text:
May additional time in college harm my chances of going to grad school?
I'm an electrical engineering major (my home university is ranked #25 nationally). I'm about to start the fifth year(engineering takes 5 years in my country).
I also granted a national science scholarship last year, and was an exchange student at University of Colorado at Boulder. I did very well over there (3.9/4.0).
In my country, electrical engineering and electronic/computer(EECS) science are different. Electrical deals with power systems and telecomunications, while EECS deals with microelectronics, dsp, embedded systems, theory of computation and so on.
My home university doesn't have the EECS option so I had to choose electrical engineering, since I hadn't money to move to another place.
at CU Boulder, I basically only took classes in advanced math (even grad school level) that is my passion for life and computer science(another passion). Since I got back I'm not very motivated with my program, because I want to study EECS and math and not power systems.
Currently I'm attending the math summer program(summer here is January and February) at one of the leading math research institutes in my country(and even one of the best in the world) and I was invited to start the Master of Advanced Studies in March. They offered me a scholarship, so all my expenses will be covered. Since I didn't complete my undergrad studies yet, they offered to transfer my Engineering course to the school of engineering and math(ranked #1 nationally), and then after 2/2.5 years from march I'd have a bachelor's of electronic/computer science engineering, a second bachelor's degree in math and Master of Advanced studies in math. The only "problem" is that in the end, I'd have taken 7/7.5 years to complete my bachelor's of engineering program.
My question is the following: Will this "long time" for completing the engineering program harm my chances of being accepted by grad school, in math or computer science in a top graduate school?
May I argue in the applicant's form that I took 7.5 years because I moved on, I wasn't happy with my course/university, and when I chance to study my passions at the best schools in the country so I went forward ? (that would in fact be true)
In the whole thing I'd have 3 degrees(by # 1 institutes) in a total time of 7.5 years and a really good education, but I'm a little concerned about this "time to complete" thing, I really don't know how it works, specially in US
Can someone help?
Thank you everybody,
Dmitri

Taking a long time to complete one degree can be a bit of a red flag in US graduate admissions. However, this does not apply in your case, because you will have three separate degrees. The fact that you have transferred from one school to another also mitigates the lengthier time you've spent in those study programs.
If you hadn't done this "master of advanced studies," spending 7.5 years as an undergraduate would probably not be looked on too favorably. But in your specific circumstance, it's not as bad as it looks at first blush.
There might be a question, however, about why you want to do EECS at the graduate level, given that your master's degree would be in a math-related field. But that would be up to you to explain in any case as part of your statement of purpose.

The kind of research that I want to do in EECS is math-oriented, specifically in the fields of theory of computation and Theory of Systems/Information)          Just one more thing: I could enter the new engineering school as a transfer student or as a freshman. In both cases I'll need to take the same credits and therefore will spend the same time. The advantage of being a fresman is that it might "clear the history" for me, i.e., I would take only 2/3 years for completing the bachelor's degree. Do you know if this really have any advantage? Is it unethical? thanks


text:
What is a "distributed paper" and is it worth the effort?
Looking for interesting conferences I stumbled upon some remarks that there were presented papers and distributed papers at a conference session. This distinction was new to me, so I did some web searches: It turns out that this is pretty common among the International Sociological Association and the European Sociological Association. According to one of their Conference FAQs a "distributed paper is a written paper which the author(s) brings along to the session to distribute to those attending" in contrast to an actually presented paper.
Of course, it is an individual cost–benefit analysis whether that kind of a conference contribution is worth the effort (and fees), but it is hard to do the math withouth any experiences what I could expect from such a conference contribution.
Do you have experience with this format? I am especially interested in:

What kind of feedback (quantity and quality) can I expect from a distributed paper?
In comparison to a poster or a normal presentation, what could be advantages of a distributed paper for the "distributor"?
Do you have suggestions how I could optimize a "distributed paper" to get better feedback (or feedback at all)?

One comment: These things do exist (besides really good reasons) as well for people who are not allowed by their grant conditions to attend a conference without participation, because distributed papers are officially a form of active participation.

Distributed paper = soft rejection (plus smart way of collecting some extra conference fees)

I was at the European Sociological Association conference this year and only in one session did I encounter a distributed paper. The paper was duly given out at the start of the regular session and the (experienced) chair asked the author without any warning to present it. Although the author hadn't specifically prepared a presentation for his distributed paper, he did talk us through the paper and the audience asked a couple of questions based on superficially skim-reading it.
To answer your specific queries, the level of feedback would probably depend on how much time the Chair decided to give your paper. You might be able to negotiate this with the chair by email or in person just before the session, especially if the session is generously timed or somebody has dropped out, both of which are quite common at the ESA. It might even be possible to give a short Powerpoint presentation based on the paper as well. The advantage of a distributed paper could be that your paper ends up in people's hands and they might read it if they suffer a bad talk later on that day.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Taking credit for supervising a PhD student while I am a postdoc
I am nearly done with my PhD and I am excited to the phase where I supervise PhD theses. However in Germany, I can be the official supervisor of a PhD student only if I am a professor.
I will probably write project proposals for grants and such, and hopefully through those I can hire PhD students. And I am sure my current supervisor would be happy if I share with him the load of supervising new PhD students.
Let's say I start supervising (or co-supervising) a PhD student after one of those two scenarios above. The question is, how can I take credit for supervising that student if I am not yet a professor?
Surely we'll be writing papers together and I'll benefit from that. But I wonder if it would be okay to say in a future interview or in my CV: I supervised a PhD student while I was a post doc.

As you say you are in Germany, is the CV going to be in English or in German? I am asking because in German (at least in CS), the words Betreuer/Betreuung (supervisor/supervision) do not come with the same connotation of an official position as the seemingly equivalent English terms.

@O.R.Mapper I will probably have a version in each language. So I assume "Betreuer" is more general, while supervisor sounds more like an official adviser?

Yes, at least that is my impression. Erstprüfer, Hauptberichterstatter, maybe Doktorvater and also simply [mein] Professor all denote the official advisor in German, but Betreuer can be anyone who provides some form of partial or complete Betreuung. I think this implies the two language versions of your CV might deviate, as Betreuung is the most straightfoward way to express that kind of duty in German, while supervision may be misleading in English.

If you are not yet a professor, you will most likely not yet be the sole one supervising, so there should be a professor who is officially assigned to supervise this student. It might be that you do all the work and the professor is only there on paper, however, he is still the one responsible.
Thus, I would suggest to state in the CV that you assisted professor X in supervising PhD students. Most people will be well aware that this means that you did most of the supervising work, however doing it this way you do not claim something that you (officially) shouldn't be doing.
If you want, ask the professor to write a letter of recommendation emphasizing the fact that you did most of the work.

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


text:
MSc in education for an assistnat professor in computer science
What are your thoughts about getting an MSc in education while being an assistant professor? my UK university requires assistant professors to go through a number of courses, and upon completing them staff members are offerred to enrol for free in an MSc in education where they would continue to take follow up courses.
The schedule is relaxed (around 40 hours a year), but although I am not very concerned about the time impact, I wonder if a better use of time is to write another paper or a grant application. My position and institution are research focused, and while I still need to teach a bit, the weight of research achievements is the heaviest in our promotion criteria.
Most people find these courses boring, but I usually learn a thing or two in each course that do reinforce my teaching skills. Apart from learning a few things that would help me with teaching, I am not sure about whether it helps my academic profile; it is usually assumed that PhD holders are able to teach and I am not sure how an academic's CV with an MSc in Education + BSc/MSc/PhD in computer science is perceived like.

You have a permanent job, right?  You're highly unlikely to lose it, right?  You trust your own judgement, right?  In that case, I'd suggest you do what you think is best at helping you do your job (whatever you think that is), and not worry much about what other people think.

@AlexanderWoo while it's very unlikely to lose this permanent position, there's still a chance I move somewhere else for a better position, more resources or better opportunities. So, it's still important how the academic community perceives this. I don't want to end up with a hiring committee that thinks I was wasting time or have misplaced priorities. You don't always get the chance to explain things to people and have to rely on their first impression when reading your CV or website.

More important that what we think is what your university thinks and how it will impact your career. It sounds like that value it pretty highly. There is nothing magic in a PhD that makes you an adequate teacher of your subject.
If you intend to stay at your current place and build your career there then it might be worth any effort. Likewise if you want teaching to be an important part of your academic life it has value.
And your current place seems to require at least part of it, so, ...

I agree with all you said. While I don't plan to move to another university, I might have to at some point to get a better opportunity or due to the economic situation in the UK. So, if I decide to move to another university at some point, I'm likely impacted by the first impressions the hiring committee will have when reading this in my CV or website.

It is hard to imagine anyone thinking of it as a negative, especially when your current U seems to value it.

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


text:
Negotiating after receiving a lectureship offer in the UK
In Germany and in the US, usually people apply for multiple positions then start to negotiate with the universities that give them offers. For example, if you're offered a position from A and B, you can tell A that you have another offer from B, and to choose A you'd need x and y and z because this would help you do the research you wish to do.
Is it the same in the in the UK? I've come across this post: How to negotiate the salary for a UK faculty position?
in which one of the responses suggests that it might be insulting to negotiate the salary. But I wonder if it is the same for lab space, travel funding, etc..
So how are things done in the UK after the person has been offered multiple lectureships? I am talking about entry level lectureship (i.e., not senior lecturer, not reader, but rather "lecturer").

The time scales for new Lecturer appointments in the UK are much shorter than the ones in Germany. In addition, at least in my area, there are far less pronounced "hiring seasons" than in the US. This combines to make the situation where people have multiple active offers much less likely.

This varies a lot by university. Basically, the more famous ones know they have to compete with the USA. But traditionally, if you didn't accept a position once offered you had to pay them back for the travel for your interview! And you were expected to decide on the day of the interview, after the offer! So there is not much culture around offers at most universities.
One thing I'd strongly advise if you come in with a lot of experience is that asking for higher rank is more important than asking for more money. You will get shunted up the pay scale regardless (there are annual "point increases" to some ceiling) and if anything if you argue your way up early you may get penalised later with fewer "discretionary points." Though getting a more advanced rank than was advertised for may well be impossible these days too, there is a lot of anti-corruption legislation in place that blocks creative hiring.
If you are applying for a chair, ignore the above. Ask for absolutely everything you can think of. You are in your one true time and position of power. Parking places, studentships, accommodation, whatever you can imagine. Often the department wants you to get great stuff and will help you with this. In fact, in general (with or without a chair) once you have an offer your Head of Department is your ally; they really want you to come and they are helping you get resource off of the centre. So talk to them and maybe a couple other senior faculty in your new department. Foreign faculty might be particularly useful, especially from the system with which you are familiar, since they can translate better.

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


text:
Applying for multiple lecturer posts in the UK
There are multiple lecturer openings in the UK that are very relevant to my work, say posts A and B. I prefer B over A, but B's application deadline is a about 2 months after A's.
If I apply for both posts, there is a chance I might be accepted for A while I am still waiting for a response from B. In that case, how should I react and what should I do if I get a positive response from B after I have accepted the offer from A?
My question is particular to the UK. In Germany, for example, I know that people openly apply for multiple positions and leverage this for negotiations. But I am not sure if the process is the same in the UK.

In the US, people also apply simultaneously to many positions. The UK seems like the odd one out in this respect.

We use to say: "don't bandage your head before it's hurt". The typical strategy would be to use the offer received to ask the other position to see whether they can reach a decision sooner. In the meantime you can try to lengthen the process by negotiating, asking questions, "taking some time to make your mind up", asking your partner, etc.

@TheWanderer Although I appreciate that your comments are helpful for the OP, it is also worth to consider the effect that such delay strategy has on the Department and on the less successful candidates.

@Thomas:  No this sort of thing goes on in the UK regularly too

@Conrad I mean that the UK is the odd one out in that they run job searches throughout the year, rather than following a fixed annual cycle.

@Thomas In my experience "the odd one out" here is the US with the fixed cycle - everywhere else that I am aware of (Sweden, Germany, UK, Switzerland) positions are announced all year round.

how should I react and what should I do if I get a positive response from B after I have accepted the offer from A

This should not happen except in very rare circumstances. The typical UK hiring timeline is the job is announced with a known interview date and an offer will be made within days (sometimes hours) of the interview. They would then expect you to verbally accept the offer within days and then ideally present you with a contract a day or so after that.
The conventional wisdom is that after getting the contract, you should withdraw your other applications. If you verbally commit to A, but A cannot generate a contract in a timely manner, then most people (but not necessarily the people at A) will understand if you accept another offer. I am not a huge believer in the conventional wisdom. A good job offer can be your job for the rest of your life and to turn down your dream job in your dream department at your dream university in your dream city with great resources and salary and a position for your partner for a job you do not want to do with crappy resources and salary in city you hate, in my opinion is not reasonable. To screw over a department because someone else offered you a step higher on the salary scale also does not seem reasonable. In other words, you need to use your judgment to decide what to do.

Your question: how should I react and what should I do if I get a positive response from B after I have accepted the offer from A?
Answer: How would you react if you were responsible for recruitment A and a candidate has in mind the sort of plan you are describing?
You might find that the situation is as much about your UK colleagues as about your own reaction. From experience, the priority for your 'reaction' is to be totally transparent and honest with A colleagues about your application from the very start of the recruitment process A.
Then you leave it for colleagues to be accommodating with your situation.
They may take a bet on your application if they are very interested in your profile, hoping that your application B is not successful. If they are not in a position to take a bet - for whatever reason - then your honesty will make their decision easier and they should thank you for it.
If A colleagues discover late in the recruitment process that your application was not genuine but only a safety application, 'just in case' application B does not work out, they might be left rather unimpressed with your approach to the entire recruitment process. This would contribute in yourself building a bad name in what is usually a close-knit and networked community where word-of-mouth goes round very quickly.
In short, honesty and transparency.


text:
If I already have a master's degree, can I use it to apply for another master's degree (UK)?
The title already has the question. If I have a master's degree, can I use it to apply for another (in UK)? I have completed my master's degree (GPA 4.0/4.0) at my home country (situated in northern Europe), and I would now like to do another one-year MSc course at a top university to swap fields. The thing is, my BSc degree is clearly below average (lack of motivation during the first years... is costly), so I really hope this would be possible. I also have 4 peer-reviewed publications.

Yes, of course you can, since you are changing fields.
A friend of mind never finished his bachelor degree and had years of work experience and wanted to get into a master program (in the US). The program he wanted said they would take him if he had a bachelor degree but since he did not have one, he could not enter.
He went to the UK, got accepted into one master program based on his partial completion of his bachelor degree COMBINED with his real-world experience. Once he completed that master program, the program in the US (in a different field) did accept him.
So, yes, it is absolutely possible to do this.
I think what your real question is whether an admission committee will overlook your poor performance during your undergraduate since you have a master degree. It would help to know what your performance was during your master, and how 'top' of a school you want to get into.
The publications should help, especially if they are from reputable journals. The best course is to actually submit an application. However, you should consider what you really want to achieve. If you want to do research, perhaps going into a PhD program would be better for you. If you just want to change fields, but don't want to do a lot of research, then a new master degree might be just what you need.


text:
What are the career prospects after being an RA?
I'll be eligible to apply for the master's in Computer Science within a semester (2 max). I'm working as an undergrad for a research group (I'm implementation -- programming).  I'd like to know what I could reasonably expect (in terms of job prospects and recruitment if any) if I work as an RA.  How are RA's typically viewed by prospective employers?
Initially, I thought this would be good and that RA's are sought after since they're pretty well educated and have been working in cutting edge areas.  But then, I wasn't sure if it's just too far removed from industry and that employers might think you just didn't bother to pursue any work in the private sector while getting a degree in a field that is highly employable by the private sector (i.e. they might not be sympathetic to your desire to do interesting research work as opposed to straight coding production work as is often in industry).

It worked well for me. 4 (good) job offers after finishing undergrad. I put it 75% down to my RA work, based on where the discussions were centered in all my interviews (as well as the rest of my resume being bland).

Being an RA (Research Assistant) means you get to work closely with one or more post-docs and faculty members in a context that generally requires technical,  problem-solving, and communication skills -- skills that are definitely valued highly by employers.  So, assuming that you do a good job, your supervisors should be able to write strong recommendation letters for you, recommend you to recruiters from industry, or possibly put you in touch with people they know in industry.  Also, you may be able to use your RA work and experience as a discussion item in interviews.
A lot of the industry jobs that undergrads tend to work in look (to me) like grunt-work: website development and maintenance, routine programming, stuff like that.  It seems to me that an RA would be much more preferable than those simply because it can allow you to be more creative and possibly also sharpen your communication skills.  Of course, it's possible that you have some unusual set of skills --- say, Unix guru or security honcho --- that would make you suitable for a very different kind of industry job that would be even more attractive to employers down the road --- but in my experience this tends to be rare.


text:
Justifying a two year gap after Master's degree in Statement of Purpose
There is a two year gap after finishing my Master's degree and I am applying to graduate schools in the same field. This time has spent on immigration and then unemployment, tutoring physics, and a job not directly related to my field. But I have been following new research on the topics that I was interested in, without being supervised or any serious research.
My questions is, what should I mostly emphasize on in order to explain the gap most effectively: My teaching experience (indicating interest in teaching the field), Having a job and paying for my family expenses (indicating maturity), or that I was following the current research on topics of interest (indicating persistence)?

I presume you are applying to PhD programs. If I were you, I would emphasize

I was following the current research on topics of interest

since research will be the primary task for PhD students.
Teaching experience should be also mentioned so that they would know you can be a TA.
Other things are not directly related to SoP. You can mention them briefly in your CV  in case they wonder what you have been doing.
Good Luck!

@trxw I am not sure what kind of unrelated job you had. If it's high school teacher or the like, you should mention it in SoP even if what you teach has nothing to do with physics.

Makes sense and to the point +1

You can mention all three.  The trick is to make these parts of your CV look like "features," not "bugs." It sounds like you have an idea of what to do there. I don't think it would hurt to mention that this slight detour, while being slightly off the path to graduate school, has only convinced you that graduate school was the right place for you.
Of course, no one ever got into a good program by saying "I really want to be there!" I was in a similar situation when applying to PhD programs -- I was teaching high school, which was good, but my background was not directly inline with what some PhD programs were looking for. I emailed some faculty about what to do to bolster my application, and one suggestion was to go ahead and do some academic writing on my own and use that as part of my application.  I'm not sure if that's possible for you, but it's something to consider. If that work is high quality, shows that you are up-to-date on the state of your field, and actively thinking about workable research topics, that will surely impress admissions committees.

Thanks Erik. +1 for " The trick is to make these parts of your CV look like "features," not "bugs." "


text:
Making an appointment regarding letters of recommendation
My University is currently on break, so I'd be making the appointment by email, and then meeting separately to discuss it.
In the email, is it a good idea to say explicitly that the appointment is regarding letters of recommendation? It seems like it would be, but on the other hand that seems tantamount to "asking via email," which of course is frowned upon when we're in the same city. Any thoughts?

This may vary between departments, countries (I'm in the U.S.), etc., but I'd say:

When making an appointment, it's almost always a good idea to specify what it will be about.  When someone doesn't have a lot of time, this helps them figure out how soon the meeting needs to be scheduled, and it gives them a chance to prepare for it.  The one exception I can think of is very delicate topics.  For example, if you are meeting with someone to discuss an ethical matter, there might not be a short description you can give that wouldn't risk be misleading or omitting important context.
I'm not aware of a belief that asking for a letter of recommendation via e-mail is rude or problematic (although of course this may depend on the local culture).  In fact, I would prefer to be asked by e-mail.  Partly it's just because I generally prefer e-mail for things that can be handled that way, since it's less disruptive.  Partly it's because awkward situations are a little easier for me to handle by e-mail.  For example, if a student didn't do well in my course, I may point this out and ask whether there's someone else who could write a more compelling letter.  It's easier for me to find the right words in writing, rather than on the fly in a conversation.

That's interesting. Every single resource I've been able to find on the topic recommends always asking in person when possible, but admittedly I don't know whether the authors were university faculty. In either case, I definitely know that I'd share your sentiments: I would feel very much put on the spot if someone asked me in person and I felt that I should decline.

Just write the email right now asking for the letter.  If you feel sheepish about "asking over email," just say "I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to ask you in person, but because we're on break, I wasn't sure how long it would take to set up a meeting."
The number 1 courtesy issue with asking for letters of recommendation is promptness and giving your writers as much time as possible to write and submit the letters.  I think that completely overrides any concerns about medium, especially when it's not necessarily easy to meet with the person in question right away.  I'd certainly much rather get an email about submitting letters than to go to the trouble of specially setting up a meeting with some amount of delay. (In fact, when students do ask me in person, I usually tell them to sent me an email about it so I have a permanent record of the request).


text:
For NSF proposal and grant purposes, do graduate students meet the definition of "investigator"?
I recently received an email from a department administrator that NSF rules have been changed (link here), such that all investigators must fill out a conflict of interest (COI) form.  They then go on to list a cadre of examples which meet the definition of investigator and a statement that all investigators must fill out this form.  Our university has the definition of investigator here.
My question is, are graduate students typically considered investigators by the NSF?  If so, we certainly do not receive the recognition that PIs and other listed investigators get.

Based on your links, it seems clear that grad students may be investigators, but that the exact determination of who is an "investigator" depends on the nature of the person's duties (whether they have a "degree of independence").  That suggests that this is a question for which you need a specific answer from someone at your own university or in your own department, probably either the PI on any grant you are working on, or a staff member who deals with administration of these grants.

Actually, the NSF, in its Grant Proposal Guide, does not actually define the concept of an "investigator." Instead, it chooses to define the different categories as "senior personnel" and "other personnel." Typically, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students fall under "other personnel."
Personally, in such matters, I would opt on the side of caution and just have the graduate students fill out the conflict of interest form. It doesn't take very long, and having it in place makes life easier for everyone.

PI stands for PRINCIPAL Investigator, i.e. the head investigator.  Under this guideline grad students and postdocs ARE still investigators, albeit, not principal ones.


text:
What are some examples of negative effects on a career for boycotting Elsevier journals?
I fully support the Elsevier boycott, and came from mathematics (BS and MS) into my current PhD program in an engineering subdiscipline. I'm finishing up my PhD now and starting a post-doc soon.
I've already refused to review an article a few years ago for an Elsevier journal, and the editor seemed quite angry about it.
Once again I have been asked to review an article for an Elsevier journal, only this time the journal editorial board has a prominent researcher who I have had personal contact with, is a recently retired Emeritus Professor from my department, and if he became angry about my refusal he could potentially harm my career.
Does anyone have any specific examples of, or even better statistical data showing that boycotts of Elsevier journals had negative career impacts on early career/junior scientists?

It might be worth noting that, when it comes to contentious issues like these, you run the risk of rankling either way. For every person likely to get "angry" about your refusal, there might be another who would be disappointed if you didn't stand up for your convictions, or supportive if you did.

Yes, which is why I asked the question, for instance has anyone ever had trouble with a tenure committee member because they refused to review an article for instance?

Typically random members of the editorial board won't see whether you declined a review request, unless they are the editor who sent you the request or maybe as editor in chief.

This seems a very hard, possibly impossible, question to answer.  Unless there is a paper experts would agree is a very amazing result that went unnoticed and unrewarded for a long period of time because it was in a less respected journal, how could you possibly measure the impact of such a decision?  If you have no Elsevier publications (after a certain date, at least), how would you know for certain that that's the specific reason a promotion/hiring decision went against you?  Or that you even could have gotten to the magical number of Elsevier publications, had you tried?

Considering that the interaction between editor and referee is confidential, and you are asking about actual retaliation (which most probably not widely advertised by either party), I do not think this question can be answered. Also, if it is answered, most probably they would be only anecdotal cases. Seriously, statistical data showing career impact..? Statistical data on how angry editors gave not recommendation letter to people or unfairly point down grant applications???

@Greg, there are ways to do a statistical study, hard yes, but also possible, especially given that there quite a lot of people boycotting Elsevier now. That is why I also asked for anecdotal examples...

People decline to serve as editors or reviewers for all sorts of reasons. "Too busy" and "conflict of interest" are two common ones that are easily applicable to your case.
All junior faculty have too much on their plate and no one knows what your chair or mentor has told you that you need to focus on. So "unavailable/too busy to take this on" is an unprovable and thus good excuse. It's also impossible to know who you've had a fling or a spat with and so "conflict of interest" (and you don't have to give the reason for a CoI or for why you're unavailable) is perhaps less apt in this situation but also a valid excuse.

Example: These are the three options I was given when I received my last reviewer assignment email. If I clicked on decline due to COI or unavailable, I'd be taken
  to a webform that asked me for alternate reviewer names, but that was
  entirely optional on my part. I would not be asked for a reason or justification for my response.

As to negative effects, I think it's fine to have principles, but when you're junior faculty, you're also vulnerable. You can choose not to buy products made in China (for example) or to decline to provide free work to Elsevier, but you also don't have to tell any and everyone that you've made that decision for yourself. It's fine to decline with a vague reason if that will protect you from the  possibility of retribution.
When you are in a position where you can speak your mind without fear of retribution(which is what tenure is designed to ensure), then do so.
As an aside: Especially in well-established journals, editors and editorial boards tend be composed of people known for their expertise as well as their dedication to the field of study. These people also tend to be very, very busy. Your response to the 'board' will likely be entered by a junior editorial assistant and it's highly unlikely that the editorial board will even get involved -- except perhaps to solicit names of other reviewers. Quite simply, it's too small of an issue and people are far too busy to get worked up over this. While I've heard of editors being angry at junior scholars for not publishing in their venues, I've never heard of anyone being angry because someone didn't serve as an article reviewer. A declination then is risk-free. But going out of your way to declare "I'm not reviewing because of my political position against ____" is making a statement (which is what you want, right?) and thus carries the risk that that statement is offensive to some.

So you're implying it is detrimental, and that the best course of action is to keep that opinion to yourself? I think it depends strongly on the field. In maths it seems like you can easily boycott Elsevier since the most prestigious journals are not published by them.

One cannot say for certain if it is detrimental or not, just that the risk/benefit analysis is such that it is often best to keep controversial political opinions to oneself while you are in a state that is vulnerable to retribution. There are of course situations that call for a higher degree of bravery and it's up to you to decide what you view as risk and what you view as benefit.

Do you have examples?

@CapeCode If you feel that you risk a lot by being honest, then you can decide to simply keep mum. Is it ethical? Who knows, but: Is it wrong to feel at risk? Of course, one can also decide to refuse to review the paper without giving any reason. A simple: "Dear Editor, I apologize, but I can't do the review" could do.

+1 for keeping this to yourself. In biology, Elsevier publishes some of the leading journals, such as Cell. Looking at their editorial board (http://www.cell.com/cell/editorial-board) which contains many top scientists, you might want to think twice before boycotting this journal - even as senior faculty.

@RoboKaren, your answer is good for a general discussion, however it doesn't address my question really, which is do you have any examples? I have thought quite a bit about the issues and have considered most of what you present here, but I wanted answers with concrete examples or perhaps a study if one has been done...

A study of whether there has been retribution against journal reviewers for refusing to review for open access because of their political-economic beliefs?  Seriously? I belong to a small-n discipline but even this would be pushing it.

well it depends on your situation. Consider the following, suppose journals are
categorized into A*, A, B, C. Your prospects for pay and promotion are directly affected by how many papers you publish in A* and to a lesser extent A.
Now suppose the only journal sympathetic to work in your field that is A* is published by Elsevier. If you refuse to have anything to do with the journal you are harming your career prospects.
This situation is real in Australia.
As regards not refereeing a paper, lots of people refuse refereeing requests all the time for all sorts of reasons. You can just say "no" without giving a reason or you say you are overworked at the moment which is almost certainly true given that you are a maths postdoc.

I asked for actual examples, do you have any anecdotal evidence of this occurring? Thanks

Mark, I agree with you for this specific situation, if there is only one high level journal, and it is an Elsevier journal, then it is likely that refusing to publish may harm a junior scientist’s career. Have you ever heard of any backlash for refusing to review or edit an Elsevier journal? In my prior review refusal, I made it clear why I was refusing to review, and this seemed to make the editor angry (fortunately they really aren't in my field exactly), but for the current review request one of the editors is in my field and is actually at my institution...

well I doubt many people actually say they are not doing it because it's Elsevier. They probably just say no quietly. Journals treat their referees better than other authors so there is an indirect benefit to doing it. Offending senior academics certainly does harm your career. Regarding your specific question, no I don't have an example.

"This situation is real in Australia" - can you be a little bit more specific? As an Australian student, I'm curious if this is the case in any of the fields my work is related to.

the last ERA had such a list. The business schools have their own list. This is how academics are handled for pay and promotion. It depends on field whether the Elsevier journals dominate A*. For my work, one of the main A*outlets is an Elsevier journal. You would need to get hold of the list for your field.

@MarkJoshi, I've heard that this is changing however, most Universities are trying to move away from the A*, etc. ratings for "tenure" decisions (I know tenure isn't the same there...), have you heard about this?

i see no sign of that in my faculty at Melbourne

Well, the ERA 2012 didn't rank journals, and the ERA 2010 is now over 5 years old, how long are people going to continue to adhere to the ERA 2010 list if no new ranking list comes out? Kim Carr stated publicly that what you describe was not the intention of the rankings, which is why they removed them...good to know what the situation is on the ground however...

the Australian business deans council released their own ranking and regularly revise it.

I'm awarding you the bonus, your answer was the closest to what I wanted.

There's a song I like from a famous French songwriter called Georges Brassens. The title is (roughly translated): "To die for your ideas". He argues that he's alright with it, as long as it's from a slow death. One of his concerns is that these ideas might become obsolete the day after he'd die.
To your question: if the most prestigious journals in your field are published by Elsevier and, say, you produce work worthy of these journals but yet you choose to publish in less reputable journals for political reasons you're obviously taking the risk to diminish your chances at future employment applications, grant money attribution, etc.
I'll give a practical example: say your field is inner-ear physiology and you refuse to review and publish in Hearing Research, JARO or Nature Medicine, because these are commercial publishers, you will not be part of the community who publishes in the field, your papers will be unnoticed and your chances of getting an academic position will tend towards zero.
Now, if the good journals are not published by that commercial publisher you dislike (which I think is the case in many mathematics fields), then it's pretty much irrelevant. If anything, you're annoying editors who have to find other (maybe less capable) reviewers. In your specific case, it might be perceived negatively by your senior colleague that you let politics go in the way of your "duty" to the scientific community as a reviewer, but I doubt that this would ruin your career by itself.
Publish in the reputable journals that your colleagues respect and read, upload preprints for subscription journals.

The journal is not a prestigious journal in our field, it is a niche mid-level journal. Fortunately, the most prestigious journals in my field are operated by a non-profit, also I was asked to review an article in this journal.

Additionally, my duty is also to ensure that tax-payer funded research is available to the public, and that tax-payer funded public research isn't making corporations 39% profit margins.

@daaxix in many aspects taxpayers gets better publishing for their money with subscription based journals.

capecode, for this specific case of Elsevier, I don't think a 39% profit margin supports your premise, that leaves lot of room for improved efficiency. Better publishing in what way? Taxpayers (the public) should have access to research that they already paid for, and all taxpayers deserve that access equally.

@daaxix I'm aware of all the arguments, I had the pleasure to endure vociferous open access advocacy at several points in my academic career. The general public can go to a library. With the open access fashion came the obsolescence of editorial rejection and the number of articles exploded. It's costing taxpayers an arm and a leg to archive for stuff they will never read and is marginally incremental or frankly redundant.

-1: This doesn't seem to answer the question.  Moreover, your attempt engage the ethical issues comes off as throwing shade: "[I]t's sad that you let politics go in the way of your "duty" to the scientific community as a reviewer." More balanced version: "It's sad that you're putting a principle that you care about strongly ahead of a principle that I care about strongly.  Sad to me, I mean, and probably some others as well."  You say a lot of other things that are similarly unbalanced.

@PeteL.Clark I agree that this part wasn't necessary. I amended my answer.

@PeteL.Clark but I disagree that it's not a valid answer to the question. The answer is: it can be detrimental if the high profile journals in your field are published by Elsevier and irrelevant otherwise.

@daaxix As Cape Code says, the public already has access at libraries. What you're really ensuring is that businesses get free access to research, instead of paying to read it. Businesses are the beneficiaries of open access. They're the free riders on the back of your ideology.

On a side note, i wonder why people upvote obsolete comments. I've been thinking about asking a question on meta about it.

@EnergyNumbers note that private companies are taxpayers too, actually the primary source of tax money. Note also that Elsevier offers gold OA options.

@CapeCode: Is obsolescence of editorial rejection necessarily a bad thing? Editors tend to reject papers whose lack of quality is evident to a non-expert (at least not an expert in the specific subject the paper specializes in -- of course, editors are experienced scientists in fields relatively close to it) at a rather short glance (editors don't have time to read papers in detail). This is precisely the kind of articles that a reader can easily dismiss as well. Or are you talking about the rejection done by the editor upon negative referee reports?

On the "perceived negatively by your senior colleague" issue, I cannot claim it to be false... but against it stands the sympathy of other senior colleagues. The kind of people who care about "duty" are the kind of people who don't view political action as negative per se (although opinions can and often will depend on the issue at hand). In my personal experience boycotting an Elsevier referee request, the editor sympathized with my criticism (I am not saying that he/she sympathized with the actual boycott, as I don't remember), and it was the editorial assistant who disagreed.

"The general public can go to a library."  I find that to be a very strange statement, but let's test it out.  Suppose that I, a private United States citizen living in Athens, GA, would like to read the January 2015 issue of Inventiones Mathematicae.  What library can I go to in order to do this?

@Cape Code: Okay, you can disagree.  The question was: "Does anyone have any specific examples of, or even better statistical data showing that boycotts of Elsevier journals had negative career impacts on early career/junior scientists?" So an answer would require calling attention to at least one actual person or group of people whose career was harmed by acting in this way.  I'm sorry if your answer contained this information and I missed it: please feel free to point it out to me.

@PeteL.Clark I don't want to discuss this at length here, there are many legal ways to access paywalled articles for free for people for whom it's unpractical to go to a library.

@daaxix 39% margin is less than what major open-access publisher make on article processing charges

@PeteL.Clark: I do not know the policies of UGA, but at Rice our library is open to the public (you just have to sign in and show an id) and has public workstations from which you can access journals to which we have an electronic subscription.  (ps: I'm not saying that I agree with Cape Cod's point).

@PeteL.Clark The statement is not false, I never said it's the only way to get access to publications for free. See this http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/26238/10643 (but you already know all of this I'm sure). Inter-library loan is indeed an interesting option. This being said, I don't think it's necessarily bad that a person has to buy an article if she/he wants a postprint, and wants it immediately.

You suggested an avenue that people can use to get access to articles that is not in fact available to the general public.  It is available to some people, depending upon where they live.  I have collaborated with several people who do not have access to the literature, seen how it retards or impedes their work, and watched them get frustrated.  So I am rather sensitive to the counterfactual aspects of your comments.

Bottom line: academia is about disseminating knowledge.  This can be done freely on a worldwide scale: about 15% of my papers are published in journals in which the publishers receive no money whatsoever from either authors or subscribers.  I find arguments against the impossibility of what is actually happening strange.  If you think that a lack of free worldwide dissemination of knowledge is "not necessarily bad": OK.  But many academics, including me, feel strongly the opposite.  I think that duty is far more important than refereeing papers...though I happen to think one can do both.

@darijgrinberg Is obsolescence of editorial rejection necessarily a bad thing? From the point of view of the taxpayer, I strongly think so, since it results in an explosion of the number of papers needing to be archived and hosted "for free".

My last word on this thread: "Publish in the reputable journals that your colleagues respect and read, upload preprints for subscription journals." Yes, I agree with this and do this.  The issue is that unlike many other fields, it is quite common to want to read papers in mathematics from long before the arxiv existed (and there are other forces at work solving this problem).  But I find it weird that a substantial minority of mathematicians do not upload their papers to a preprint server or post them on their webpage.  So your advice is really pretty good.

@PeteL.Clark in many parts of the world, the general public can get a library card at the local university. If public money needs to be invested, I think that would be there.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@CapeCode You took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.

@CapeCode While I share your concerns about the signal-to-noise ratio for articles, I don't think established journals (especially the big conglomerates) are always performant in their editorial capacity, and contribute to that problem--some examples discussed here on Slashdot: "fake" journals


text:
Is postdoc stipend taxable in Germany?
I will have a postdoc fellowship in Germany with a stipend contract, not a working contract. Therefore, I won't have the pension or other social benefits. Health insurance is paid by the organization on a reimbursement basis.
The question is, will any deductions be made, like income tax, from the stipend that I will receive? What percentage of deductions should I expect?

I think the general point about PhD/postdoc stipends is precisely that they are not taxed (that is, their amount etc. is such that there is no taxation.) I thus would not expect any taxes. (You'll have to cover health insurance, though.) In any case, if taxes are not deducted automatically I'd just wait and see if the tax office asks for a tax declaration. If they don't, good for you, as (i) you don't pay taxes and (ii) you save the hassle. Ask others with that stipend (they won't create it just for you?).

... now if you are from an EU country and/or are planning to return there, having a stipend might not be a good deal for you.

@user151413: Wait and see is very bad advise if you do not know whether you have to declare German income tax. In case they have to, it is solely OP's duty to submit the declaration in time.

@cbeleites In Germany, taxes are generally automatically deducted if you have taxable income (as you certainly know). There is generally no need to file a tax declaration, unless you have income which is not known to the German tax authorities, or your income situation changed during the year, or you want sth back. I doubt that this is the case for a stipend paid through a German institution. Moreover, in my experience in those cases the tax authority will remind you to hand in a tax declaration. Unless they suspect that you purposefully did not do so, it's extremely unlikely they'll fine you.

To start, I am not a lawyer, no expert on taxation, or the like, but got a tax-free scholarship in Germany many years back. So if you want to be sure, you will need to check with a professional.
To answer your question: It's complicated (which is not unusual for taxation-related questions, especially in Germany).
Scholarships/stipends are tax-free, provided that they are not too high and come from a source that is considered non-profit. It also really has to be a scholarship and not a relabeled working contract. What exactly "not too high" means depends on the individual case as it seems.
A good source for taxation questions in Germany is the Haufe Verlag, who have a page on scholarships (in German): https://www.haufe.de/steuern/finanzverwaltung/steuerfreiheit-von-stipendien_164_470978.html
They cite the respective taxation law, which - roughly translated - states that taxation-freedom of scholarships requires that the scholarship sum does not exceed the amount of money necessary to cover the basic cost of living and the cost you have because you do research (or for your education). I recall that there used to be a fixed upper bound of the monthly stipend for taxation freedom, but according to the source given above there is a new court ruling that makes this more complicated (it looks like if you previously had a high-paying job, any amount lower than your previous income should be fine). To make things interesting, the source given above also has a list of programs that are called "scholarships" but according to the taxation law aren't.
You also mention "Health insurance is paid by the organization on a reimbursement basis." - This sounds like the organisation you will receive a scholarship from has put some thought into making sure that the scholarship will not be accidentally taxable because it happens to be too high. There is surely someone in the organisation who came up with this idea, and possibly had this idea checked - perhaps you can find out who this is to obtain information on taxation.

The scholarship and health insurance is paid by an international organization, and the scholarship depends on the institute you are doing your postdoc. And the institutes are from different countries in Europe. So I am not sure it is a calculated move, but it is possible.

@groove Ouch, then according to the source above, things are very complicated because then you will have to prove to your future tax office that the scholarship source is "fine" according to the German tax laws. Translate the sentence starting with "Zum Nachweis, dass" from the source I mentioned in my answer using Google translate, and you will see what I mean. Perhaps there is a current scholarship holder at the German institution whom you may ask for how they handled this issue?

Thank you very much. I see, it looks extremely complicated. I think, in the worst case, I will be paying the income tax but not the unemployment, retirement or health insurance. However, to make things more complicated, they have put a note on the contract "you might have to pay an additional fee for the health insurance based on the host country you are going to". I don't know what might be my upper limit for the rent.

I guess you mean "provided that they are not too high".

(My guess would be that health insurance being paid or not enters the calculation of what is necessary)

"list of programs that are called "scholarships" but according to the taxation law aren't": well, they are not exempt from income tax, but most of them fulfill other aspects of scholarships, i.e., they are very much not employment contracts (not subject to directives, weisungsfrei) (the exception is one program which was found to be employment)

I looked into a PhD stipend I had a while ago and I had the following text in there:

Das Stipendium ist im Rahmen der Bestimmmung des §3 Nr. 44 EStG steuerfrei

This is not a PostDoc stipend, but as far as I understand the rules should be roughly the same. I would look into the text for some clause like this, if it is tax-free it should be mentioned in there. If this is not a stipend adapted to the rules in Germany, you probably need some professional to figure out if it counts as tax-free under these rules. You might want to try asking the tax office "Finanzamt" about this.
This is the text of the paragraph cited in my example:

Stipendien, die aus öffentlichen Mitteln oder von zwischenstaatlichen oder überstaatlichen Einrichtungen, denen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland als Mitglied angehört, zur Förderung der Forschung oder zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen oder künstlerischen Ausbildung oder Fortbildung gewährt werden. Das Gleiche gilt für Stipendien, die zu den in Satz 1 bezeichneten Zwecken von einer Einrichtung, die von einer Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts errichtet ist oder verwaltet wird, oder von einer Körperschaft, Personenvereinigung oder Vermögensmasse im Sinne des § 5 Absatz 1 Nummer 9 des Körperschaftsteuergesetzes gegeben werden. Voraussetzung für die Steuerfreiheit ist, dass

a) die Stipendien einen für die Erfüllung der Forschungsaufgabe oder für die Bestreitung des Lebensunterhalts und die Deckung des Ausbildungsbedarfs erforderlichen Betrag nicht übersteigen und nach den von dem Geber erlassenen Richtlinien vergeben werden,

b) der Empfänger im Zusammenhang mit dem Stipendium nicht zu einer bestimmten wissenschaftlichen oder künstlerischen Gegenleistung oder zu einer bestimmten Arbeitnehmertätigkeit verpflichtet ist;

This roughly states that the the amount must not exceed what is necessary for the research itself and your cost of living. It also states that you must not be obligated to any specific research activity or employee duties.
I'm not a lawyer, but these rules are kinda vague and personally I'd really try to avoid getting into a situation where someone takes a hard look at your situation and applies them somewhat strictly.
You will need to get health insurance yourself, that is not optional in Germany (in your situation) and the university will probably ask for a confirmation that you are insured.
You should also be aware that you don't have any unemployment insurance you would usually have if this were a real employee contract. There are even more differences in other areas like parental leave, most social security systems in Germany work under the assumption that people have regular jobs, not stipends.

I'm not sure I would 100% trust the Finanzamt, or an average tax lawyer, on that - stipends for scientists are a somewhat special and not too common situation.

+1 for asking the tax office. While @user151413 is correct that deciding whether OP's particular scholarship is taxable income or not would be non-standard for OP's local tax office, AFAIK a standard procedure is in place. (for details, see my answer)

@cbleites There's certainly a range of situations unknown in detail to tax attorneys and tax offices alike, such as in relation to double taxation treaties or special tax regulations for scientists, stipends, and so on - at least, I have witnessed several such cases in different countries with colleagues and myself. I'm not saying one should not ask, but one should definitely exercise caution and also independently gather information and rely on ones own judgement as well.

A few thoughts in addition to the existing answers:
Social Insurance
As MadScientist says, social insurance in Germany mostly works along the assumption that everyone is employee. However, some parts allow volountary contributions in order to get some insurance also if you are not in the obligatory social insurance.

Health insurance: you have to have one. It is your choice whether you go for a private one (if you come from a foreign country, this includes the possibility to have a health insurance from there which covers Germany) or if you go for the Freiwillige Pflichtversicherung (literally volountary obligatory insurance :-> ) of one of the compulsory health insurers (gesetzliche Krankenkasse)
Pension cass: accepts volountary contributions, which will earn you a) contribution years (Beitragsjahre) and b) pension in proportion to your contribution.
unemployment insurance: you may be able to enter Freiwillige Weiterversicherung (volountary continuation of the unemployment insurance). Relevant court decision about a research scholarships. Note though, that the scholarship question is subject to income tax.
However, you need to have been obligatorily insured before.
Accident insurance: it is obligatory for an employer to have work accident insurance for their employees. I.e., your new university will have it (and thus have to comply with the prevention rules), but it will not cover you since your are not an employee.
Again, you may be able to enter one yourself the way freelancers can (along the lines of the court decision I linked above).
If you do not have work accident insurance, your health insurance will cover medical costs. However, work accident insurance may get you preferential treatment compared to a compulsory health insurance (waiting times, rehabilitation programs, ... Private health insurance will get you even more preferential treatment in terms of waiting time at the doctor's, but I don't know their general reputation in terms of rehabilitation etc.)

Taxation
I'll also second MadScientists advise to talk to the tax office. It is their legal duty to explain to you whether you have file a tax declaration, and also where in their forms to fill in the stipend iff it turns out to be taxable.
Here's a highly relevant post by a tax advisor. Roughly speaking, the "home" tax office of the funding agency is the one responsible for finding out whether the scholarship is taxable income or not. They'll issue a binding decision to you or to your tax office (binding means: if they write that your scholarship is not subject to income tax, your local tax office has to accept this decision. You may still have to file a tax declaration depending on other circumstances).
This means: they will very likely be able to tell you immediately.
The post also says that scholarships from funders in the EU or EWR can also be exempt from income tax. (Your "local" tax office in spe can tell you what tax office you need to ask in that case.)

In general, it is your legal duty to sign up for tax numbers and submit declarations in time if they are obligatory.
My experience is that German tax offices are very fair and reliable in their explanations.
They will not give advise like a tax advisor (e.g. telling you what kind of business decisions will optimize your tax payload by shifting income and costs between years) - and they'll tell you so if they think you ask such advise of them - as opposed to how to correctly declare taxes for your given situation.
You can certainly also ask a tax advisor. However, if you just ask the same questions that you'd otherwise ask the tax office, the tax advisor is a rather expensive alternative.  They are most useful if you want to argue with the tax office that they are wrong about your taxes. And of course, if you think this likely to happen, you'd talk to them first before talking to the tax office.
For employees, there are also the Lohnsteuerhilfevereine who help with income tax declaration and are much less expensive than tax advisors/tax lawyers - but their services are only for employees.
(I've had a scholarship as PhD student, and my local tax office on looking through my paperwork told me it is not subject to income tax, that I can volountarily file a declaration - which would get me some withholdings refunded [wage tax withholding calculations are done on the assumption that the wage goes on throughout the year] - and if I do file, the stipend needs to go into line so-and-so as income that is not subject to income tax. All in a very friendly and professional manner. I've since had various kinds of complicated tax declarations that a scientist moving temporarily into other countries, or a freelancer with part-time employment in science encounters. The tax officers I've dealt with have all been very professional. On several occasions they did not immediately know the answer: in that case, they told me they'd have to look it up and/or ask a colleague and would I please call again next week. When I did so, they did have the answer ready.)

Wow, that's very good to know. I never considered that the German tax office would be able to directly help/answer those questions!


text:
Salary scales in Germany and experience outside
How is the work experience outside Germany counted in public salary decisions? What if someone got their PhD outside Germany, for instance?
Some context for my own case:
I am hired as a scientist at a public research institute. I did not know much about how these salary scales work, and I received a letter from HR telling me that only my previous postdoc in Germany (which was a stipend contract and I wasn't even paid by Germany) was considered for the decision, so it is basically 1 year. It's E-14 level 2.
I did my studies in another country where PhD positions are mostly not paid so people work in industry. I have more than 10 years of experience, all in relevant roles to my current research topic, and I also have experience in team management and third party funding. I am pretty sure the hiring decision was highly affected by this experience.
I am not even sure if the PI/head of department was involved or they should have been involved in the decision, but if the decision is made based on my experience, salary should be decided based on my experience, too.
I don't care much about my current salary, but this decision will affect the rest of my career in Germany, if I will have one. So this is bugging me very much, and I need some information on how this works here.

These decisions have a large degree of randomness to them. That is because they are made by administrative staff who may or may not have adequate understanding of your individual case, and what should count as relevant experience.
It is generally possible that you can influence the decision by making a strong case why your previous experience is relevant. They may or may not understand your arguments (or pretend they don't). Of course, such a case should be made before you sign the job contract.
It is also generally possible that the hiring PI and/or department head can influence the decision. The institutional setup may or may not be such that the PI or department head has formal influence. It's also possible that the administrative staff is more willing to listen to them, due to their perceived status. If the administrators don't listen to your arguments, asking the PI to make a case for you is a reasonable thing to do.

As a follow up, do you think it is possible to negotiate this in my next job? Because it seems that for my current job it's too late to negotiate. The contract itself does not have this stufe info, but in emails and the letter they gave they told me it was going to be stufe 2. Until I got the letter, I thought they considered my other experience as well, and now I heard that once you are in the system, you cannot change it before completing the duration for that level, even if you change jobs. And my experience with HR here has not been the best.

@groove: I am pretty sure that it’s nonsense that you cannot change the level once you are in the system. For example, if HR made a blatant mistake, they have to retroactively amend it. Of course, it’s more difficult. Since you already started the position (IIUC), you have less leverage and somebody somewhere has to acknowledge that they made a mistake.

@groove Possible yes - in the ideal scenario, you have an HR person who agrees to your assessment, or a PI who really wants to hire you and can influence the HR person.

@groove If you plan to become professor in Germany, that's a totally different game anyways, salary-wise. It's not even the same broader category of employment, as you will be a "Beamter" instead of "Arbeitnehmer im öffentlichen Dienst".

@lighthousekeeper That's the current plan but it seems very hard to accomplish, so I might stay in Germany as a researcher or somewhere else as a professor or a researcher. I just want to learn if I ruined my possible career in Germany since I didn't try to negotiate. I did it with another institute in another country, and I've chosen this one, but how HR treated me in other things fired up such questions in my mind and I decided to go for it and take the risk of pissing them off and get fired. Not ideal but at least better for mental relaxation.

@groove: I just want to learn if I ruined my possible career in Germany since I didn't try to negotiate. – You didn’t ruin much. If you stay at this position for fourteen years, we are talking about a difference of 37 k€ gross salary here (while you earn about 1 M€ in total). And before that happens, you are very likely to get a different position, be it as a professor or something else, which will likely obviate any difference.

@groove: I decided to go for it and take the risk of pissing them off and get fired. – Firing somebody from public service in Germany is very difficult. You might get fired within probation time if your supervisor is really unhappy with you, but usually academic employments end if your contract doesn’t get extended. Getting fired for arguing (politely) with HR would be totally outlandish. It’s the kind of situation that would actually get somebody fired from public service, namely the HR people responsible for this.

@Wrzlprmft: I agree with almost everything in your last comment, except for the very last sentence. In my experience, especially the HR people in the German public sector NEVER get fired, and especially not for obstructing employees' requests, or dragging their feet for months or years.

I was somewhat surprised about your statement that "[your pay grade/job grading -- what BAT class you are in] have a large degree of randomness". In my admittedly limited experience it is really hard for German public institutions to deviate from the formal criteria for your pay grade (most importantly your education and official job description). This has particular effects in IT, where experience and skill matters much more than formal education: Because the institutions (university, MPG etc.) cannot offer a competitive salary, they can only hire second class personnel or enthusiasts.

@Peter-ReinstateMonica For the first half: There is no objective way of assessing whether previous experiences are indeed relevant, since former experiences are generally made in different contexts than the job in question. Hence there is always a certain degree of subjectivity and hence randomness. For the second half: I agree to your assessment; however, to which degree the underlying mindset of this assessment is manifest in bureaucratic staff in German universities is, again, a matter of randomness.

@lighthousekeeper It is not so much a mindset as a procedural constraint. Consider  a professor trying to hire an AI expert. They find one, dream candidate, left high-paying job at google because they found love in Berlin. Professor pesters the HR to offer a competitive salary. Standard procedure is "No degree (because they left Stanford to found a startup that got bought by google), no team -> one step above cleaning lady". It is hard to deviate from that. The Frauenbeauftragte is involved, the university is generally not even offering permanent positions, Betriebsrat vetoes. Etc.

@Peter-ReinstateMonica For the example in this question, there doesn't seem to be procedural constraint such as a missing degree.

@lighthousekeeper That was an example. Apparently, HR has a list of items to consider when grading a job (applicant) , and some of the qualification of the OP falls through the roster, whatever it is. (Sure, the assessment of work experience may be more open to "randomness" than documented degrees, but still, they probably work down a list and tick check boxes -- or not.)

@Peter-ReinstateMonica Yes, bureaucrats work with lists of check boxes. My point is that many (if not most) check boxes have some degree of subjectivity/randomness to them, especially those related to work experiences.

First, it is not necessarily true that your experience is relevant - it must be relevant to a job in paygrade E14, and not just in some vague way to your job. There is lots of room for interpretation. The only thing which is definitely relevant is another job in the same paygrade - so if your previous experience way, say, as a PhD student, this might with good reason not be counted towards E14-experience. Note that there are clear definitions what E14 involves as a minimum (AFAIR, E13 requires an academic degree > bachelor, and E14 adds responsibility for other people to it (as a team leader etc.). For instance, PhD students would never get E14, and most places also hire postdocs only on E13.)
Now, the PI has generally some say - how much depends on the institution, but it is certainly a good idea to ask them. For sure, they would have to write some text why other experience is counted, and without such a text, it is almost certain that the administration will not upgrade you, so you will have to rely on his support and them writing such an explanation.

So experience in industry and/or in other countries doesn't count? Because I led teams of master's and phd studens in industry, not their thesis work, but we did projects on topics relevant to my current research, for instance. And I got research grants on top of that. If that experience influenced the decision to hire me, it should influence the salary too to be fair, shouldn't it? And today I also learned that experience as a PhD student in Germany counted as experience in E14, so a fresh PhD graduate working as a postdoc is making more money than me.

"And today I also learned that experience as a PhD student in Germany counted as experience in E14": That depends on the place, and I would say it is really stretching the rules. If it is in the same place where you are, you might have a good argument. But again, get the support from your PI - if they bend the rules, the administration will have to add some explanation to their files, and they are not the ones who can judge the relevance of your experience and write this text.

I know PhD students that were E14 and lead other, less experienced PhD students. Never say never.

First of all, the relevant rule here is § 16(2) Bund or a similar rule of a similar tariff contract (translation mine):

¹Bei Einstellung werden die Beschäftigten der Stufe 1 zugeordnet, sofern keine einschlägige Berufserfahrung vorliegt. ²Verfügt die/der Beschäftigte über eine einschlägige Berufserfahrung von mindestens einem Jahr, erfolgt die Einstellung in die Stufe 2; verfügt sie/er über eine einschlägige Berufserfahrung von mindestens drei Jahren, erfolgt bei Einstellung in der Regel eine Zuordnung zur Stufe 3. ³Unabhängig davon kann der Arbeitgeber bei Neueinstellungen zur Deckung des Personalbedarfs Zeiten einer vorherigen beruflichen Tätigkeit ganz oder teilweise für die Stufenzuordnung berücksichtigen, wenn diese Tätigkeit für die vorgesehene Tätigkeit förderlich ist.

¹On hiring, an employee is assigned Level 1 unless they have relevant work experience. ²If the employee has a relevant work experience of at least a year, they are hired at Level 2; if they have a relevant work experience of at least three years, they are assigned Level 3. ³Irrespective of this, for purposes of finding personnel, the employer may completely or partially recognise times of previous work for assigning levels, if this work is beneficial for the designated employment.

So up to Level 3, there are no constraints on where you obtained your work experience.
(Note however, that experience within Germany’s public service can get you hired at levels higher than three as per §16(2), 3 or § 16(3).)
However, there is a large wiggle room as to what counts as a relevant work experience. This is where Lighthouse Keeper’s answer comes in: You have to convince some bureaucrats what your previous work experience is worth. In particular, I am not surprised that they won’t count industry experience.
That being said, your situation is somewhat special: The vast majority of positions from PhD positions to staff scientists are Group 13. However, you got one of those very rare Group 14 positions. That means that you get more salary than a regular postdoc (Group 13) with the same experience. In particular, starting at Group 14, Level 2, your accumulated salary will always be higher than if you had started at Group 13, Level 3 (see below why this is a relevant comparison). On the other hand, this is a good argument for not counting typical PhD and postdoc positions, since those are not a Group 14 experience. On yet another hand, you say you have team-management experience, and team management is exactly what usually elevates Group 14 from Group 13.
Therefore I expect that arguing for Level 3 in your situation will be difficult, though not impossible.
Sidenote: Why some experience does count for Group 14
You may wonder why you got any experience accounted for at all (starting at Level 2 instead of Level 1) and you also report:

I understood that their experience as a PhD student on E13 counted in E14 as a postdoc

The reason for this is that being hired into a higher group cannot be disadvantageous for you. If you had been hired in Group 13, you would very likely have started at Level 3 (the highest non-exceptional entry level as per the above). The salary of Group 14 Level 1 would be lower than that, and thus you were hired at Level 2.
The same likely applies to those PhD students you know: If they previously were employed at Group 13 Level 3 (on account of their experience during their PhD studies), they could not be hired at Group 14 Level 1, because it would have been detrimental. Thus their experience as a PhD student did count.
However, to achieve Group 14 Level 3 by the same mechanism, they would have to have reached Group 13 Level 4 as a PhD students, i.e., they would have to have worked on their PhD for six years. That’s already quite some experience and also only possible to obtain within the German system or by invoking the exception from Sentence 3 of the above law.

I couldn't understand the comparison with E13 level 3, and how I am getting more than a regular postdoc with the same experience. How is the experience considered here, that's the main question actually. I was hired especially to supervise PhD students and probably write a proposal as a continuation, so my experience must have played a role in my employment. Another thing is, I know postdocs who are recent graduates with a PhD degree from Germany, on E14, also at a better level than mine (or at least the same).

There are some places which hire postdocs regularly in E14.

@groove Better level, or same level?

@user151413 I'm not sure as I couldn't ask this directly, but I understood that their experience as a PhD student on E13 counted in E14 as a postdoc, so it's likely better than stufe 2. Even if it's the same, I have a previous postdoc even if we ignore other 10+ years of experience.

@groove Question is whether it counted fully. One could well argue that e.g. only the experience in the last year of the PhD is relevant.

@user151413 Okay so I should have demanded a better level I suppose. Because I also have a PhD, and additionally more, like a postdoc and some other arguably relevant experience.

@groove: See my edit as to why PhD experience may count and why it does not have the effect you think it does.

@Wrzlprmft Is there a rule for "the highest non-exceptional entry level"? So if you're getting hired in public service for the first time, is your best chance level 3 in your salary group? And does it hold for every salary group (E13/14/15)?

@groove: That’s what the cited paragraph says: It describes how previous experience can get you up to Level 3 and then it stops (sentence 2). Sentence 3 is about how you can get every level if this helps finding personnel. (Don’t ask me when exactly this exception can get invoked – I have no clue.)

@Wrzlprmft I thought it could extrapolate, so I asked again, sorry. Then even if they accepted my previous experience, it would be level 3 in the best case. So it's either E14 level 3 or E15 level 1 (which is the group leadership which obviously doesn't apply to me). I guess I'm not at a big loss then, just 2 years behind the best possible thing for me currently.


text:
Normal age range for PhD graduation, postdoc, and professorship in Europe, UK and US
When do people normally graduate from a PhD? What is the normal range for postdocs, and the first research group leaderships or assistant/junior professorships?
Some context:
I completed my PhD which took 9 years at the age of 36, but I also worked full-time (I have 14 years of experience in academia and -mostly- in industry). The predefined duration of a PhD is 4 to 6 years in my home country since it consists of the US-like course/qualification/thesis phases, but also longer durations are not uncommon. AFAIK in some places, an engineering degree (bachelor's) takes 3 years, a master's 1, and a PhD 3. That would be extremely unusual in my home country.
I completed one postdoc fellowship that didn't help making a great network, and I ended up unemployed. I am currently trying to decide what I should do, another postdoc or going back to industry (which I don't want much). But I feel that I might be ignored because I am 38 with a PhD that took extremely long, from somewhere without a great reputation (Turkey). And my work experience, though it included research team management and grant applications etc., might also be ignored for academic jobs.

There is quite a spread in "normal" age ranges, at least in the US.

That's what I thought, but I heard from a few PIs that my background was unusual (maybe in a bad way), and they were kind of shocked with the duration of my PhD (I can understand and it's long even for Turkey), but also they weren't much accustomed to having a -research- career along with (but apart from) PhD.

In the US:
In my experience, there is at least a 10-15 year range of possibilities. First, there is the common crowd who start a PhD straight out of undergrad, who are typically 22-23, and so graduate around 28-29 on average. While these may be around half of students (in my experience), there are also many who start a PhD after a gap year of a few years, or even after a decade or two of working in industry. So as a result, you have many who are graduating at 31-32, and then the (smaller, but certainly not unheard of) group who have returned to complete a PhD after working, and graduate in their late 30s or 40s.
Additionally, there are those who take 7-10 years for their PhD rather than the 5-6 average, so that adds another 2 to 5 years.
After graduation, some go directly to a faculty position, so they may start a faculty position as early as age 28-29. While others do a postdoc, or two (depending on the field), in which case you start a faculty position in your early-to-late 30s. And again, there are those hired to a faculty position after a stint in industry, so these can be 10-20 years older.
In short, I hope all of this makes it clear that looking at age is a rather pointless exercise! There are people of all ages at all academic ranks. All that matters is that you are taking the right step in your career for what you want to do next.

I heard similar things about the US before, so maybe it is more welcoming, but of course it's just a hunch with my limited experience with Europe. I don't have any idea about the UK though. Brian May's PhD took longer than mine, so I might still have some chance to find something despite the fact that my PhD is not in astrophysics and I never got knighted, among other things.

As others have said, this depends greatly on country and I would think even more so on the field. And, like for all other things, there is always a spread so there is very little value in fixating yourself on absolute age, which you cannot control anyway.
I know you are not asking what I am writing next, but... I would try to be honest with yourself and ask what you really want. Now and in the immediate future, for starters, as well as in the long run.
Do you value certainty and long-term planning or do you just want to enjoy what you are doing for the next couple of years? Either is fine, it's your life/career, and this will affect your choices (and their associated consequences).
You say you don't want to return to industry: why not? What is it that makes you lean towards academia?
You also mention professorship: What is it about academia that attracts you?
You mention a long PhD, which is not a deal breaker in and by itself, but also a postdoc that didn't really help to build a network. So how do you see yourself positioned? And where do you want to be/go next? Do you want to be in your home country or abroad?
As hard as it is, face the reality of the situation and see what you can do under the given circumstances: if you want to continue in academia, you either will need a strong network (in a given geographic area or scientific field) so you will be in the know of who is hiring/where opportunities for employment are, or - if you strive towards full independence - a solid scientific track record with good visibility in your field, solid publications/output and some sort of funding track record.

In Europe
It actually depends on the country. In the U.K. for exmaple, most people go straight from 3 years undergraduates, 1 year masters and 3-4 years phd, meaning that most people graduate around the age of 25 - 29 depending on when they began University. In other European countries like Germany the age range is higher  and varies. So they have 3-4 years undergraduate, 2 years of masters and 3-5years PhD. However, most Germans go for an overseas experience before they begin university so the age range  could vary from 27-36.
Answering your second question about whether industry or academia. My straight up verdict will be go to industry for two main reasons. Firstly you get a permanent job, which can help you plan your life better and you earn more money, which can also help you buy a house faster if you have not yet done so. The main problem with persisting to remain in academia is the unavailability of permanent roles. So you may have to continue to do a series  of short-lived postdoc in which you will travel from city to city or country to country and that makes settling down difficult and also, the salaries are not that great and in some places you don’t even get a relocation allowance, meaning that all your savings may go to paying for your relocation bills.
Finally, which you stay so much in academia, without getting a permanent role, you turn to be less attractive to industry and also getting a permanent academic job.
Side comment
Regarding the statement you made about your country of origin, as fair as that may sound, I think you should stop seeing yourself as a victim of your origin. Competent people will always find a job regardless of their origins. Keeping such a mindset is not very healthy especially if you intend remaining in academia. You may easily get depressed from thinking that you are not getting a permanent job because of your origin meanwhile the job market is tight for everyone.


text:
Negotiating with journal publishers about intellectual property of the paper?
One of my colleagues told me authors after acceptance can negotiate about the intellectual property (IP) rights. It is frustrating to wait for peer review long times, and after acceptance publisher asks you to agree with his copyright without any modification.
I am keen to know when is the best time to negotiate my IP rights? Can I write to the publisher when the paper is under review (or even before submission)?

possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5272/how-successful-are-publication-agreement-addenda

I would not try to negotiate author rights before the paper is accepted, for two reasons.  First, from the point of view of the editor and the publisher, it is premature and may be a waste of time (since, statistically at least, your paper has a significant chance of being rejected).  Second, this negotiation could, in principle, influence the decision about whether to accept your paper (though of course it shouldn't).
Instead, educate yourself on what the publisher will allow, beforehand.  Use the Sherpa/RoMEO database to know what rights a publisher will allow you, before you choose where to submit.  If you choose a journal that already allows you the rights you want, then you will avoid the problem altogether.
Finally, after acceptance use the SPARC addendum to assert the rights you intend to retain.
For one story of negotiations where I didn't follow my own advice -- but things turned out fairly well -- see this blog post.

I would only submit a manuscript for publication when I was confident that there will not be any IP/copyright issues. For some types of publications, for example books, publishers will need to see the manuscript, and possibly get it reviewed, prior to making decisions about IP and royalties. I am not aware of any journal that needs/wants to see the manuscript prior to discussing IP. There tends to be things they will do and things they will not do, and it doesn't matter how good the manuscript is. The reason for dealing with IP issues (and publication fees) up front is that you do not want to waste time waiting for a publication decision that you might ultimately turn down. Further, as a reviewer, I would be completely pissed if I spend time reviewing a manuscript to see the authors publish someplace else.

At the moment, authors are at a terrible disadvantage relative to publishers with regards to this issue, since there's no collective, organized, resistance action to what publishers demand (that I know of, anyway). So you are not likely - from my limited experience, anyway - to get far with these negotiations; why should they make an exception for you? Lots of other fish in the sea.
I'd say the most important thing you can do is circumvent the copyrights issue: Publish a version of the paper which is exactly the version you initially submit to the journal on your website, university paper repository, or ArXiv, possibly with an appropriate license (e.g. see the ArXiv license page) - but not with the template used for the journal submission, i.e. as a plain-vanilla article.
Having done so, surrendering your rights via a contract witht he publisher no longer means all that much, because everybody in the world has the rights you allowed them with your free license - including yourself. The paper will thus be publicly-accessible and updatable by you without the journal being able to say anything about it. The only thing you will likely not be able to do is re-publish it in another for-pay journal etc.


text:
Applying to MSc vs PhD in CS with science background in US
I hold a BSc and MSc in physics and want to do graduate studies in CS. I did computational and theoretical research and thesis on quantum memories which are useful in quantum communications (not sure if that sounds any interesting to CS admission committees). But I have not officially taken CS foundations courses (well, except some through Coursera and edX). I am willing to pay for a decent Masters program through loans and part-time work though. Here are my questions from you:

Can I improve my odds of getting into a decent department by applying to Masters programs instead of PhD programs?
Besides full score on GRE quantitative, I got a decent score in GRE physics. Can any of these make up for my lack of formal education in CS?

I'm no expert, but with research experience and already having a Masters in physics, I think that you should directly apply to the PhD programs.  During your first two years, you're going to take courses anyway.  So unless you don't think that you'll be able to handle those courses, I think that doing another masters and then your PhD will be a waste of time and money.  It depends on where you want to go, but a lot of schools will make you take courses in your PhD even if you already have a masters in CS.