text:
How are mathematicians paid to do research?
How are (pure) mathematicians paid to do research? Let's say my interests lie in the foundations of mathematics and I want to do research in that area. How am I going to get paid for that in the traditional context of academia?

Become a professor and perhaps find some grant money if needed.

So, usually mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living?

Not exactly "research on the side". At some universities, research is the main job and teaching is a necessary byproduct in some sense.

Actually it's even worse than that. Your "research on the side" may consist mostly of writing grant proposals to fund others in your lab who do the actual research. In fairness though, this fits under both research and teaching categories as you are supposed to be training those lab members via this process.

@ASimpleAlgorithm "fund others in your lab who do the actual research" does not apply to mathematics.

@ASimpleAlgorithm While that may be applicable to some STEM fields, that's not how math research works - there aren't labs at all in the sense that you're imagining them, and solo projects are extremely common if not the norm. So that's just not accurate.

@Aleksandr Could you give some idea of which country and which education system you are referring to? Several answers below are quite US-centric, since that is the environment the authors know best; but they do seem to drift towards assuming the North American model applies everywhere. If you are mainly interested in the US, then maybe indicate this in your question

Usually with money. But sometimes, coffee, pizza and a warm place to study will be sufficient (scnr :-D )

In the US, 99% of long-term positions that involve being paid to do research in pure math are tenure track faculty positions, colloquially known as professorships (in the US, they follow the progression Assistant Professor -> Associate Professor -> Professor). A professor is paid to teach, do research, and to a lesser extent, to do a variety of other vaguely related things that are discussed in many places on this website and elsewhere.
Professors teach and do research. It is not true that (quoting from one of the comments) “mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living”. It is also not true that (quoting from another comment) “at some universities, research is the main job and teaching is a necessary byproduct”. Perhaps some professors have the mindset that their job is “mainly” about one or the other thing, but that’s simply a matter of personal perception rather than an objective truth. The objective truth is that professors teach and do research, and are paid to do those two things. Nothing is “on the side” or is “the main job”.
It is also not the case that (as seems to be implied by another answer) all math professors have, or need, grant funding to do their work. Grant funding is good to have, and getting it is both a catalyst for and a side-effect of career success. It can also give your salary a modest boost. But most of the funding doesn’t go directly into your pocket, and there are plenty of math professors who have steady employment and do quite well in their research without having it.
Finally, there is a very small number of mathematicians who have permanent, full time positions doing only research. Examples of places where such positions exist are the Institute of Advanced Study, and Microsoft Research. Those positions are very prestigious and rare, so hoping to land one of them is not a viable career plan.

This is a US-centric answer. In the UK and elsewhere "professorships" are something different. Most academics are paid separately for research and teaching, and don't necessarily have to do much (if any) of the latter.

I think it would be relevant to the question to explain a bit further how the salary is increased by grants, e.g. summer salary.

@user3209815 this is discussed in various other places on academia.se. I answered the question at the level of generality that OP seemed interested in, but if you or others want to chime in with more specific details, you/they are welcome to do so.

@OrangeDog good point. In the same vein, it also occurred to me that in some countries (France being the main one I know about) there are quite a lot more full time research positions for mathematicians.

As you said, pure mathematicians (like me) are paid for research, teaching, and service. But how that works is more complicated. If I unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to do no research in the coming academic year, I could expect a lousy (perhaps negative) raise a year from now and perhaps a lecture from the department chair. If I unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to do no teaching in the coming academic year, I could expect to be put on leave without salary and/or to (have my tenure revoked and) be fired for not doing my job. (see next comment)

I emphasize that the preceding comment is about "unilaterally and arbitrarily". If I get sick and can't teach, or if I arrange with the administration to have no teaching duties for a semester, that would be entirely different. (Both of those things have happened to/for me and my department and college administrations were very good about it.)

@AndreasBlass thanks, everything that you say is true (and one can say things are even more complicated than what you wrote, and add yet more details about how the job of a professor works), but I think it’s a level of specificity that goes beyond what OP was really asking about.

@AndreasBlass: that's true, but it is mostly due to the different level of consequences: leaving a class without prof affects many students directly, while that's not usually the case with research. It doesn't signal a preference  by the employer, in my view.

The current top answer is simplistic and US-centric.
First, it glosses over the obvious. Tons of PhD students and postdocs are paid to do research and nothing else. It is difficult (and not really desirable, or usually possible) to be a postdoc forever, but this is certainly doable for many years, even more than a decade if you count PhD+postdoc.
Second, and this is the part which is US-centric in the current top answer, many researchers are employed as full-time tenured researchers. In France for example, more than 10% of all tenured mathematicians affiliated to the CNRS – i.e. almost all French mathematicians in public institutions – are full-time researchers (see this document by the Insmi, 400 researchers out of 3600 full-time researchers). Similar positions exist in many European countries (I know it's the case at least in Belgium, Switzerland, Spain... with various titles). Yes, these positions are enviable and difficult to get, but they are not some unattainable holy grails that only exist at IAS, IHES or the likes.
Third, many private companies employ math researchers. Not many employ researchers on the foundations of mathematics of course, and you would need to do research on what the company wants, but you'd still be a full-time math researchers. These positions exist anywhere, in small startups, global corporations, and anything in between. These aren't positions that exist only in "elite" institutions. Things like data analysis, machine learning, etc are hot right now, and you need serious math for them.

Finally, let me address a misconception in your comment.

So, usually mathematicians are not paid to do research, but instead do research on the side and teach to make a living?

I believe you are confused by the word "professor". While etymologically it means "teacher", nowadays, a professor at a university has a double job: teacher and researcher (and a third job called "administration"). The same goes for a lecturer, a reader, a maître de conférences, a førsteamanuensis, or whatever your job title is. Many academics are relatively blasé and consider that teaching is actually a chore that is imposed on top of the main job, research – a discussion for another time.

I doubt many companies employ pure math folk as asked by the OP, the circumstances you are describing all seem to be applied.

Tons of PhD students and postdocs are paid to do research and nothing else. — That may be true in other fields and in other countries, but not in math in the US.  An overwhelming majority of American mathematics PhD students and postdocs teach.

@JeffE But the question nowhere specifies that it’s about the practice in the US specifically, and so information about the  situation in other countries is equally relevant.

"Tons of PhD students and postdocs are paid to do research and nothing else" this is clearly incorrect: the majority of PhD and postDocs programmes all around the world contain teaching, tutoring, reviewing papers, doing some other useless administrative task and so on.

This funding comes from two main sources:

Employment, e.g. by getting a professorship somewhere. This means a steady salary. Note professorships aren't just teaching duties - professors are also expected to output research, mentor PhD students who output research, and so on (see this recent question for what happens to "unproductive" professors).
Grant funding. You write proposals to whoever is funding mathematics research (e.g. the NSA if you're in the US). You tell them what you intend to do, how you intend to do it, how much money you'll need, etc. If they approve of your proposal then they send you money to do the research.

With #1 by far as the more common option. And if you have such a position you can also (should also) seek grant funding, maybe to support students.

Probably worth noting that #2 often requires #1 in the US, since most of the grant agencies must abide by certain federal laws which require you to abide by certain federal laws, and demonstrate compliance with in some fashion. As such most of them won't just hand over funds to an independent researcher, instead requiring there be some sort of office that insures your compliance with the laws and terms who will then handle disbursement of funds.  Indeed, I'm not aware of any source of grant funding in the US that doesn't require this.  MacArthur Grant maybe? But you don't apply for that...

@zibadawatimmy It is straightforward in the US for an individual to start a sole proprietorship or corporation and get it registered with the govt then apply for grants such as SBIR's (where phase 2 can be $1M+). I'm not really aware of whether there's barriers for small business for more standard research-oriented grants, but at least registration and compliance regarding funds isn't a problem in principle.

@zibadawatimmy the linked NSA website actually gives in the "who may apply" section only one requirement: that everyone involved must be US citizens or US permanent residents. I don't know if there're any caveats, but taken at face value it seems to suggest they will fund independent researchers.

@Allure Well there's the "General Restrictions" immediately above that: "Awards will be made to non-profit institutions located in the United States only and will be based on a formal proposal submitted by an organization on behalf of the principal investigator(s)."

@ASimpleAlgorithm Have you done this? I think it is really quite more complicated than you are making it sound to start a corporation competent to receive federal research grant funding, excusing cases of corruption.

@BryanKrause Yes I have. And others I know have as well. It's just paperwork. Though it may take a couple months as you now need to register with a range of organizations (for DUNS number etc.). In the past you didn't even need to found the company until after you won an award (depending on the funding agency). I am not saying things are uncomplicated, only that the system does not have built-in restrictions to block one-person labs run from a garage. Many companies have started this way from federal funding.

@ASimpleAlgorithm Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. In my field it is unheard of; yes companies start via federal funding but in the context of work in university labs that then get spun off as companies.

Lot of great answers, already.  Some different thoughts (not as good, but hopefully additive):

You could do it as an avocation.  Go and earn a bunch of money elsewhere and then do it on the side.  Like Fermat.
(US answer) Look at government service, especially the NSA, but also national labs or FFRDCs (quasi government as they have contractors running them).  It's not a "great answer" as you don't have total freedom and really they like applied guys more.  All that said, there are pure guys going in there and you might find a niche (all you need is enough pay for one). And the pay/benefits/hours/security are great.  At least take a look.

The NSA doesn’t really care what your specialty was for your PhD. They spend three years retraining you and moving you between projects to make you more well rounded. At least that’s what they told me when I interviewed with them years ago.

I will argue that research is the primary job that most salaried professors get paid to do. From Wikipedia: Professor:

Professors often conduct original research and commonly teach
  undergraduate, professional and postgraduate courses in their fields
  of expertise.

Note that "research" is listed first. From an excellent page by Mark Tomforde, University of Houston, "Job Responsibilities of Professors":

In the UH math department, the responsibilities of a typical tenured
  or tenure-track faculty member are usually allocated as 40% Research,
  40% Teaching, and 20% Service.

Note that research is again listed first. (The approximate allocation matches what I've heard expressed many times, in many places.) Steven Krantz in How to Teach Mathematics (Ch. 6) quotes the Chair of the University of Chicago Mathematics Department, welcoming a new faculty member in the 1960s:

Remember: Our job is proving theorems.

At my institution, faculty promotion is officially based on the standard triad (research, teaching, and service); but I've been told by those involved that in practice, it really just boils down to number of research publications (justified by the fact that research publications are easier to identify and count than quality teaching or service).
One might argue philosophically that the "emphasis" of faculty work derives from the funding source. Traditionally most funding in the U.S. came from state governments (arguing in favor of a research focus); over time state support has shrunk, and student tuition increased, such that today it approaches a 50/50 ratio (arguing in favor of parity emphasis with teaching). See Figure 8 here.

Can you please define what it means for research to be the “primary” job? It seems like a meaningless statement to me. Cherry-picking quotes from some guy in the 1960s has zero supportive value for your argument (I could easily make up a quote by myself saying “our job is teaching” - actually I don’t need to, you can simply quote from my answer above). And the statistically meaningless fact that when two words are mentioned together one of them has to come first isn’t very convincing either.

@DanRomik: The quote you're nitpicking on is the keystone of a whole chapter in a major AMS publication. You can't seriously think that a self-made quote would count as a citation for a counter-argument.

There's a lot more numbers needed to make this argument convincing. Only a fraction of universities grant doctorates and have such low teaching loads. And a large fraction of colleges are private and tuition-driven. I assume you are also excluding two-year schools.

@Daniel I haven’t read this AMS publication. Perhaps the chapter you were referring to says some convincing things, but, respectfully, the quote by itself, representing the opinion of a single, arbitrarily picked individual (in the 1960s!), has zero value to support your argument. By the way, to be clear, I’m not even trying to make any “philosophical” arguments about the relative importance of research and teaching. I simply asked you to define what you mean about research being “primary”. Until you do, I don’t think we can meaningfully discuss whether your claim has merit.

@ASimpleAlgorithm: No. E.g., my institution is a two-year school (re: promotion standards case).


text:
Ownership of a PhD Student's Research
I am a PhD student in theoretical computer science. It is my understanding that if I work on a paper without my PhD advisor (which is common in my research area) and without any lab resources then that work is my own, and I can submit the paper where I choose. In particular, my advisor cannot force me to add them as a co-author if they have not contributed to the paper either intellectually or in the form of resources. Is this the most widely held view among scientists? What if the PhD student is an RA for 20 hours a week?

Often this is field/subfield specific. But, who is paying for your RA (and the '20 hours per week' is often a university-imposed rule to keep you from being a full-time employee worthy of many benefits - it doesn't mean you only work 20 hours per week on the funder's research). How would you show that you used no lab resources (including access to papers through the library, hallway talks with people, etc.). How would you feel about your advisor doing something analogous to you?

Regardless, it is a rule. And if you are a full time RA, how can you complete your dissertation if it is on a different topic? Many students I know work as RAs in a separate group than their advisor, and their RA work may not be directly related to their research. Accessing papers through the library and hallway talks are not lab resources, since I can get these things without being a member of the lab. So the analogous situation would be publishing without me? They do that all of the time ...

It is good to know that you will never think that your advisor will never do anything that bothers you. But, go talk to them, not a bunch of strangers on the internet...

I have already discussed this with my advisor. No, my advisor bothers me plenty (I wouldn't be here if they didn't), but not if they publish without me. I don't feel entitled to that.

If you have already discussed this with your advisor, why are you asking us?

My advisor said that in this situation they do essentially own all of my work, and can do with it as they wish. Before I decide to switch PhD advisors over this, I was trying to decide if my expectations are too high.

I struggled with this too and in hindsight, for me it was actually much worse to leave the advisor off the paper. Make them contribute, badger them! Then their name can be on it. If they’re notable it will help your paper gain traction in being read and cited. Single-author works at conferences scream “not-a-team-player” and “bad-advisor-relationship”.

No one owns your work. If this is their attitude I would consider switching advisors. Even if it isn’t and it’s a misunderstanding, it sounds like you dislike and mistrust your advisor, it can’t end well.

My advisor said that in this situation they do essentially own all of my work, and can do with it as they wish. — This is a serious red flag.  Run like the wind.  Your expectations are not too high.

@y3sh Single-author works at conferences scream “not-a-team-player” and “bad-advisor-relationship”. — In my experience (as a theoretical computer scientist) single-student-author papers scream "independent researcher" and "not riding their advisor's coattails" and (assuming the paper is good) "potential postdoc/faculty hire"

If your advisor hasn’t contributed anything to the paper intellectually then they can’t ethically put their name on a paper they didn’t contribute to. That has nothing to do with funding or RAships.
That said, what I described above is the ideal. Students are often under pressure to do what advisors say. Authorship is best discussed directly and if you have any issues you should speak with your advisor and establish standards in your group.

Unfortunately what is ethical and even legal doesn't always align well with what is practical, or even possible. There is little worse for a grad student than fighting with an advisor who has a lot of control over your future. Several frequent users here will attest to that. Don't harm yourself over a single paper. Think long term. There will be other papers if you act wisely.

@Buffy There is absolutely no practical barrier to a theoretical computer science PhD student submitting a solo paper without their advisor's prior approval, and such submissions are certainly possible.  (My advisor did it, I did it, and most of my students have done it.)  Perhaps you meant "advisable"?

@JeffE, Actually, doing anything that results in your advisor wanting nothing more than the end of your academic career is pretty much a practical barrier, I think.

Is this the most widely held view among scientists?

In principle, yes; in practice, perhaps not.  But that's not the question you want to ask.

Is this the most widely held view among theoretical computer scientists?

Yes, it is.
The most widely held view in theoretical computer science is that authorship requires a significant intellectual contribution to the paper.  Thus, if your advisor truly did not make a significant intellectual contribution to the paper, they cannot be a coauthor.  The fact that they are your advisor is utterly irrelevant.  The fact that they are giving you an RAship is utterly irrelevant.  The fact that they may be going up for tenure is utterly irrelevant.  No intellectual contribution, no coauthorship, period.
But let's be very clear here: "most widely held" does not mean "universally agreed, without exception".  Even theoretical computer science has its (thankfully small) share of unethical advisors.
You need to have a direct, face-to-face conversation with your advisor about their expectations, both for authorship and for how you spend your research time, well before you have to worry about how they might respond to your submitting a paper without them.  The best time to have this conversation is before you accept the RAship or sign an advisor agreement.   (And yes, that might be before you accept the admission offer.)
Ideally, you should be comfortable telling your advisor about your independent results, asking for their suggestions for where to submit them, and even asking for their feedback on the results and presentation, without worrying about authorship issues.  Ideally, they should either encourage you to submit without them or ask if they can work with you on further extending the results.  But not everyone follows these ideals, which is why you must ask about their expectations well in advance.
(I am assuming here that you are meeting the requirements of your RAship, and your independent research is in addition to, not instead of, the research you are being paid to do.  Skimping on your job is not going to make your boss happy.)

I'd be happy to hear a reason for the downvote.

Theoretically
Unless you have signed some sort of agreement that states that any research you produce is the property of your advisor or university, papers you have written as an individual would be your own work to do what you please with it.
In Practice
It might not be too hard for your advisor/university to establish a contribution of resources that would warrant authorship/acknowledgements. Especially in super computing. (Unless you have your own super computer).
Keep in mind that the large majority of university professors do not advise students because they love mentoring students absent of any publications. Your advisor is your advisor because he/she wants to put his/her name on research produced by you. I know of no professor who advises students solely because they love teaching students. They want credit for your work, whether they contributed significantly to it or not.
With these thoughts on authorship in mind, it is feasible to believe that your advisor may not be super happy to allow you to independently publish research you produced. They will have significant leverage on your degree progress and funding. Act accordingly.

Hmmm. Actually, I advised students solely for that reason and would not consider co-authorship of their work even if asked. An yes, I advised them faithfully. CS in US. All the others in the department had the same practice.

@Buffy As evidenced by your extensive (and meaningful, mind you) contributions to academia.SE, you may not be the usual college professor. Position on the tenure track may also play a significant role. Overall though, I have found that college professors believe themselves to be much more altruistic than they actually are.

At least as a second data point (and I know there are others), in math, in the U.S., I advise PhD students without expecting my name on their papers. For that matter, in the U.S., in math, it would create a negative impression about the student if the advisor had their name on papers related to the thesis, I think.

They want credit for your work, whether they contributed significantly to it or not. — I am another counterexample to this claim, as are my past advisors and every one of my close colleagues.  Yes, of course we advisors want credit for our students' success, but claiming credit for their work when we did not directly contribute would be grossly unethical.

In all likelihood the university has an intellectual rights/property policy to clarify this kind of situation.  Not sure advisors “wants credit for student work” for which they have not contributed but this may be highly culture specific.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What lawsuits have been filed against Wright State University?
What lawsuits have been filed against Wright State University?
This school was operating as an unaccredited institution for years while engaging in research and academic fraud, as well as various discriminatory employment practices. I want to understand any legal precedents or issues with this institution.

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


text:
Should I include high school teaching activities in an academic CV?
I am a PhD student in economics. Before starting the PhD, I graduated with an MA in engineering. During my MA, I worked as a high school teacher in computer science. Should I list this activity on my CV in the ``teaching activities'' section together with my TA jobs, mainly as a signal of ability in lesson planning, classroom management etc., or should I omit it as it was (1) in a different field and (2) in high school?
Some context that may be useful as it varies between countries: I was in charge of the full course, not a lab assistant or similar. I was in a state school, and in my country state schools are more prestigious than private ones. The particular school I taught was not particularly prestigious nor disreputable and any person I meet would be unlikely to have attended it.

It's hard to think of any job where a proven ability to convey information to other people would be considered detrimental.  And I suspect that you received at least some training in how to teach the school classes, which is more than most TAs  (and professors) have.

On your academic CV, list your previous academic employment.  That includes teaching.

@RayButterworth One such job would be university professor, at least in the sciences.  A proven ability to convey information, at least to undergraduate students, is often taken as a sign that you care too much about teaching and are not spending an appropriate amount of effort on your own research.

For context, I am a member of the mathematics faculty at a small community college in the southwestern US.  My job is mostly teaching, with a fair slice of committee / service work, and vanishingly little time for research.  This is in line with most of the faculty here—we teach.  I will also note that I have high school teaching experience, and it was one of the things which helped me to get this position.
If I were on a search committee and had two otherwise identical candidates—one with high school teaching experience, and the other with experience as a TA while in graduate school—I would probably lean towards the candidate who had taught high school.  At the very least, I would ask the TA more deeply about their teaching experience.
My experience is that most TAs don't really get a lot of real teaching experience.  TAs are generally used for labor:  they deliver lectures (typically written by others), facilitate recitation (e.g. going over homework problems or proctoring quizzes, which doesn't say much about the facilitators teaching ability), and they grade (a lot).  TAs typically do not get a lot of leeway to write their own lectures, let alone curricula for entire classes.  High school teachers, on the other hand, typically have a much freer hand, and are much more responsible for all aspects of running a class.
As such, my sense is as follows:  if you are looking for a teaching position, you absolutely should include your experience teaching high school—I can't imagine it hurting you, and it might help.

What is "facilitating recitation"?

@AzorAhai-him- At a lot of institutions, students will meet in large lecture classes (100–300+) for three hours per week, and then will meet in smaller groups (20–25) for another hour or two of "recitation" every week.  The actual structure of the recitations will vary a lot from institution to institution, and may vary quite a bit from one instructor to another.  However, in my experience, it is typically used to either go over homework problems, to proctor quizzes, or to work through specific examples (chosen by the primary instructor).  These are study sessions.

Ah yes, I have heard them called "quiz sections" and something else that's escaping me.  I figured that's what it meant, but wanted to clarify if it meant something special at your institution. Sounds very British for California, though.

I suggest that it is fine to include it; especially if any job you seek includes teaching undergraduates.
The contraindications would be if it seems like padding a sparse CV or makes the CV overly long.
Teaching effectively implies more than subject matter expertise and much of it transfers between fields.

As an addendum to Xander Henderson's answer, some colleges and universities have undergraduate programs emphasized at teaching future high school teachers.  In the US, for instance, many states formerly had a "state teacher's college" for which this was their entire mission.  Since then, these college have morphed into more comprehensive institutions, but teacher preparation is often still a big focus.
If you are applying to a job at such a school, then high school teaching experience would certainly be a plus.  You'll be better able to provide instruction relevant to future teachers, perhaps with tips about how they might teach content to their own students.  You may even have direct experience with the curriculum and instructional standards that they'll be expected to follow.  And you'll be able to provide information and advice to students embarking on a teaching career.
Even where this is not a main focus, there will usually be some fraction of the undergraduate population that are interested in pursuing teaching careers, and any institution may value your experience as a resource for those students.
So yes, I would certainly include it, and in some cases you may want to give it special emphasis in your application.


text:
How to attend conferences efficiently?
As a master's student, I've recently attended my first summer school. I waited for it eagerly since there would be learning about my research topic, interacting with other students and travelling. But it turned out to me that it combines pretty bad.
Every day consisted of multiple lectures each of 90 minutes. It's hard to keep attention for a new, quite technical material for such a long time. Sometimes you realize that you cannot ask the lecturer for an explanation since you even cannot formulate the question. Also, I've made sure (as I've long suspected) that I'm a book kind of student - I study much better with lecture notes or video records, not with live talks. As a result, I think I got (even incompletely) less than 25% of talks.
The travel part was also not so good since the school was being held in regular working hours of museums and all. I had walked a lot at evenings and enjoyed it, but compared to my regular travelling experience it wasn't enough.
The social part was good though, I think I was pretty good at networking.
Concluding, it seems that I've spent my time very inefficiently. I'm sure that I'm not alone in such experience. But AFAIK schools, conferences and workshops are all conducted in this way. And I will be expected to attend them.
How can I make myself more productive in such events? Currently the only way I see is to attend only lectures I'm sure to understand and just skip others, trying to read papers and slides by myself or just hanging around the city.

You have found out that summer schools are different from conferences. At a conference I might actually spend more time out in the hallway talking with people than listening to talks. As for the 'vacation' like stuff, well, that is the first thing that goes off the schedule - if traveling for work, you work first...

"The social part was good though, I think I was pretty good at networking.
Concluding, it seems that I've spent my time very inefficiently." From my experience with conferences, these two statements are contradictory.

I guess I'd think about it a little differently than you did. It doesn't sound to me like your experience was so bad! I think it might be helpful just to reframe your goals.

It's usually true that you won't get everything from the talks. Otherwise your classes would consist of lecture and no tests or reading! Instead of aiming to follow 100%, I focus on: getting exposure to new/recent/cutting-edge developments in my field; taking advantage of the fact that verbal explanations are often high-level and simplified, and include informal "practitioner knowledge" that you won't find in papers; and finding pointers to research papers or resources that I can explore later on my own time.
I don't think it's worth trying to have a rich "travel experience" at the same time (aside from taking advantage of any social excursions organized by the conference). If you want to do tourist activities, I think a typical option is just to extend your stay a few days before/after so you can explore without the pressure of a schedule.
For me, networking is the true value of such events. The reason why summer schools exist is so that you can meet other scholars in your field (otherwise everyone could just stay home and watch online lectures or read papers). So, if you are good at networking and enjoy it, that's great! I think you did what you were supposed to be doing. It is a priviledge to be able to discuss your ideas and hear about other people's work.

Strategically, I guess the only two points I would add are:

Be discriminating about what you attend. If you didn't enjoy the experience, it's possible that the school did not truly touch on your interests, or was not a good match for your background experience (i.e. too hard/too easy). As you note, the time cost of attending is high so weigh that against "fit" of the school.
You don't have to go to every session. In my experience, many people take short breaks from the talks when the session does not match their interests, or if they know the topic already.

In conclusion, I would not recommend a focus on "being productive"; instead, I try to focus on being present at the event, meeting new people, and learning from discussions with them.


text:
I am starting an assistant professor job this fall. What do you recommend me to do during this summer before a tenure-clock starts?
The school I will be working at is a low-ranked R1 university.
Some people said, "just enjoy and have fun right now. It would be the last time you would ever have such enough free time".
But others said, "You should do research as much as you can before the school starts because you would not have enough time to do research for the first year because you would be busy with teaching for the first time as an instructor. You should start thinking about writing grant proposals or turning your dissertation into peer-reviewed publications."
Both seem to sound right to me, but are actually very opposite suggestions.
What did you do before you started your tenure-track assistant professor job and after you graduated your PhD? What do you recommend me to do for this summer?

You need to decide for your situation, others decided to do what matched their situation: prep for courses, research, holiday etc

You will ultimately decide for yourself what to do.  But if you are looking for suggestions, I suggest you babysit my kids.  I am at least 5% sure that the experience will be both enjoyable and help you secure tenure.

Both research and class prep are potentially bottomless time sinks. I'd especially avoid prep as you will probably focus on the wrong stuff anyway (students will be far behind where you expected them to be). And you will be forgiven for a bad start at teaching anyway. Plus if you the kind of person who will fail due to too much time spent on teaching, one summer of research won't save you. You will never again have "enough time" to do research certainly, you need to start being productive despite that. I would advise writing, and other kinds of important "getting it done" things.

pls re-open this question

Take some time for you. If your dissertation is solid and ready to go...no time like the present to get started and get it published in a journal! As far as beginning a new research project - I think it depends on your area and your expectations for research (see below).
Since you are teaching, take a look at fall semesters teaching responsibilities. I found it important to take the summer to update my syllabus, review new textbooks, update my learning management system (e.g. canvas, blackboard), and even prepare some presentations and lesson plans. Then I took a look at my semester and blocked out a day or half a day every week to write, read, & research. I put deadlines for research conferences on the calendar and would back up however much time I needed to make sure the work was getting done. If you're mentoring undergraduate/graduate student research plan a weekly meeting with them and get it on the calendar. Then when the semester starts and the meeting requests start coming in, you already have your calendar ready to go.
I have a majority teaching appointment, so I spend a lot of time on teaching. We have a large graduate program so most of my research is co-published.
Once you get to campus, take advantage of meeting people in other programs and departments. Find others on campus who you might be able to collaborate with on a research project or grant. Find a mentor in your program! Even if it is not a formal mentor, just someone who you can visit with and talk to about what you are doing is a great help in getting settled. Meet with your department head and find out what your expectations for teaching and research are...for example at my institution, with my % of research, they recommend two research articles a year and grant applications. With my teaching % they want to see consistently "similar" or "high" student evaluations, teaching innovations, and improvements to courses based on student feedback.
I actually found my first year somewhat exciting. I was getting to teach courses that I enjoyed. I met people who had similar research interests and developed great collaborative projects and I found the best mentor around to help me navigate those first few years.
Best of luck!!


text:
Which Universities admit CS graduates for their theoretical physics course?
Hello am currently an undergraduate student. My major is CSE. But I am very much interested to do my masters and then PhD in theoretical physics/mathematical physics. Is there any university that admits CS graduates for these courses?
I have looked up some universities that offer these courses.
Queen Mary University, University of Edinburgh and Durham University sounds perfect to me (I can meet their minimum requirements).
But I am not sure whether they admit CS graduates or not. I have not got any reply from them yet.
Would you suggest some Universities both in the UK and US that do? Would any university admit me directly for PhD (without masters)? Will having research paper help?
I could not find any university in the US that offer this course for masters.

I can't speak for the UK, which has a different educational system altogether, but in the US, most programs would find a CS graduate "acceptable" for a physics doctorate. This assumes a good record overall, of course, and probably a few physics courses in which you did well. In the US, a CS student probably has a few such courses, though not advanced ones.
But to actually be admitted you have to be better than "acceptable".
In the US, the graduate program has quite a few courses available, primarily to prepare the student for comprehensive exams. But the normal path would be into a doctoral program, perhaps with an MS along the way.
I would guess that in the UK the university would expect an applicant to be further along in the major subject, but others would need to verify.

If I have research experience and research papers published will it help? Say I have works in computational quantum physics. Will it help?

Everything positive helps. But research experience in the field should help a lot. But the important judgements will come from an admissions committee that looks at your overall record.

I have an average profile academically. My cgpa is around 3 out of 4. Will it reduce my chance significantly?

The papers will help slightly, but I would still be strongly concerned about your ability to handle both the math and the physics involved in grad school physics courses.  The B average (3.0/4.0) is not a good sign either, given that a typical physics jock thinks CS is already an easy sledding.

To be honest I was pretty good in maths and physics back in highschool. And I enjoyed them. I was never comfortable with CSE. That's why I wanted to try out physics again. And was looking for taught physics courses like those ones at University of Edinburgh or other UK universities. But UK universities have strict prerequisites unlike US universities so I am not quite sure about whether or not they will accept someone from a different background. So I was looking for masters program at the US. But I may have to reconsider it.

In my experience, you would have to be very unusual to make this jump.  Of course it's possible.  I have seen it more from chemistry to physics or math to physics for students who knew they just sort of picked wrong to start.  Even then the road was not easy.  (But consider Lars Onsanger was a chemE bachelors.  However, he was also Lars Onsanger!)
In general, CS students are much less mathematically strong than physics students, so you would have to show this is not true. It's not even about specific courses (although that helps), but about a strong ability with "engineering mathematics" (Bessel functions out the yingyang, long derivations and homework problems with lots of algebra).
There's also the matter of maybe not knowing the physics.  Physics students sort of follow a plan of learning the same topic with more intensity (usually with new mathematical structures added) over time.  Consider that mechanics is tought as in intro course (similar to all students), than as a junior level majors course, than in grad school.  Same for E&M.  Quantum mechanics and stat mech (in grad school) are taught at a level harder than that during junior year majors course.  I.e. it's helpful to have had it before if you don't want to get killed.
Again, if you're a genius, it really doesn't matter.  But if you're just above average, I would be concerned about the pre-reqs.  Not for any silly reasons of credentials but just for the grounding.  I mean Jackson E&M is not trivial and many physics grad students struggle with it.  If you're anything like the average CS student as opposed to the average physics student (in terms of math and problem solving ability), I would recommend going nowhere near a physics grad program.  Even if you got accepted, you'd struggle and the experience would not be good for you.
P.s.  Finally to address your question specifically, I recommend to reach out to the departments.  You will learn more than just coming to a Q&A site.  Talk to them and learn something.  I suspect, they will actually be more willing to consider out of track people than you think.  But they will expect you to be rather special.  And you may get a few grim old salts like me, who warn you.
P.s.s.  Also, consider that the market for physics Ph.D.s is pretty dismal and has been for about 30+ years.  Many of them eventually go into some sort of computer related work since there's just so many jobs for that sort of stuff and since they have the physics brain to rely on to just get up to speed on the computer stuff.

The job market is the only reason for me to choose CSE. But unfortunately I never felt comfortable with it.

Sorry, but you are trying to argue that "your sense" about the general case applies to an individual. Neither fair nor valid.


text:
Re-apply the PhD program that I previously got offer and turned down
My situation is as follows:

I applied to PhD program A and B, and got offers from both.
However, the offer of A came too late which was after the deadline of decision for B. So I took offer B, and got the offer A one day after accepting B.
At that time I struggled a bit, and decided not to turned down B because I thought there were an ethical issue.
Now I am about to start the second year PhD at B, but I don't feel like this is the appropriate university to continue my study. So I am thinking about re-applying A and drop B.

My question is that in my case, is it possible to simply do a transfer from B to A and continue my PhD, instead of dropping B and re-applying A, or is there another way which is simpler than re-applying?
Also, do graduate programs allow one to apply PhD programs while studying one? These questions all depends, I guess, but I wonder if there are general cases.

To transfer means that you will need to find a new supervisor who is prepared to take you and your project on in the current state.
That might be a challenge and a bigger challenge than you realise, it is not just walk out the front door of B and in through the front door of A...

Generally, if, in an ideal case, there is a professor in C (not necessarily in univ. A) who is willing to take me, and my supervisor also agrees, do I still have to go over the normal application process of C? This should depend on univ. C though...

Have you got an "ideal" case? All cases like this are individual... A friend spent two years sorting a supervisor for his partially completed PhD thesis which he subsequently completed successfully.

It is not the ideal case at all at the moment. I only have an invitation letter from C for a research attachment, which is far from PhD taken over. I guess what I am looking for is a way to get myself out of B, without going through another application, which include English test (as mine has expired already), reference letters, etc.


text:
Is a 166 point exam due in 30 mins too short?
Our professor gave us a long exam worth 166 points. It was composed of 130 items 10 of which were identification and 120 were multiple choice. A lot of the questions required ethical analysis as out subject was ethics. He only gave us 30 mins to answer the exam. It this even legal?
Location: Philippines

Why would you think it illegal?

There is too little information here for any reasonable answer. The number of points assigned is impossible to evaluate without knowing the whole picture of the course. How it is graded is also an issue you don't address. Likewise the average difficulty of the questions. You are upset, but don't just rant here, please.

The number of points is irrelevant, it does not tell us anything about how challenging and time-demanding the questions actually are.

If you want a legal answer, try the Law SE. We are not the place to ask about whether it is legal or not.

Yes, it's legal
There is no law in the Philippines or elsewhere that dictates length of an exam or time limits on the exam.
Some professors purposefully give an exam that no one can finish and then grade on a curve.  That is possibly what happened here.

I don't know about the Philippines, but in some countries some profs have exams which are almost impossible and you have to pay the professor money to do a "possible" exam.

I have no idea what "points" mean here and I don't want to know. But in any case 120 multiple choice questions in 30 minutes means you have 15 seconds to tick each answer. Yes, that's too much, if you are expected to complete them all; even reading out all the questions could take longer.

I can't speak specifically about the Philippines, but in no country I have come across does the law provide any special provisions for things that are and aren't allowed in Universities. This particularly applies to situations where any judge deciding on a matter would have to decide if a professor's judgement about matters within that professors subject expertise or on issues of pedagogy, as the professor will be regarded as being in a better place to know than the judge.
Exceptions to this exist in some countries for equality issues related to "protected characteristics", such as race, gender, sex, religion or disability. In other countries, universities are subject to general law about discrimination that might apply to specific situations.
However, unless discrimination is an issue (and there is no suggestion it is here), no country is going to have laws on what is and isn't a fair way to assess someone.


text:
Germany undergraduate : Is it possible to switch major from physics to medicine?
My niece is currently studying undergraduate at a German university majoring in physics. Can she switch to medicine? Does she need to take FSP to switch to medicine?
Her high school diploma is not accepted in Germany. She had to take the FSP before getting admission to that particular university.

The FSP ("Feststellungsprüfung") is a German qualifying exam for those without an acceptable secondary school diploma.

Admission criteria for studying medicine are complicated in Germany. Your niece can find relevant information here, in particular on this subpage.

It’s a bit misleading to talk about switching majors at German universities, as the system is considerably different from those that us the term majors. You are enrolling in a physics or a medicine programme, not at the university in general. This programme dictates the degree you get and if you want a different one, you have to enrol in another programme from scratch. At best, you can have some of your accomplishments be accounted for. For example, if you have studied with some success and then manage to enrol in medicine, you can probably skip the physics courses for medicine students.

German universities usually have some place you can go to get advice on starting/switching/breaking off your studies (look for "Studienberatung"). Might be a good place for her to ask about this.

First of all, the relevant difference is whether she has the "allgemeine Hochschulreife" or the "fachgebundene Hochschulreife (Physik)" as a consequence of the examination she went through. The former means that she is qualified to study any subject at University, the latter is specific to physics (and thus wouldn't allow her to study medicine). The paperwork she got when she did the FSP should say what is the case.
Second, admission to study medicine is highly restricted in Germany. To be competitive for the standard route, her highschool diploma would not need to be considered as equivalent to Abitur, but to an excellent Abitur.
Her university might have a few spots reserved for people on non-traditional education paths or even specifically for people wishing to change subject. Prior to the Bologna reforms, for example, there were a few spots to study Medicine in Freiburg for people who had completed an excellent Vordiplom in a science there. But again, this would not be a straight-forward choice.


text:
Can I submit papers already published on arXiv to Communications of the ACM (CACM)?
Recently I already published a paper on arXiv. I want to enrich and submit the paper to Communications of the ACM (CACM). But as mentioned in Author Guidelines of CACM (Section 5 ACM Policies):

Articles that have been submitted simultaneously to other magazines or journals will be declined outright and not reconsidered.

So is it possible to submit the paper already published on arXiv?
Please help me. Thanks!

Yes you can, because arXiv is a preprint server and not a journal or magazine.


text:
How do I handle a conflict with my former mentor about a potential paper correction?
During my postdoc, I published two research papers as the first author, with my mentor (a Professor at an Ivy League institution) as the corresponding/senior author. Months after publishing the papers, I realized that I made a mistake in the methods section (the same mistake in both, describing an inclusionary criterion) which was unfortunately repeated a few times throughout the articles.
I brought this issue to my mentor's attention shortly after discovering it, and they said it "didn't matter" in their opinion. Several months went by, and I brought the issue up with them again because it still bothered me, and I told them I wanted to do a correction. They stated that they did not think this mistake warranted a correction and even thought I was being "moralistic" about it.
A few months later, we spoke about it (via email) a third and final time, and my mentor reiterated that they did not want to do a correction. At that point, I relented and said I would defer to their judgment on the issue.
I've since moved on from the postdoc position into a faculty job at a different institution, although I still routinely interact with my former mentor.
With all that said, I'm still bothered by this situation and feel bad about the error. I want to know if anyone else has dealt with a similar conflict. If so, how did you handle it? Is it possible to do a correction without the senior/corresponding author's blessing?

You may want to refocus the question around your last sentence -- that's the part we might be able to answer for you. The first part is hard to answer without digging into the nature of the error -- i.e., the proper way to handle this will be completely different for a serious error vs. a trivial error.

Is a reader likely to reach a misunderstanding from this error or is it just something that embarrasses you?

Papers with minor mistakes get published all the time. Not every minor mistake is worth a correction. It's not, at least in many cases, a matter of trying to hide the mistake, but more a matter of it not being worth cluttering up the literature with minor corrections which do not change the message of your paper.

Why is the advice of an established Ivy League professor unconvincing to you? You might have to shed more light on both what that person told you why they think that way, and why you think differently? The last two comments above are certainly worthwhile answering.

A correction is typically issued in the name of the authors. While there are situations where a subset of the authors will have to act on their own, this is a radical step. In the situation described here, taking action without your mentor would feel to me like an attack on their professional ethics. I would expect this to significantly worsen your relationship.
If you do have a genuine professional concern that your omission may warrent a correction (rather than this just being your jerkbrain acting up), I'd recommend consulting with 2-3 trusted colleagues first. If they agree with your mentor that this is of insufficient significance to do something about, then let it go. If they agree that there is a concern, you can then bring it up again with your former mentor.


text:
Is a preprint considered as dual publication?
I am about to submit a paper to Nature but I made public the technical report supporting an important share of the results via BioRXiv a few weeks ago.
In the Nature submission system, they asked if the results have been published elsewhere. Is the preprint of my technical report considered as such?
Thanks

The answer is specific to Nature. Different journals have different policies. Here is their journal's policy on pre-prints: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/preprints-and-conference-proceedings

Nature encourages the use of preprints, as noted on their journal's policy page:

Nature Research journals encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Preprints are defined as an author’s version of a research manuscript prior to formal peer review at a journal, which is deposited on a public server (as described in Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352, 899–901; 2016); preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Nature Research journals. Manuscripts posted on preprint servers will not be taken into account when determining the advance provided by a study under consideration at a Nature Research journal.

The webpage then proceeds  to provide the details for their policy.

Is a preprint considered as dual publication?

No, dual publication means that identical or significantly overlapping works are independently published by the same or distinct publishers. A preprint is not published by a publisher and is excluded. However, as noted in a comment, preprints may preclude publication by some journals.

Some journals prohibit pre-prints of submissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy Andrew Gelman complains about this on his blog as well https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/01/15/hey-heres-new-reason-journal-reject-paper-annoying-already-preprint-server/

I can recommend following ongoing discussions on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) through e.g. their discussion paper: https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/preprints

@RichardErickson There's an exception to every rule... ;)

In the case of Nature, the existence of the preprint should be indicated during the submission process, as pinpointed by @Richard Erickson. It is clearly stated:
    « Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at a Nature Research journal. Once the preprint is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. »


text:
Google scholar change main version of paper?
I have an article on google scholar that was published with an open source journal and also put on arxiv, however google merged these two and sees the arxiv version as the main one and therefore messes up the citation.
Is this something that can be changed?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Investigations+into+the+origin+of+Einstein%E2%80%99s+Sink&btnG=&oq=Investigations+into+the+origin+of+Einstein%27s+Sink

We don’t run or have any control over google scholar. Have you contacted the help desk?

I am quite interested in this too. I did not find a satisfactory answer yet to do this.

Choose the Unmerge option to split them into two separate articles. Afterwards, you can select both articles and merge them again. At that point, scholar will ask which one should be considered the main publication.

What you can do is change what displays your google scholar profile manually (it won't affect the meta data of any articles, citations etc ..) in this page:

At the bottom, tick "Keep this article as it is now"
Google scholar will keep the arxiv version as main, but will display what you entered under article name. I had the same problem and now :

EDIT : It only changes it in your google scholar profile, not when you look for the article from the google scholar search :/

It did not solve the original issue asked my the author of this question

Congratulations on publishing with the open access journal Studium, the journal looks very nice.
I believe you can unmerge the bibliographic records for this item at Google Scholar.

Go to your Google Scholar profile and make sure you're logged-in
Click on the paper title in question which should be in blue e.g. "Investigations into the origin of Einstein's Sink" once clicked it'll bring up a new sub-window
At the top right-hand corner of this sub-window you'll see two buttons. One is to edit the record, the other is to delete the record. Click the edit button
Choose the very bottom option to unmerge the record. (screenshot below is the final screen you should see which offers the unmerge option)

If I correctly understand the question, what is wanted is not to unmerge, in the sense of making two publications out of one, but rather to have the published version be the primary one, so that people who lookup this paper on Google scholar will cite the published version rather than the arXiv preprint.

In addition to editing your Google Scholar profile, you may also want to update the front page of your Arxiv pre-print to indicate that you want people to cite the published version of the article. And you can include a copy of the reference. Some pre-print servers also allow you to explicitly link to the peer-reviewed version of the manuscript. I'm not sure whether this helps Google Scholar work it all out. But it should help readers work out which is the canonical reference.


text:
I have completed 2 yrs of my PhD and I want to leave my toxic lab and transfer to a new one. How should I approach potential new advisors?
In my current position, my committee believes that I am by all metrics a successful student. I'm even working on two papers. But I've had to endure sexual harassment and working conditions that endanger both my life and the neighbouring labs'. My prof does little to address these issues and discouraged me from taking them further. I've gone to my dept and to the university ombudsman, but there are no official procedures for this so nothing happens. Additionally, of the 6 PhD students who have come before me in the lab, only 1 will be able to defend and both of the other women quit within 1 yr.
In cover letters I'm upfront about the fact that I'm switching programmes. But I'm afraid saying anything negative about my current lab to a new prof only reflects poorly on me so I only state that my research interests have shifted and my current lab doesn't have the resources to support that. I'm afraid this sounds hollow though. Is there a better way to go about this?

Are you trying to move to a new lab/advisor at the same institution?

No, I'm trying to move to a new institution.

Okay.  Sorry, I don't have any relevant advice, and I am very sorry you have to deal with this.

Unfortunately, you are correct in assuming some people will view any and all conflicts with "authority" as stirring trouble and label it as undesirable. And yes, this may impact your application.
But ask yourself this - what are you willing to tolerate and why? Is sweeping the issue under the rug completely really the best approach here? If the new place does not view sexual harassment as a viable reason to change the workplace, will you want to work there?
It is true that academia is extremely hierarchical, and making your current professor fix their lab one way or another might be out of reach for you at this point in your career. But I would argue you should not avoid bringing up the real issue with the new lab. Your response to the situation was well-measured, you went through the official channels as any reasonable person would, and then decided not to escalate, which is not the only possible decision here, but it is a viable one nevertheless.
Stay factual. If you state "I have experienced X, and this makes the work environment unacceptable for me", and the new lab thinks it reflects poorly on you ("oh what a snowflake, everyone knows X is normal"), this is just another bullet dodged.
You may still press the charges, of course. But at very least, facing indifference should not be forcing you to keep your head down. Go, find a better place to be at.

So do you believe then that I should mention the harassment in a cover letter? I was hoping to discuss it in the interviews, should I get that far.

@ducks_unlimd Hmm. Interviews sound like a very reasonable choice for bringing it up indeed. But I would also say that citing "interpersonal issues" as a reason for changing a lab should not tank the application, either - if anything, a sensible committee would reserve their judgement until after the interview, which is a good outcome for you w.r.t. application/cover letter. No one likes divas, but if the way you write here is any indication, it is not really a concern. Being firm and professional with the boundaries is a virtue, and a short and upfront statement would do well on that front.

I'm sorry you went through this and, as someone who was in a similar situation, I know making the choice to leave isn't easy so congratulations on deciding to leave a toxic work environment.
Approaching new potential advisors and talking about your experiences is indeed tricky so I'll share my experience in case it helps. Personally, I tried to keep it in a positive light for the cover letter and said I decided to leave the position to pursue a PhD that [insert skill/topic/goal you want to reach].
During the interview stage, everyone I interviewed with asked about it and I had a neutral answer ready. I did not talk badly about anyone but made it clear that a) it was my decision to leave and b) my issues were with the work environment and not the science. I would advise you to make sure potential advisors understand this choice wasn't about having a few bad results and deciding to change topics because you couldn't push through getting stuck on a problem (this would a good time to talk about the papers you're working on).
Regardless of what you write in the cover letter, you need to have an answer ready for the interview (and beyond) because everyone will ask about it. I think staying neutral/factual without giving too many details is your best bet at navigating this situation. Mentioning that other PhD students have recently quit and/or are not finishing their degrees is another way of letting people know there is a systemic issue with the lab and it's not just you without having to say it explicitly.
I wish you the best of luck and hope you find a nice PI and lab - they do exist!

First, I am sorry that you have experienced this. Second, I think you should get out of this situation, and you should do everything you can not to hinder your opportunity to find a job elsewhere.
Thus, I would not advise bringing up any interpersonal issues in an application letter. Already, when students change programs, there is often the question of whether they are doing this voluntarily or if they have been forced out of the program. Several people typically review these letters, so even if 90% are sympathetic, it might only take one person being skeptical or perceiving this as a "red flag" to remove you from the consideration list.
Even if they are 100% sympathetic, this can still count against you because it brings more uncertainty into the equation. Ask yourself: if Candidate A and Candidate B are otherwise equally great, why take a chance choosing the candidate who might bring interpersonal issues to the department?
I also think it's too risky to bring it up in the interviews. Keep in mind professors often know each other and may even be friends, so it's possible you could cause yourself more trouble (e.g., if you don't get the job and your interviewer tells your advisor that you are trying to leave and badmouthing their program). If you make it to the interview round, they want you there, so focus on making the best possible impression. If they ask, stick to your "change in interest" story and quickly change the topic to expressing your enthusiasm and ideas about said interest.
If all goes well, you can tell your new advisor the real reason after you've moved and built a trusting relationship with them. Good luck--my thoughts are with you.
Sincerely, someone who has fought a similar battle


text:
How long PloS One "Decision in Process" status remain?
Anybody who has published in Plos One, can you tell me how long did the manuscript status take to change from "Decision in Process" to accepted or to receive the letter of acceptance? And how long did it take to publish after acceptance? Will be a great help. My manuscript status is stucked at " Decision in process" for more than 3 weeks now and the editor and the journal office says the editor has submitted the decision but doesnt say why such a delay.

3 weeks is not a very big duration.

The length of the "Decision in Process" phase at PLoS ONE can range widely, taking anywhere from a few days to several weeks. If your manuscript has been in this stage for over three weeks, it's natural to feel a bit on edge. Delays can occur, especially during busy times or when complex issues arise. The journal office's message suggests that your decision letter should be on its way shortly. Once accepted, articles typically take a few more weeks to be published. If there's no change soon, it might be worth giving the editor or journal office another nudge. Patience is key during this process. Best of luck with your manuscript, mate!
Hope this helps.

Thanks for the advice. It has been more than one month and now nobody in the journal responds to me nor I got the decision yet. I don't know what to do. Is this normal with PLOS ONE ? Does it take this long for them to give a decision?


text:
Funding for Masters for international students
Is it tough to get funding for a Masters in the USA/Canada? My undergraduate CGPA was 3.94, and I graduated last month, but I don't have any publications yet. My thesis was on VLSI, but I want to shift to data science for my Masters. I know that a Ph.D. has a lot of funding, but I don't want to commit to a long process of 5/6 years. So, will it be very difficult as an international student to get funding for a Masters and to shift fields?

In what field?  In mathematics, there tends to be a lot of funding sloshing around to pay TAs (since math departments in the US teach a lot of "service" classes).  It is relatively common for there to be funding in the sciences (as there tends to be a fair amount of grant money running around), but this is often more closely tied to individual lab directors or researchers.  In the arts and humanities, you might be very much out of luck, depending on where you are looking to go.

It should also be noted that (a) very few American institutions expect incoming masters (or phd) students to have any publications, and (b) you can always apply for phd programs, and "master out" after two years (this is not universally possible, but is common to the point of ubiquity).

@XanderHenderson, TA funding goes to doctoral students. Almost exclusively.

@Buffy Depends on the institution.  At my masters institution, I was fully funded as a masters student.  At my phd institution, masters students had better funding packages.  Both in mathematics.  Again, math departments tend to have a lot of undergraduate non-major students, hence a lot of money to pay TAs.  But it is another variable to consider, I suppose.

@XanderHenderson, my degrees are in math. All of the TAs were doctoral students. I'd be curious about what institutions you attended that did it differently. Rare doesn't mean that it never happens.

UN Reno for the masters, UC Riverside for PhD (which is run along the same lines as the rest of the UC system).  University of Arizona also does not distinguish between  masters and phd students vis-a-vis graduate student funding.

What’s VLSI? ..

In the US, funding at the masters level is rare. Unlike what it says in a comment, TA funding is available in many fields, but only at the doctoral level.
On the other hand, the US doesn't usually require a masters to begin doctoral study. So, if you are eligible, apply to doctoral studies with funding.
Note also that any funding package needs to include health insurance since health care is expensive here and isn't part of the general "social contract". TAs for doctoral students usually include this, tuition, most fees, and a modest stipend to cover living expenses.
Also note that lack of publications isn't an issue, nor is some shifting of fields, though the latter is because the US undergraduate program is very broad based. On the other hand, letters of recommendation are relatively important.

Part of the reasoning is that being a TA is considered valuable to begin a career in academia, whereas masters students here are often headed toward other careers.
Another factor is that it enables a doctoral student to be connected to the university full time which is a plus when it comes time to do dissertation research.
And, since funding is limited, the money is allocated to those who will be around longer and possibly contribute more.


text:
What are the purposes of Xivs?
A colleague of mine tend to upload her researcher paper to chemrXiv just the day she submitted it to the journal.
What is exactly the purpose of that and is it always permitted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preprint

Always permitted?  Check the journal.  Some journals may consider this "prior publication" and thus not accept the paper.  I think this is rare nowadays.
What is the purpose?  This is called "preprint".  In the Olden Days (before the Internet), a researcher would photocopy a bunch of copies of the new paper and send it to (a) other researchers in the field and (b) anyone who wrote (a postcard or letter) asking for a copy.  This was how you helped people find out about your paper!  Actual publication would only occur a year or so later.
Nowadays, you merely upload it once to the preprint server, and then everyone can get it.  Much easier.

So what is the purpose "nowadays"?

Nowadays people can see it as it is submitted, as a pre-print. It’s just easier to upload than send out a bunch of envelopes…

Paul Ginsparg's It was twenty years ago today ... makes for interesting reading, tracing out the early history of arXiv. One of Ginsparg's initial motivations for a central preprint server was a concern from another physicist that his disk allocation was running out due to the number of emailed articles. Another big motivation has always been to democratize access to all the preprints.

Some definite advantages of posting on arXiv or similar preprint servers are the following.

You get to advertise your work much earlier, and more effectively, than waiting for it to be published. (I say more effectively because many people subscribe to get daily mailings about new articles appearing in specific categories.)
People can start citing your work, again much earlier than publication.
You get to establish priority. If you don't bother putting up a preprint, then no-one will know what you have done, and someone else may obtain the same results independently. Even if they don't put up a preprint either, their paper may still end up getting published first.
When you include your submitted papers in your cv, it is easier for a hiring committee to see that they are genuine (and look at them if they want).
Your work will get indexed by Google Scholar, etc., much earlier.

As far as "always permitted" goes, there may be some rare exceptions. But for example here are overarching policies from Elsevier and Wiley.

Please note that preprints can be shared anywhere at any time, in line with Elsevier's sharing policy. Sharing your preprints e.g. on a preprint server will not count as prior publication (see 'Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication' for more information).

[Wiley Journal] will consider for review articles previously available as preprints. Authors may also post the submitted version of a manuscript to a preprint server at any time. Authors are requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article.

The purpose is to immediately disseminate your work as widely as possible.
As a researcher, if you want to build your reputation -- as you must if you hope to apply for jobs, get grants, earn tenure, attract grad students and collaborators, etc. -- then you want others to read your work, to cite your work, to discuss your work, to invite you to speak about your work, to ask you questions about your work.
To do this, they need to be able to access your work in the first place. Posting to a preprint server ensures that it is easily available to all.


text:
can one hypothesis be derived from another hypothesis?
I have a theory and hypothesis indicating that X leads to Y. The analysis proves this wrong, I want to say that it is possible to reformulate theory and hypothesis and show that Y leads to X. Can I say that the second hypothesis was derived from the first? And if so, is there a name for such type of hypotheses?

In math one uses the terminology "conditional" in this situation, e.g. "Theorem A is conditional on the Riemann Hypothesis." This means that the proof of A uses the RH at some point.

The implication B→A is called the converse of the implication A→B. Note that "all A's are B's" is in effect the implication "if x is an A, then x is a B", so loosely speaking it makes sense to say that "all B's are A's" is the converse of "all A's are B's".
Of course, this is not quite the same as your original example of "A leads to B" vs. "B leads to A", but it is close enough that the same terminology might make sense.


text:
Proving authorship and names on public magazines when name in publications does not match name in passport
My official passport name is very long Mukhammadyusuf Fakhriddinov that's why I use Yusuf Fakhriddinov on my publications, also on most websites I use shorter name. Will it cause any confusion in the future and what should I do if someone asks to prove that publication is mine.
Thank you for answers!

Can you use a shorter name. Yes, you can.
Try to be 'unique' within your organisation. Obviously, if you move to other organisations (change job), you cannot guarantee uniqueness.

Will it cause any confusion in the future and what should I do if someone asks to prove that publication is mine

Given that the uniqueness of your 'known' name might not be unique at all material time over your career, what you can do is to register an identity on ORCID with your name and include the shorter one as also known as.
Try to be consistent in your research engagements (journal, conf, grant, reports ...).
Within your field, put a face to your known name (in networking , conferences...).
If for any reasons you're ask to prove identity (your publication),

show your ORCID, and
(relevant) correspondence for the publication. This might just be email or if  need be, extracts from journal or conf submission process.


text:
I am a Psychology student but my PhD is technically in Computing sciences - will this impact my future, despite it being psychological research?
I have a background of psychology and have been offered a PhD which will investigate an area in psychology (with aspects of computing).
Although the PhD will be investigating psychology, it is offered and funded by the computing department, so is technically not a ‘psychology PhD’ but rather a PhD in computing sciences which investigates psychology (I will be taught the computing aspects I need to know).
Will this impair my future applications to doctorate roles/psychology jobs requiring PhD’s? Will they not care which department it is offered through, as long as my research in in psychology (which my thesis will be)? as my final certificate will say computing I believe.

In general, nobody in academia cares too much about what is written on your degree certificate; you will be defined by your research output rather than an arbitrary university administrative decision. However:

Your departmental affiliation may impact your exposure to the field more broadly: the seminars, networking opportunities, friendships and conversations that you find in a computing department will be different from those that you would receive in a psychology department. This may well influence the shape of your future career.

If your PhD programme has requirements other than the thesis (e.g. taught courses) these will probably have a different slant depending on your departmental affiliation.

Depending on your background and personality, you may find it harder to integrate into a computing department than a psychology department: coffee-time conversations and social activities may be less aligned to your interests. This depends hugely on the shape and culture of your department: will you be the one psychologist in a sea of compiler-design nerds, or are people drawn from a wide range of interdisciplinary backgrounds?

Often, opportunities to get involved in teaching are organised at departmental level, so you may find it difficult to gain psychology teaching experience from within a computing department. Indeed, if you are coming from a non-CS background you may find it difficult to get involved in teaching at all. Depending on your future career goals, this may (or may not) weaken your CV.

Most of these potential issues can be mitigated by making a deliberate effort to engage with the psychology community outside your immediate department.

Depending on which country you plan to work later on, it may have a huge impact.
In some countries (i.e. Italy) you have to obtain an habilitation to apply for a professorship, and habilitation are linked to certain "knowledge areas" and the requirements are different for different "knowledge areas".
It may end up in the absurd situations that your PhD formally-in-topic-A is not recognized to become a professor in area-B-where you have all your publications.
However, knowing which countries will have opportunities for you it is so far down the road, and knowing that getting a professorship is so unlikely even knowing exactly which 10 countries you aim to look for one makes the discussion pretty useless, unless you have a specific country in mind.

Several good answers already.  Let me add two things. My PhD is in psychometrics, given by a psychology department, but I spent my working career as a statistician. No one ever cared that my degree was in the "wrong" field.
Second, you ask

Will this impair my future applications to doctorate roles/psychology
jobs requiring PhD’s

but you don't say which jobs! If you are talking about posts as a professor in a psychology department, then knowledge of computing may make you very popular.
If you want to work in areas other than academia then it could be more of a problem. (PhD s in psychology work in lots of different kinds of jobs).

technically not a ‘psychology PhD’ but rather a PhD in computing sciences

Yes, technically. Realistically it's a (smooth) blend.

Will this impair my future applications to doctorate roles/psychology jobs requiring PhD’s

Ideally, shouldn't.
However, this might depend on which sub-field you want to narrow to.
Psychology and computing have a long history; symbiotic relationship in a way. The interrelationship goes for decades; kind of a century.
Crisscrossing or cross-carpeting seems natural; more like a norm, especially where they interface.
One area is cognitive which has shaped theories in computing (and information systems). Psychology has been used in CSCW/HCI, education technology, cybersecurity (notably human-aspect, cyber-skill/use); neuroscience, NLP/LLM/AI are not left behind.
The close-knit comes to fore in joint-degrees, for instance UCC, Ireland and Yale psychology and computing degree program.
HCI (Human-computer interaction) is essentially a study at "the region of intersection between psychology and the social sciences, on the one hand, and computer science and technology, on the other" (Carroll, 1997)
Ref:
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual review of psychology, 48(1), 61-83.
Sample application:
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 13(1), 121-141
Young, K. S. (1996). Psychology of computer use: XL. Addictive use of the Internet: a case that breaks the stereotype. Psychological reports, 79(3), 899-902


text:
Is there any reason not to upload to arxiv?
Is there any downside to putting your work on arxiv before submitting it to a conference? As a student my advisor always did the conference submission first.

1/ Someone could improve upon your work and becomes the state-of-the-art solution.   This means the glory goes to the latest work.
This is area specific, where in some areas the goal is to break a certain barrier or performance of the state-of-the-art solutions for a given problem.
2/ Some conferences or/and journals do not allow preprints to be available on the Internet.


text:
Is it hard/impossible to return to academia after a 2 year break?
I am close to finishing my PhD and most likely will have 1 or 2 papers published. For personal reasons I have to take around 2 year break from academia, but I would like to come back for a postdoc. People around me keep telling me that if I get out, I can't come back in, especially because the groups I want to apply to are really good (I chose them for the subject, not prestige, but the point still stands).
Is that true? I will still try, but in case that is accurate, does anybody have advice in how to make the transition or any strategies that worked for other people? I am afraid of wasting my hard work and sacrifices.

Where in the world are you? Is the 2 year break going to be for medical reasons or parental leave? (Those are often treated specially when it comes to all sorts of "at most X years after PhD" limits on funding and the like.)

which field and where?

Does this answer your question? How to handle 2 years hiatus after PhD?

During the tail-end of my PhD work, my lab hired a post-doc coming off a three-year hiatus after finishing their PhD (basically to pick up my unfinished work and run with it). This was in 2018, and I think the post-doctoral job market has gotten more favorable for job-seekers since then (in the US at least). Wouldn't say it was a highly "prestigious" lab, but we had several high-impact publications, some prestigious collaborations, and had just been awarded a couple of large five-year grants.

It would be extremely difficult for me to return to academia because I would have to tell my kids to do more with less.  I did not have kids when I was an academic.

I am based in Europe, my PhD will be in stem cells/developmental biology. The personal reasons are that I just need a sabbatical... my PhD experience has been unfortunately very toxic and pretty difficult, and I need some personal time to shake off what I've been through. I know that more "serious" reasons (parental leave, etc) are easier to justify, but is something I really feel I need.

One problem with a break is that you might lose contact with those people who can best support your return. Coming back to academia might require good and honest letters of recommendation confirming your likelihood of success.
I recommend two things, though related.
Keep in contact with people, especially your advisor, but also other faculty members.
But, just as important, keep up with ideas in your field and spend some effort discussing them with others, such as those mentioned above. You don't want to be two years behind the curve when you reenter. I suggest keeping a notebook of ideas, especially those that might lead to future research. Read a few papers. Ask people to keep you informed of progress in the field.

I'll add the suggestion of subscribing to email groups if there are some for your field; this is a good way to be informed of web seminars.

Thank you! That is what I was thinking. I love my field, reading about everything new, coming up with ideas and discussing with others, etc. In this break I still intend on writing about science and getting in contact with people that I think do really cool science, I just won't be in a academic setting. Fortunately, I managed to make a strong network, so I was hoping that maybe I could wiggle my way back in if I want to.

The answer ranges from "mildly difficult" to "very difficult", but does not reach the extremes of "no consequences" or "impossible."
First what is your reason? If you are a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy, have to take care of elderly parents, etc., then do what you have to do and then come back to academia. It's not a fair system and things will be harder for you than for people who were working those two years, but far from impossible. This, of course, depends on the field. In some fields, you should be able to at least keep up with things by reading the journals, attending conferences virtually, and keeping up with colleagues. In other fields, e.g. in advanced laboratories, things change so quickly that by the time you read it in the journals, it's obsolete. Regardless, when you return, you can write on applications the reason for the hiatus (e.g. family medical situation), and explain that it's solved. Everyone wants to be understanding of past crises, but nobody wants to hire someone who is in the middle of one.
A lot of people take breaks from academia for reasons which are arguably optional: a "mental health break", a long-planned hiking or cycling trip across the continent, marriage, having kids, etc. And before everyone jumps in about how unfair this is and how it affects some groups more than others, etc., please take a second to notice that I am not advocating or justifying the system, but explaining to the OP how these reasons are in fact, usually seen as optional. You can make your own decision as to your life priorities. If taking a mental health break will save your live, by all means do it. If having children is more important than whatever consequences you reap from the break, by all means do it (on the latter, I'd agree with you.) And so on. If your reason for the break falls into what could be considered optional life choices, then make your decision based on that. Just don't expect it to be without consequences.

I don't get what the last paragraph is trying to say. So some reasons are seen as optional. So what? Why does that make any difference? It would be extremely unreasonable for someone to discriminate against you on that basis.

@N.Virgo Indeed, but extremely unreasonable people exist in many places. The answer to the question needs to take into account the fact that extremely unreasonable people exist.

@kaya3 true, but if the outcome is that you avoid working for an unreasonable person I'd count that as a win

@N.Virgo, "extremely unreasonable" to "discriminate" against someone with less experience (or less-recent contact to the bleeding edge or such) when hiring? Are you sure?

@ilkkachu no, that's not what I said. I said it would be unreasonable to discriminate against such a person based on whether the break from academia was "voluntary" or not. If choosing between two candidates, one who took two years to care for someone and another who took two years to travel, it would be unreasonable to choose between them on any basis other than their relative academic merits.

In the answer I made it clear that I am not making a judgement on the ranking of justifications for taking time off. If you think that it's unreasonable to rank candidates on this criteria, then don't do it when you are the one hiring. But the OP is not the one hiring, but the one who wants to be hired after a hiatus, and I am just pointing out the possible consequences.

Thank you for the answer! I agree with you, and no worries, I never expected to be without consequences, if academia taught me something is that nothing goes unpunished :)) I was just wondering if anybody has any stories or strategies to go back in after a break. I guess in the end I just have to bite the bullet and see.

Perhaps I misunderstood the last paragraph. It read to me at first as if you were saying there will be more consequences for an involuntary break than a voluntary one, because voluntary breaks are more looked down on by employers. My comment was expressing that I don't believe that. If you instead mean that there will be roughly the same consequences and one should take that into account in decision making then I agree. Though I'd also say from experience that talking a break is not an insurmountable difficulty and might even be seen as positive by some academic employers.

My situation is perhaps anecdotal and likely different, but shows that it is not impossible, though, as others have mentioned, this may depend on many factors such as field etc.
To make my contribution less anecdotal:

Try to show you are still enthusiastic about research. At least: read. Better yet: try to publish; even if not very impactful or outside of the field you want to get back in. It shows general skills: you still have fresh ideas and can communicate them. A preprint or some blog posts can also suffice to showcase this. Get it out there.
Retain your academic connections, establish new, or reestablish old ones.
You may have to start a bit low on the ladder: less reputable lab, short-term position, etc. It will be easier to get in, and may require hard work, but try to work your way up from there if you cannot get into your preferred lab. I would not recommend it, but know of people who did a second PhD in a related field because they really wanted back in.

Personal experience:
I obtained my PhD, then worked a research position for about 3 1/2 years at a government agency. The position turned out to be not very research-heavy: I learned a lot but did not do research and did not publish in the first 2 1/2 years. Then decided the research part really was an itch, and started looking for a post-doc. How did I manage to get back in?
First, it took me about a year to find a relevant position, though I did not want to move cities which was a very big limiting factor.
Second, the position is just for a year and in a lab headed by someone I knew from my PhD (not an advisor). As argued by others, connections matter. It is a rather young lab without a big reputation (yet), which means it might be easier to get in. Most importantly, the work is interesting and relevant. A recommendation letter from my former advisor (note, I did not hear anything from him for three years, but he was still happy to write a letter) was likely important.
Third, wanting to get back in, I published two manuscripts related to work I did in my government agency position, showing that I can still do the trick. This took some of my personal time though. They were not directly relevant for the position I hold now, but they were more or less in the same general field, and in good specialized journals.

It is possible to maintain an unpaid affiliation with a university. The length of time that the status can be maintained is dependent on the university and other circumstances. You can ask your advisor or the head of your department for an affiliation status. I would recommend to try to stay mildly involved in research projects during that time to maintain an authorship record.
Another suggestion is to ask to stay in the department as an adjunct instructor if possible. Doing one course a semester can be a light workload and a small amount of income and this will maintain an affiliation with the university. This is, again, something to discuss with your advisor or the head of your department.

More clarification is needed here since this very much depends on the field you are in and what type of break you intend. In machine learning, it is not uncommon for people to go take on an industry position for a couple of years before returning to an academic position. The idea is that the industry position equips them better to tackle translation tasks or acquire skills in large-scale software engineering.
Other fields might be more or less malleable. A general recommendation from my side would be to not worry unduly. If your reasons are personal and important to you, would the knowledge that you may not get another position afterwards change the decision? If not, I'd just go ahead with it and see where it leads you.
Best of luck!