a great and very productive trip to Hogwarts. I was able to collaborate with Prof McGonagall and we are preparing a manuscript about the applications of transfiguration to elliptic curves. I would be more than happy to send you a copy if you would be interested, especially if it would be useful for you to look at a copy when writing a letter of recommendation for graduate schools. Thank you as always for your advice and support.
Sincerely,
Lily


text:
Switching Phd topic (and advisor)
I am a PhD student in computer science. My current advisor was also my masters advisor, and I stayed with him for a PhD because back at the time the research I did under him was interesting for me.
Two years into the PhD, after talking with friends from grad school and exploring different fields in CS, I found myself increasingly drawn into a different topic. I waited for a while, just to make sure this is not a "whim", but a real change in my interests.
At this point I am absolutely sure that new field is what I want to do (and also in terms of after the PhD).
My current advisor cannot advise me in this new field, since this is not his field. I talked to the dean of my department, and he said that in this case it makes sense to find a new advisor, and just move.
I am ok with starting over after two years, but I really feel bad leaving my advisor, after they spent so much time and effort in me. They funded me for the whole time, helped me navigate through the university bureaucracy, helped me to get scholarships (the last one is a pretty big one which I just received, and it made me feel so bad to accept it and leave. Needless to say, when I applied for it I did not know that leaving my advisor would be the option suggested by the dean).
I do not have one sharp question, but I need advice: how common is it? Should I offer to return the scholarships? How should I present it to my current advisor? (they don't know about me planning to leave, but it won't be a surprise for them at this point)

Where are you in the world? What sort of "scholarship"? - is it tied to a particular project?

Outside of the US, closer to Europe. Some of the scholarships were for academic excellence (and my advisor recommended on giving them to me), and some of them were from a lab focusing on the previous topic (but these scholarships do not tied to any specific project).

Are these funds for future work or those you've already received for your past work?

To be honest, I am not sure. My advisor sees it as a general reward for being a good student, and not as a reward for a specific project. The most recent scholarship might be given to me for future work.

How long  would it take to complete the current track? How close is the new subfield to the current one?

It will take two years to finish the current track. The new field is very far - I may even need to switch departments

Ok; the way things work in the US, where I am most familiar, is that as a grad student you are paid for some position, for doing some work. That work might be teaching, it might be research, or it might be from a fellowship. The latter is most like a "scholarship" in that it's funding the student rather than the research project, though there's often also a project attached (but there can be a lot of freedom in changing this). My understanding is most of Europe is somewhat similar at least in that PhD funding comes through holding some sort of "job"...

...your scenario sounds more like you're getting handed bags of money at irregular intervals, which seems quite unusual to me. I suspect you'll need to be more specific about where exactly you are so you can get an answer from someone familiar with that context.

Just to make it clear - I did not get so much money. I got money for doing research and teaching, but in addition to that I received one award for excellence in research, and one scholarship from a fellowship. Both were thanks to the advisor's support (for one of them he could only choose one of his students to apply)

@gnometorule this is not the case. I have connections in the new field, as well as papers I wrote (which were submitted and are under review). So not a loose connection at all

Switching advisors is common, but not extremely common. There are hundreds of reasons for it, but wanting to do a different topic is likely one of the rarer ones, especially if it results in lost time to completion. Even changing universities to find a better/more compatible advisor happens often enough. There are some bad advisors out there, but it isn't an extremely common occurrence.
If your time to completion is reasonably short, I'd suggest you just continue in the short term. You seem to have a really good advisor, which is a big plus and not guaranteed if you switch.
If the new track is somewhat similar to the current one, especially in research process, then you can certainly take it up in the future when you have a secure position. You aren't locked in to the topic of your dissertation through your whole career. The question is when is the best time to make a change. Usually that means early, if possible, but not if it delays your career. Think long term.
But for the case where the new field is very different, then staying where you are may just be wasting time. But think about the research process in the two fields. In mathematics and in history they are very different. In mathematics and CS they can be similar or quite different. The doctorate will give you skills in process, not just in topic.
But the bottom line advice is to consider your own needs and career, not the feelings of your current advisor. It is you that will live with the decision and most advisors will understand that you and they might have different goals.

Thanks. The main reason I want to move is that my current advisor is more applied, while I want to do more math/TCS. It means that in terms of getting skills - as you wrote - staying where I am right now would mean having a disadvantage. For example, when I write a proof, they cannot read it and give a valuable feedback (as they admit).

On the other hand, finding someone else who would read and comment on your proof is way easier than finding a good advisor. Maybe many of your issues can be solved by extending your collaboration network.

I tried that. But my current advisor demands to be a coauthor on any paper I will write while I was under his supervision, which is acceptable thing in his original community but not in the community I want to move to. New collaborators don't agree to that

Frankly speaking, new collaborators shouldn't ban people you add as co-authors, I find it odd. The advisor might be forced to show involvment in your matters (e.g., by being a co-author) if money spending is concerned, for example.

Depends on which community. In some communities, being a co author when you did nothing but paying is considered unethical.

Even in this case it is not my collaborator's job to oversee my ethical decisions, really. Then they should bring money instead. But it's quite an offtopic, sorry. I am just suspicious of people who want to have a bit too much of a control over my part.


text:
Why don't Russians see cheating as something that must be eradicated?
This is a counterpart question to How is cheating viewed in Western universities and why is it seen as such a big deal?
To me it seems obvious that the direct goal of any exam or test is to check the knowledge of the student. The time and effort spent in preparing, taking, proctoring and checking the test is made useless if the student cheats as the whole purpose is destroyed. It would seem surprising that someone can take the opposite for granted.
However, from personal experience in work with students coming from Russian schools, I know what the OP in the other question means. When caught in plagiarism, Russians generally brush it off nonchalantly with a "ok ok, I copied that one". It is indeed seen by the majority of Russian students that cheating is a natural part of education.
Why don't Russians see it as a capital offence against the test? Why is cheating and plagiarism seen as a game or a challenge?
P.S. Of course: not all Russians.

I have a question about this idea. Is it Russians or is it a "feature" of Russian society that certain disadvantaged subgroups (ethnic/religious discrimination) has led to undesirable outcomes. I've known of some such groups that "stick together", helping one another on exams and such, even to the point of a secret "cough/sound language" to communicate during exams.

@Buffy, let me assure you, your assumption is wrong. Unfortunately, I'm Russian. And - taking the opportunity - I am apologizing for whoever reads it for all the evil we, Russians, have brought to the world. I have graduated from one of the best Russian universities with a relatively good score. I can justify firsthand to anyone that there is no "disadvantaged subgroups" aspect whatsoever to Russian culture of cheating. It was so utterly embarrassing to read the original cited question. It is with a great remorse and shame I confirm that it is who we, Russians, are.

my answer to the linked question in fact belongs here

I think that, at its core, this question is a sociological one rather than one for this forum.

The answers to the linked question adress this question as well. Voting to close as duplicate.

FWIW, in Poland (which, like Russia, belongs to the Eastern Europe) cheating is also tolerated - to the point that it is rarely, if ever, called directly "cheating" ("oszukiwanie"), but an euphemism is used instead ("ściaganie", literally "taking off"), both by students and teachers.

The best answer is given here, and I subscribe to every line of it. Here is one observation, which I find especially astute:
"On the other side of the iron curtain, cheating "the system" (be it your boss, the government or the grocery store) is really, really morally different from doing the same to people equal to you (friends, family, direct contractual partners or even an unknown person on the street). The former is acceptable and sometimes approved, the latter is not."
To this, I would only add that in much of the Eastern Europe there has always been a chasm between the officialdom and the people. The people never expected anything good from the "system". Hence the long-entrenched mindset: respect your fellow man, but feel free to cheat the authorities -- be it fiscal services, or the police, or a university, or just anything coming from the government. They are not your friends.


text:
Poster Presentation at a Doctoral Training event
I am attending an international doctoral training event in an area of physics that matches the area of my PhD. We have been asked to produce a poster for the event, which mentions including any results you have or simply just a poster on your project itself.
I was wondering if anyone has been through similar to this and has any advice on how to construct a suitable poster for such an event that is based just on a project rather than actual results that have been obtained.

The answer correctly focuses on content of the poster.  For help on the form, a search on "preparing scientific posters" finds a lot.  Be sure to check the work of Colin Purrington for templates in addition to advice.

When you say project, do you mean NSF (or similar) funded project?  Then make a poster based on the solicitation you send to NSF. Otherwise, imagine that you want to persuade a funding agency to give you money. You will have to explain what you are going to do and why it is interesting. That's what your poster is about.
You should be able to find old posters lying or hanging around to give you some idea how they work. Usually, posters try to convey information in too much detail and are therefore hard to read. A good poster makes it easy to see (not at one glance but within a few seconds) where the project is located in the spectrum of your discipline. In the case of a project you need to tell what it is and why it is important. You also need to say how it is going to be attacked. Do not assume that viewers know too much about your field, but do not assume either that you need to explain electromagnetism either. If you can, a good illustration spares many words.


text:
Is comminit dot com a scam site?
I recently published an open-access paper. Shortly after, someone from the 'Communication Initiative' reached out, regarding a 'summary' of the paper which they would like to share, asking me if I'd care to 'review' it.
The 'summary' turns out to be a large chunk of the content of the paper, probably about 90% identical to it. For reference, the full paper is here and the summary here.
I can't easily discern if this is some kind of scam or other shady business, or just someone who did a lazy job summarizing a paper. For example, why are they asking me to 'review'? Is that some legal trick so they can claim I co-authored the 'summary' so it doesn't infringe upon copyright?
Is anyone familiar with comminit and know if they're shady?

The summary is around 800 words long.  The paper is 19 pages long and contains 8 figures, 1 table, 4 appendices, and a list of 72 references not in the summary.  Why do you think the summary is "a large chunk of the content of the paper"?

Large relative to the size of the summary.

The summary is "large relative to the size of the summary"?

Out of the 800 words that constitute the summary, a large chunk of those 800 words are directly copied from the paper, is that clear enough?

Yes, thank you.

THE ORGANIZATION THAT PUBLISHED THE SUMMARY OF YOUR ARTICLE
Although a bit difficult to find, summary information about the Communication Initiative Network is provided at their website:
https://www.comminit.com/global/content/overview-communication-initiative
The Mission of the effort is described as follows:

“Convene the communication and media development, social and
behavioural change community for more effective local, national, and
international development action”

More insight into the organization and what it seeks to do comes from a description of the Executive Director, Warren Feek, at the website:
https://www.comminit.com/global/content/warren-feek

“Warren Feek is Executive Director of The Communication Initiative
Network and Partnership, a network of 100,000 people using media,
communication, social and behaviour change strategies to address
priority local, national and international Development issues.”
[bolded for emphasis]

It is hard to tell how the organization is funded and managed, but the partners page lists a large number of legitimate organizations in the international development field as partners.
https://www.comminit.com/global/ci_partners
These organizations include, the World Health Organization, the Wellcome Trust, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs (CCP) and many many others.
The network seems to publish/publicize research on a variety of topics related to international development, including but not limited to health.
THE SUMMARY OF YOUR ARTICLE
There appears to be chunks of text in the summary that are reproduced from the original article verbatim.  Some of this identical text is delineated with quotation marks; some is not.
A single (elegant) Figure from the original article is reproduced twice in the summary.  In one instance, the original article is cited as the source for the figure; in one instance, the original article is not cited.  It is unclear whether permission to reproduce the Figure should have been obtained.
Your question about violating copyright seems apt.
It is not clear why they have asked you to “review” the article (and presumably approve or not approve it).  At this point (2/11/2022), the material exists at the website without your having approved it.
Accessing the summary directly, it would be easy (IMHO) to conclude that the summary was authored by the authors of the original paper (you and your co-author).
BOTTOM LINE / OPINION
This is a legitimate organization that “publishes” and/or "publicizes" summaries of content taken from other journals.  There does not appear to be an obvious profit motive in publishing and/or publicizing the summaries.
Exposure of previously published material by this organization at its website might bring it to attention of policymakers (or other interested parties) more quickly.  This is an opinion.
“Approving” the “publication” of the summary that has problems with attribution might make a problem for you and your co-author, especially given the fact it is easy to conclude that you and your co-author (authors of the original paper) also authored the summary. This is an opinion.

"the partners page lists a large number of legitimate organizations in the international development field as partners" - do all those listed reputable organizations actually endorse the one being suspected of shady behavior here? From your helpful summary, it (comminit) reeks of scam even more: using big names and figures is surely a hallmark of your typical shady business, especially in academic space.

@Lodinn S Impossible to tell from the website.  I agree that it has the hallmarks of the shady business of reproducing content that the business does not own without appropriate permissions.  And I suspect that someone (not the authors) is making money somehow.


text:
Peer review: Dealing with vague/open-ended/out-of-scope questions during review
I recently received some reviewer's comments on a paper I have under review.
One reviewer (out of three) in particular has raised a large number of points. Some are very clear and target specific weaknesses in the paper (like 'do uncertainty calculations there' or 'are the findings robust to alternate choices of paramets x', etc).
However, a number of issues stand out in variations of the following ways:

They don't address weaknesses or omissions in the paper, rather they ask for additional explorative analyses that are outside the scope of the original paper.
They are open-ended, in the sense that there's no clear conditions under which the issue has clearly been addressed. Often they are downright 'rabbit holes' that can't pausibly be 100% exhaustively explored.
The paper is fairly clearly scoped in the issues ask for highly labor-intensive analyses outside of that scope, without arguing that this is necessary to answer the research questions.

In short, some of issues seem more like additional research ideas that actual issues with the paper. I'm uncertain how to best handle this. Can I just plainly state that while interesting to persue in future work, that is outside of the scope? Or would I be better off doing some short analyses (that I fear will only raise more questions, cf. point 2 above)? Or some third options? What are your experiences and advice regarding this type of situation?

Can I just plainly state that while interesting to pursue in future work, that is outside of the scope?

Yes, if proposed experiments are not possible or would take as much effort as the rest of the paper (that is, it's asking for a whole new paper in addition), it's fine to say it's out of scope.

Or would I be better off doing some short analyses (that I fear will only raise more questions, cf. point 2 above)?

Sometimes, reviewers ask for new experiments that you've already done in some fashion, though, or you can offer other data to support the same lines of inquiry even if it's not the "ideal" approach. In those cases, it would certainly make sense to do some brief analyses of what you have and present them, even if it's not quite complete. I find it common to see "half-done" analyses added to papers that make me speculate that they were added last-minute by a reviewer suggestion; generally, you can frame such things as exploratory and if they're added in the midst of peer review they won't typically raise deeper scrutiny, as long as they don't add wild new conclusions. You can also ask the editor's advice/preference.

Or some third options? What are your experiences and advice regarding this type of situation?

A third option, related to the first two, is to explicitly discuss these possibilities, rather than doing them. Add the proposed experiments to the discussion section, possibly supported by preliminary analyses in that direction.
I've certainly had reviewers ask for some relatively ridiculous (in terms of cost and scope) add-ons, and some utterly ridiculous ones too (such as proposing experiments that would never ever be ethically permitted in humans; I think this is a case where a busy reviewer briefly forgot which primate was being discussed); editors are familiar with these requests and will respond accordingly to your response.
Do consider, however, that sometimes there is a big hole in your work, and the added experiments are really the only way to address it. Hopefully that doesn't describe your case, but know that it also isn't necessary to address every possible avenue for criticism; it's simply not ever possible to do so, there's a reason that research progresses incrementally.
Whatever ends up fitting your paper best, do be courteous and appreciative to the reviewer in your response. I think seeing some next steps indicates a reviewer is rather excited about your work and sees the future potential in it, too - these are good things.

(+1) for, among other things, the amusing (but probably not all that unrealistic) "I think this is a case where a busy reviewer briefly forgot which primate was being discussed".

Can I just plainly state that while interesting to persue in future work, that is outside of the scope?

Yes.
In your rebuttal letter, acknowledge that the reviewer's suggestion is interesting but you don't have time/resources to investigate right now.  If you want to quantify the extra work you can ("would require hiring three additional post-docs and purchasing $1 million of new equipment" or whatever) but you can also just say "out of scope", or "too labor intensive". Then, add a few sentences about the reviewers suggestion to your future work section.

Just the normal reminder that when your write your rebuttal to the review, your doing so to the editor not the referee. While the editors will take on board what a referee says, they are also human. So if you explain carefully why something would be inappropriate for inclusion in this paper (be it the time needed to complete, out of scope, or just a plain misunderstanding of what you did) then the editor should take that on board.
That said its also usually makes things easier to give a little ground even to inappropriate suggestions. Like adding some citations or a few sentences discussing future work. Just so it doesn't look like your completely ignored what the referee asked for (they presumably think what they asked for was appropriate).


text:
Department of Engineering does this my research plan for MSc falls?
I have written to so many professors to be my supervisor for fall 2022 in a research plan that involves design and construction of a power converter for a new charging system for Multirotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The new charging system is gotten from the idea of free energy generator using neodymium magnets and external coils. The neodymium magnets of small size and weight are glued to the propeller and turns of coil around the propeller. So when the UAV propeller is rotating it's also generating emf to power the payloads. When the rotation speed is slow, the Lithium Polymer battery takes control. Is this research proposal not researchable? I have sent email to professors in Canadian universities about it. They don't respond. Under what Engineering Department can I apply to? Aerospace engineering or Power electronics Engineering?

They are in electrical and computer engineering. I checked their publication before emailing them. They specialize in power electronics

They are not into UAV but power electronics. Can I still apply?

The difficulty is that in graduate school you seldom work on what you want, but you work instead on what your advisor will let you work on.  The two do not always coincide.  In other words, professors take students to work on the areas where they (the professors) have expertise, not in areas where students would like to work.
Next, be aware that professors receive a lot of “cold call” emails from student so unless your letter is very well crafted it will be ignored.  See for instance this question on tips to write a good letter.
In particular, poorly researched generic letters are easy to spot and routinely ignored.
So I would suggest first you consider changing your strategy in presenting yourself as a prospective student, and next consider re-sending more personalized letters showing interest in the research program of professors.
If your original emails were binned, it’s unlikely you will be remembered if you ask again in a different way.  Third, feel free to expand your reach, but always in a personalized manner.
Finally, be reminded that the simplest way to get admitted to a graduate program is to send in a application: many professors will not commit to anything until they have seen the full application file.  You can indicate in a cover letter or at some later time that you’re interested in this or that topic, or in the research area of this or that professor.


text:
How to switch to different university's PhD program on the fourth year while your advisor is ill and actually advise you to do so?
I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in a Chemistry program (4th year beginning), my advisor is diagnosed with a serious disease and in hospital recently. He does not agree with me graduating with a PhD degree so fast and he told me to look for a new university to apply for a new position. He asked me to look for a TA position at the beginning, but after I did find one then he just changed his mind and told me he just would not have the money to cover the research. I tried to look for similar research in the current department, but there was just no similar research area. If I need to apply for a new PhD program, how should I phrase the reason and if there is anything i need to be extremely cautious? Should I look for a higher-ranked university or inverse? Thank you for reading this post and I really appreciate any recommendations.

What country? It seems like moving universities is the worst sol'n. It would be more normal for me for the chair or DGS to guide you through the last two years.

Under the circumstances and if medically possible, the professor should take some (a lot of) responsibility for placing you somewhere or getting you done where you are. The professor is the one with the most relevant professional contacts. He might have to ask a colleague to act on his behalf, of course.
Under the circumstances, another professor and their university might be willing to forgo the usual admissions process to get you a new position. I'm assuming some professional contact of your advisor here.
Under the circumstances, your own university, through the department, has responsibility for getting you through expeditiously. Perhaps another professor can help you get done based on the work you have completed, perhaps with some outside advice.
You can and should exploit any/all of those possibilities. The responsibility lies elsewhere, not solely on your shoulders.
But to answer your question explicitly, say that your advisor is dying and can no longer supervise you and that you have a (large) body of work toward the degree already completed. But, others can say that on your behalf. For example, your department head could make an appeal to another department head (different university) explaining the situation and ask if there is someone who could "adopt" you. Perhaps you can avoid taking comprehensive exams at a new place.
But the basic idea is to try to exploit personal contact webs among the faculty at yours and other universities. They can be very powerful in such unusual cases.

the professor should take some (a lot of) responsibility for placing you somewhere Sounds like a hard ask for someone who's seriously ill =/

(-1) for now - It is the department who should take responsibility for the student, not a seriously ill member of staff (who is presumably on sick leave and entitled to not be working).

I think the department should work to make the professor's task as easy as possible, but it is still up to the professor to vouch for their student so that they can get a position somewhere else.  If this faculty member were so ill that they cannot have any professional communications at all then that would be a different situation, but as they already communicated with the student, this does not seem to be the case.

If I said to my Department Head, "I have become seriously ill and am going on medical leave.  I won't be able to advise Student X anymore, so I'd like them to be placed in a different PhD program" then I would expect that would be enough for them (and/or other people whose help they enlist) to get to work on it.


text:
Should religious (or other kind of) titles be used when citing authors?
I'm writing an article that cites some scientific works of a religious sister. I noticed that some authors cite her works including the title "Sister", as in "Sister Surname [ref] was the first..." or "see (Sister Surname, year)", but other authors use only the surname.
Of course, this can be a matter of personal preferences. However, I wonder if the scientific community has considered the issue of using or not religious (or other scientific-unrelated titles) when referring to an author. On the one hand, I understand the use of the title as a courtesy. On the other hand, I understand if somebody does not want to use the title because she/he thinks that it is irrelevant to the scientific work, or even does not recognize it.
Are there some recommendation about that?

Do whatever you like. Thankfully science still leaves us room to be human and to have human foibles and preferences. Not every single dilemma must be enshrined in some rigid style manual rule that everyone must follow like mindless automatons.

It seems a matter of taste. The only case I'm aware of involves Sister Mary Celine Fasenmyer and polynomials associated with her, but there likely are others.

@Aruralreader she came to my mind too. There’s also Charles Dodgson, often referred to as the Reverend Charles Dodgson, and at other times as Lewis Carroll. Another famous mathematician, Alfred Young, was a priest, but I am not sure what his proper religious title would be and do not recall seeing a title added to his name in an academic reference.

Oh, and of course Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, was the originator of the big bang theory. A uniquely fascinating figure in the history of science.

Not sure if this is always the case, but don't women who become Sister Surname adopt this name and still have their original name which is totally different? Does it then make sense to separate the religious name?

What field? I imagine this might be different in theology vs. astronomy

For a non-theological title, people usually refer to Kelvin by his title (his actual name was Thomson).

I think people who dont want to include religious titles tend to think that because of their religion they might not seem credible (if it is not about theology). I personally would always just stay consistent, either you include everyones titles or nobodies. Excluding one and including another seems a little disrespectful (IMO)

If it's any help, the Wikipedia page on Sr. Wendy Beckett lists all her art history publications under the name "Wendy Beckett", although she published them as "Sister Wendy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Beckett#Publications Personally unless there are strong editorial rules in force I would tend to refer to people by the name they chose to publish under.

Another interesting example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Fa%C3%A0_di_Bruno, who has 40 or so original maths articles in journals that are by now rather august.

It is mostly a matter of recognition. In papers, it is indeed uncommon to include titles (we write "XYZ, 2009", not "Prof. XYZ, 2009") when referencing results. By contrast, when writing a historical/sociological article (full disclosure: I'm not an expert in either area) it seems to make sense to include honorifics (say, it stands to reason to see "Pope Pius II mentions this in Epistles" as opposed to "Piccolomini mentions this in Epistles").
In the context of your question, historical scholars who were also religious figures are most commonly referred to without relevant honorifics/titles, and the same probably would apply in your case if you want to focus solely on a person's work, not any of the other circumstances about their life, seeing them as irrelevant to the work itself.
We do not - as a general rule - refer to Mendel as The Right Reverend Gregor Mendel.

The Pope is kinda a special case, given that his name actually changes to his regnal name when he becomes Pope.

@Vikki Oh, I'm apparently that poorly educated. TIL, thank you. Should've kept it at historical scholars who were also clergy.

I've never seen Mendel referred to as Reverend Mendel, but I have seen Berkeley referred with religious title in academic contexts more than once.

@Vikki, does his legal name change? I work with a lot of Catholic sisters and they maintain their legal name despite using their Sr. Whatever Whatever name for everything unrelated to government records.

@Vikki: I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but my impression is that a similar thing happens with at least some British nobles (they keep their given name, though). Unless I'm wrong, pope is not the singular exception you make him out to be. In any event, I think using the newly adopted name does seem appropriate, in line with what you would do if someone changes their name for other reasons (e.g. marriage or gender confirmation).

@Zach: Judging by the English Wikipedia, it seems that it does (it cites Francis as "born Jorge Mario Bergoglio"). Not very strong evidence, admittedly.

@Zach his legal name probably does change as the Vatican is a sovereign state, of which the pope is the absolute monarch. I'm by no means an expert in Canon law though.

@Zach it also seems unlikely to me that he would remain a citizen of his former country being sovereign of another, but I'm sure the bookkeeping on that varies considerably by country.

He is a regular argentinian citizen:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/passport-fit-pope-francis-renews-i-d-regular-argentine-n32551

@EarlGrey interesting. That seems to be a break in the normal practice where he would instead enjoy the same privilege as any head of state

Since one does not even cite other academics as "Dr." and "Prof.", I rationally tend to think one would not cite "Sister", "Mullah", "Guru" or whatever religious role may have a specific person.
However, different bibliographic standards may have different suggestions and I am not aware of the details.
EDIT:
OP, as always it is worthwhile to contact your trusty librarian, for example
Citing Theological Sources: How to do a Bibliography: Church Documents mentions that

In MLA style, honorific titles like "Pope," "Father" or "Cardinal" or
"D.D." are not added after, or before, a name.

I think it might depend on the context of the writing. I could see a paper including titles like "Doctor" when saying something like "In his 2004 paper Insert Title Here, Dr. So-And-So argued the case that..." rather than using a formal citation along the lines of "So-And-So (2004) argues that...".

@nick012000 I agree, but the OP question mentions explicitly a formal citation as "in "Sister Surname [ref] was the first..." or "see (Sister Surname, year)"

The problem here is that a "Dr." and "Prof." usually has the same name with or without the title. In religious orders people might choose different names, and these adopted names might become more widely known. If the current Pope happened to author a scientific paper, would he be more recognizable if writing it as "Pope Francis" or as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio"? And if he decided to publish it under the name "Pope Francis", would if be right to only cite him as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio"?

@vsz the pope changes its name in his documents as well, similarly to married people changing their family names.
So the paper is most likely to be cited as "Bergoglio" if <2013, as "Francis I" (or II, I don't know) if >2013.

@EarlGrey traditionally you don't specify the numeral (as in Francis I) until there is a second. I'm not sure if Francis followed this tradition, but I seem to recall it being unusual when Pope John Paul I specifically used the numeral when there wasn't a Pope John Paul II yet.

Thanks for the link to MLA. Useful and difficult to find otherwise!

The only case of which I am aware is in the acknowledgements that Hungerford made in his book Algebra. He references "Raymond Swords, S.J.," a Jesuit priest at Holy Cross. So, if you know the nun you are referencing is a member of a particular order you could follow Hungerford's example. Other than that, I agree with others that it is largely a matter of personal choice.

As another, non-religious, example: Justice Learned Hand and other Supreme Court Justices are often referred to with their titles.

This led to an interesting discussion about the role of religion in the US Government and its founders; this conversation has been moved to chat


text:
Realised afterwards that I committed mild plagiarism in a paper I wrote as an undergraduate, what should I do?
A few years back, while still an undergraduate student, I wrote and submitted a paper to a (low-tier) journal. It was accepted and published. None of the professors in my college were familiar with the subfield in question, so I did it all on my own, without their supervision or assistance.
It was only later on that I realised that I was guilty of plagiarism. I did write the paper all on my own, and always provide appropriate citations, but sometimes I would quote single sentences or parts of them directly from my sources without indicating that they were direct quotes (even if these unmarked quotes were always followed by a citation to the original source).
It has now been several years but I keep feeling guilty about it, and worry that one day someone will notice it and call me out on it. Or at least notice it while reading the paper and think worse of me. But since it has been several years since the paper was published, I also don’t know what I could do about it. I have thought of putting something like a public admission and apology on my website (from which the paper can also be downloaded), but maybe I’m overthinking it and nobody would actually care. In that case it would feel like a bad idea to needlessly draw attention to something that nobody would have noticed otherwise. But the paper has been cited some times, and I have reason to expect that there will be people reading it in the future.
Should I do something about it or just let it be?

If someone was using sentences (but not entire paragraphs) of my work, WITH a proper reference, then I would not mind. Sometimes, some sentences are almost canonically good at expressing something, so IMHO, I would not mind, as an author.

Contact the journal and let them know what the problem is. They will decide upon the appropriate sanctions. But it's much better if you do it now, instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you!

@aeismail You are contradicting yourself with the comment on my answer. Contacting the journal without asking what your faculty thinks, it sheer academic suicide. The editor might know a lot of people at the faculty (and might contact them). Also, it really depends on who the editor is. EU editors might retract immediately and publicly. So you should be the one telling it at the faculty and asking for advice.

@feeling-guilty Did you indicate your affiliation (your university) in the paper?

Feeling-guilty. I hope you figure out how to deal with the situation. My sincere advice: ask some people around you, people you trust. Get your advice from someone who knows your context (and those might not be the people on this forum).

It sounds closer to a formatting/grammatical error, rather than problematic plagiarism.

@Paxman, you have a different opinion on what plagiarism is than the consensus of the academic community.

Suicide by paper cuts. It is the only appropriate punishment.

but sometimes I would quote single sentences or parts of them directly from my sources without indicating that they were direct quotes (even if these unmarked quotes were always followed by a citation to the original source).

"You didn't use quotation marks where you should have in a paper you wrote as an undergrad? My god, you are despicable human being."
Nobody reading your question here will think this.
Rather they will think something like:
"Wow, you wrote a journal paper on your own as an undergrad and it's still being cited?"
I would imagine that the vast majority of readers of your paper, even if they notice, would think likewise.

Though it's technically plagarism, I think it would be quite obvious to a reasonable reader that if your intent was to plagarise, you would not immediately cite the plagarised document you stole the quote from. Omitting quotation marks sounds like a minor transgression to me, particularly if your area is STEM where the (natural) language of the text is a means not an end. (If you did not have the citation(s) at all, I think it would be a different matter.)
Mistakes happen and this was clearly just a mistake.
(I would also add that I think it's pretty common for researchers to be somewhat embarrassed by earlier papers that they wrote when they were more junior. At least I am. But that's just a sign of improving.)

I also don’t know what I could do about it. I have thought of putting something like a public admission and apology on my website (from which the paper can also be downloaded)

I would suggest two things:

Update the preprint on your homepage.
Keep a list of errata on your homepage.

In my area (CS) people mostly read the preprints (found through Google or Google Scholar).

public admission and apology

I don't think there's a need to apologise. I think you just need to admit your mistake and move on. Again, mistakes happen!

Maybe you should talk to this guy: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13489/what-to-do-when-a-journal-publishes-a-paper-plagiarizing-ones-work-but-doesnt?rq=1

+1 for the list of errata.  Write in an erratum that quotation marks are missing.  That should cover it.

@don.joey, "plagiarism" and "intellectual theft" are the sort of terms I really hate. Why? Because they have loosely defined boundaries and only serve to lump innocuous mistakes and egregious malintent under the same label. Thus they permit your type of argument: taking instances from grayscale and mapping them to black and white generalities and black and white arguments not appropriate to the instance(s) in question.

@don.joey, I'm not sure I get the point. Your claim seems to be a false dichotomy. Malintent refers directly to intent. I would say that the degree of unattributed material that is copied strongly correlates with intent. If someone copies an entire paper and changes authorship, it's quite clear what their intent was. (But again, not sure I follow the point you're making.)

Yes but I never said that they lump together "unrelated things". I meant that they lump together things of varying severity and effect, from the innocuous to the egregious. Different cases should/must be considered on an individual basis.

I'm afraid I can't grok your point. Just to end the discussion on my side, this case involves a mistake leading to mild, unintended plagiarism. It was plagiarism. It was a mistake. As for "academic integrity", it is, for me, a hollow rhetorical phrase. It says nothing concrete; it makes nice sounds.

Gah, why did you delete all those comments? Now it looks like I was talking to myself. (I'm not I swear!)

I'm so sorry to be the one to tell you this, @badroit, but don.joey isn't real. He's just in your head. But hey, it could be worse--at least when you argue with your imaginary friends (/enemies), you win!

@KyleStrand, perhaps, but in that case there's the strong possibility that you're also not real and you're also just a figment of my imagination. In which case, how can I even trust you that don.joey wasn't real? This raises many interesting questions and ... mmm wait, the possibility of you also deleting your comment has just occurred to me. I feel like I've just fallen into a trap.

@badroit I'll resist the urge....for now.

@badroit great point. Given the honor codes at many universities nowadays, you would think that they consider shooting a victim "execution style" at dawn after a night of torture is morally equivalent to accidentally bumping into someone with your umbrella when coming in from the rain. It's absurd and breeds contempt for the rules.

I think that you already included in your question the most reasonable answer: upload a corrected copy of the paper to your webpage, and indicate on your webpage what the nature of the corrections was.  I don't think you need to be specifically apologetic about it: rather honesty and fixing the paper seem to be called for.
I would only consider doing more than this if:
(i) The standards for quoting text without attribution in your field are more stringent than the academic norm.
and/or
(ii) You have some reason to believe that the unattributed quotes played a role in the acceptance of your paper.
In the academic circles that I run in (mathematics, and more generally STEM) neither of these apply and the second one is especially dubious: math papers are -- alas! -- not accepted for their dexterous phrase-turning.
If (i) and (ii) do apply, then I would next consider whether this paper is playing any significant role in your current academic profile.  (You say it was published in a low-tier journal; on the other hand you say it is still being cited.)  If all these conditions are met -- i.e., you have reason to believe that the paper might not have been accepted if the quotes were attributed properly and you feel that you have profited in some non-negligible way from publishing the paper, then I think you are ethically obligated to contact an editor of the journal.  I would begin by sending them a copy of your "corrected" paper and take it from there.
I think it is very unlikely that this almost harmless kind of plagiarism (and I think we should agree that it is plagiarism: there are just more and less egregious versions of that bad practice; this is very unegregious, if I can make up a word) will get you in any kind of academic difficulties in your current job or even your future career.  However, I think that academics should hold themselves to a higher standard than avoiding what could get them in trouble.  From your post it is clear that you have high ethical standards and this has been bothering you for a while.  If you do what I advised, I hope that you will sleep a little more soundly.

From the etymology (from "ex", out of and "grex", a flock; so standing out from the flock), I'd suggest "gregious" as the opposite of "egregious"; or maybe "ingregious". :-)

Excellent advice and thanks for being clear that it is plagiarism, although this doesn't mean it isn't a minor mistake. If you put a clarification on your website you could also email either the journal editor and/or the author of the cited work. You are extremely likely to get either no response or a response saying that they don't care. This will cover your back in case the thing is dragged up in the future by someone who has it in for you.

I honestly don't think this counts as plagiarism. Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work as your own. All you did was use the same phrasing as the article you cite. Since you're giving credit where credit is due by citing the papers, I don't think anyone would object.
If you had done this with one of my papers, if anything I would be flattered. Had you failed to cite me, I would be very annoyed but if you cite my work and then use one of my phrases, I would simply be pleased with myself since you clearly thought that my turn of phrase was so good that you couldn't say it better. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all that.
So, personally, I would do absolutely nothing. I really doubt anyone will be bothered by what is at worst "bad form". Of course it's better to place direct quotes within quotation marks but as long as the relevant paper is cited, you are very unlikely to anger anyone.

You're right that this isn't nearly as bad as not citing the papers at all, but it could still be a real problem (and it's still "presenting someone else's work as your own", just their writing rather than their ideas).  I think the key question is how often it occurs.  If you copy a single sentence fragment without quotation marks, then it's more likely to be written off as a forgivable mistake.  If you copy twenty sentences in a ten-page paper, then it looks like a much more serious pattern.

But I think it's really misleading to say "I don't think anyone would object".  The worrisome part isn't the people who will treat it most leniently, but rather those who will treat it most severely, and your personal reaction doesn't get at that question.

@AnonymousMathematician yes, fair enough. If the copied content represents a significant percentage of the article that would be a problem. I just feel that as long as the sources are always clearly cited, it's not such a big deal. Bad form perhaps, but hardly cause for prosecution.

@AnonymousMathematician no, my personal reaction is just that, personal. This is how I would feel if I saw my writing reproduced and cited in another's work. As long as it's cited, I would not object. Also, this clearly depends on the size of the quotes in question. Lifting whole paragraphs would bother me, single phrases or a sentence here and there would not (as long as it's cited).

terdon, you might have no objection to an unquoted sentence being lifted from your [cited] paper, but someone with an ax to grind (a rival) might some day make a stink about it. Academic, political, and writing careers have crashed and burned from even mild plagiarism. I would get on record as having corrected the oversight (and it was nothing more than an oversight) and set things straight, but there is no need for @feeling-guilty to beat himself up over it -- he'll do the right thing by correcting the issue.


text:
Should I self-impose a word limit for a journal article abstract
The author guidelines for the Journal of Computational Physics do not specify a word limit for the abstract, saying only that it should be 'brief'.  But should I impose a word limit myself?  I have heard that some indexing services can truncate overly-long abstracts, though I've not come across evidence that this is this case.

If they're not imposing a specific limit, why should you? That being said, the goal of an abstract is to be a brief snippet that gets potential readers interested in your work. If someone can't figure out in 30 seconds to a minute what you're trying to do, your abstract is probably too long.

Besides the potential truncation, the closest answer might be a recent (correlative) study, which found that - in contrast to common advice - a larger abstract coincides with a higher amount of citations: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004205

Yes, you should limit yourself because the goal of the abstract is to be short.
Now, where to put the limit?
A good idea would be to look at recently published articles in this journal and note their length.

Good answer.  Could be strengthened by looking at some abstracts and providing a suggested maximum.  Hertz: Additionally: try reading some abstracts on a small netbook.  If it doesn't stay "above the fold" it's too long.

An abstract should sell your paper, introduce the family of constructs/theies used and may indicate the key narrative/outcomes. It should end after that so that one needs to read the paper. The better journals usually ask for stricter limits. (Journals of ) Pure sciences probably have editors wanting to allow you to use complete sentences and sensible sentences even in the abstract so skipped the abstract word limit out of politeness..

Are you saying that one should write the abstract as click bait?