text:
What are merits of having a PhD degree?
What are the benefits of having a PhD degree? Why are PhD programs so competitive? I mean, why do many people apply for PhD programs?
In STEM fields, it is usually possible to get a better-paid job in industry with a bachelor's or master's degree. On the other hand, PhD programs are usually long, hard and low-paying — if there is any paying at all — and job prospects for PhD graduates are not that impressive too. So, what am I missing? Why do so many talented people try to get into PhD programs if they can get better jobs outside academia? Is it merely because of personal interest in research, teaching or learning?
Although opinions are important, I sincerely appreciate it if facts and experiences are shared. I agree that this question can be opinion-based but one of the reasons why I am asking this is that choosing to do a PhD degree and possibly pursuing an academic career is a very important decision. Based on personal experience, I have seen many fresh graduates who face the same question (and also a few people that, first, made a decision then faced the question, only to realize that it is late) and I hope that, apart from satiating my personal curiosity, it will provide factual and helpful information for those who have not made their minds yet.

Apart from personal curiosity, I am asking this question mostly because I like to have a better understanding of academic environment, from which I have been away for some time.

"better jobs outside academia" - better in what respect? Paid better? Most likely. But better in terms of freedom in choice of tasks, flexibility in working style, ownership of what you work on, autonomy in collaboration with internal and external partners, authority to draw further people in to your tasks, etc.? Probably not so much.

@O.R.Mapper you have nice points. As you guessed, by better, I meant better paid. I'll update the question to reflect it.

As your question now assumes more openly that the decision is only about payment, I have put my doubts about that already uttered in my comment into an answer.

Because is not all about money and better payed jobs do not make better jobs.

This question should be closed. It is too broad to be answered. Rather, it does create conflicting views and opinions. Many things are unclear in the question as well. The PhD status depends on country, field, and various other parameters.

@Coder I object. Yes, there is a dependency, and exactly this is the reason to keep the question open and generate discussion.

@LeonMeier Why not then move this to chat to have more efficient and timely discussion?

@DavidKetcheson That  is exactly what I am hoping for: research-based facts. However, personal experiences are also important and I am glad that people have shared their experiences.

Some people truly like the act of doing research and advancing knowledge. Even for industry, a PhD is becoming a requirement to do R&D.

In my case, I chose a PhD over a masters because in the MS program I'd have to pay tuition. In the PhD program I am given a stipend, and also, you earn a MS halfway through anyway. I could just quit after getting that, if I want.

If you dream of doing research, and contributing to civilization's scientific knowledge like your heroes did, then what are you going to do other than a PhD?  There are almost no jobs that let you do pure research without a PhD.

In my own (STEM) PhD program, there were at least two people who had had lucrative careers in industry, accumulated enough to be financially independent, and were basically doing the PhD to keep their minds active.

@Coder: Because chat is not a way to have efficient discussions?

@iammax: Choosing a PhD over a masters is not possible in many places. Masters is a prerequisite for even being considered for starting a PhD.

There are as many answers as personal preferences and it also strongly depends on which country and institution you are talking about. Examples I know personally: (1) for the joy of researching and learning, (2) because it's a requirement to become a professor, (3) because it leads to an aristocratic status in society and better paid jobs (in German-speaking countries, for example), (4) because the University provides a safe space to do your own stuff at your own pace outside the job market, (5) because you were persuaded by a professor to join his team during your undergraduate years...

And regarding payment, again, it depends on the country. In German-speaking countries in particular, salaries are regulated and you can earn more by doing the same by just having a PhD. Furthermore, in most cases first-year postdocs are paid better than a just-graduated in industry, and a PhD very often leads to better jobs later. Which, in my opinion is the wrong reason to pursue a PhD and explains why there are so many doctors in German-speaking countries (many people pursuing the financial and status incentives), many of them having nothing to do with research or academia.

I should note that this answer is going to focus on the research-based Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree and ScD equivalent This answer does not apply similar degrees in other fields (e.g., EdD, DBA, DrPH, etc.) since the motivation for those is much more field dependent.
First, lets start with the obvious, you get a PhD because you want to teach at the college level. Barring the Professor of Practice which requires significant industry experience, the PhD is the minimum requirement to get a tenure-track position. There used to be some fields such as nursing that were the exception to this, but they are now converging on PhD requirements. Despite the general oversupply of PhDs as well, some fields are actually facing shortfalls.
Another reason to purse a PhD is because you are hoping to purse a career where it is advantages to have one. Consulting is a good example of this, most Chief Science Officers also hold a PhD as well. There is increasingly a perception that PhD is required to work in policy in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, despite the ongoing perception that a PhD isn't valued by industry, private-sector R&D labs are staffed by PhDs and industry investment in R&D is growing.
Of course, these lead to a very salient argument against getting a PhD due to the time investment leading to monetary loss in the long term. Generally this is irrelevant if someone is dead set on a job in academia, you have to get the "union card." There is more risk involved if you are planning on going into industry since in theory a Masters should be enough. This does lead to some PhD applicants who intend on dropping out once they get their Masters. These are generally rare though. Thus, some, likely most, people get a PhD because they want a career in X and the PhD will make them competitive for that career.
There is a common perception that people do a PhD because it is "next." Although a survey of UK students indirectly supports this for applicants without an employment history, it does not for those with one. Generally the most common theme seems to be "intellectual curiosity and interest," even more so among older applicants. In fact, I would argue that the admissions committee should filter out people that are just doing it because it is "next." PhD programs are not easy and have attrition rates that exceed 50%. Things may not be easy for those that leave (e.g., one, two). Intellectual curiosity and interest in what you are going to spend a couple years of your life is important. For funded PhD students (don't get a PhD without funding), getting into a program means someone is going to pay you to do a very deep dive and learn something that wasn't know before. Factor in the fact that the odds are very low that you can do this once you enter industry or government and for those with the intellectual curiosity and interest it doesn't take much to at least apply for the PhD.
Finally, a note on financial compensation. In the United States the average salary of a new assistant professor (tenure track) is $65,372. The starting pay for STEM is highly dependent upon your field but the range seems to be $55,087 to $64,891 for a Bachelors and $72,080 to $73,871 for a Masters. So on the face of it the professor isn't as highly paid; however, that's just raw compensation for 9 months work. Soft money or consulting can result in higher pay during the summer and the costs associated with attending conferences usually isn't factored into the compensation as well. So doing a direct net compensation comparison can be quite difficult. Also, putting a financial value on surviving the PhD and spending the time pursing intellectual curiosity and interest may be impossible.

Thank you very much for your fact-based and very referenced answer. I can imagine that a good amount of time must have been spent on it.

You are asking why people might choose a doctoral candidacy over a better-paying job in the industry.
The straightforward answer is that - at least to the respective people - other factors are given more weight than achieving a maximum in payment alone.
These other factors can include:

freedom in choice of tasks
flexibility in working style
ownership of what you work on
autonomy in collaboration with internal and external partners
authority to draw further people in to your tasks
your colleagues are probably there because they're enthusiastic about what they're doing, not just because they want some job with an acceptable salary
your organisation probably covers a wide range of topics, and any acquisition of knowledge within (or sometimes even outsode of) your organisation can be reasonably counted as working time

Evidently, various of these aspects depend a bit on the concrete situation a doctoraĺ candidacy takes place in.
Lastly, even a payment angle can play into it: I consider it a significant advantage that during the time of my doctoral candidacy (this being a government-funded job), I used to be paid based upon a salary table with automatic raises rather than having to negotiate for any amount of money.

The last two points "autonomy in collaboration" and "authorty to draw further people" are not specific to PhDs. The same policy applies to certain industrial positions: if you have luck with it and are allowed to do that by your contract, feel free.

@LeonMeier Perhaps, but if people choose to do a PhD, there is the consideration that this will lead to a job with autonomy in collaboration (if it leads to a job in academia at all), while looking for a job in industry might lead to a job with autonomy in collaboration.

@LeonMeier: That applies to almost all of the points, but it rather requires rising to a certain position in industry first.

@sgf My experience that a PhD is autonomous, but nobody from the industry will speak to you unless you can really offer them something they need - which has a high chance of forcing you into an NDA. Yes, and you have an authority of drawing people into your task, but why should anyone care about your task?

It is seldom the case that "colleagues are ... enthusiastic about what they're doing". My experience is that they are saying "unless you do my stuff, we won't work together". It is the case that "your organisation probably covers a wide range of topics" only for large departments with over 20 chairs, but in general this is way too seldom.

As a good colleague once said, your salary is pain and suffering money. So, the more a job pays the more suffering you'll have to endure ;) (Assuming otherwise same level).

@LeonMeier: "nobody from the industry will speak to you unless you can really offer them something they need" - of course you have to have something of interest to them. The point is that you're allowed to contact them on your own in the first place. "which has a high chance of forcing you into an NDA" - not every external body you contact will require you to sign an NDA, and in any case, it's still your choice whether you agree with what they offer. "why should anyone care about your task?" - because they (BSc/MSc students) are looking for a project/thesis topic that you can offer, ...

... or (if your own funding or department has the appropriate resources) a student RA position. Or because they (other researchers) are just as eager as you to find opportunities to expand their research into new (maybe even interdisciplinary!) directions and collaborate on a paper - why in the world wouldn't they? "colleagues are [seldom] enthusiastic (...) unless you do my stuff, we won't work together" - it is unfortunate if an institution allows such a poisonous atmosphere to develop. I still tend to hope it is rather an exception. ...

... "only for large departments with over 20 chairs" - at least in my place, universities usually span more than a few fields, thereby creating diverse mixtures ranging from CS over biology to politics. All of this, of course, may well vary by location and by field; my answer was primarily based upon my own experiences and those of other people in academia I got in touch with.

Too long for a comment. Replying to various other answer which (I believe) are misleading, and sometimes just incorrect.
Various of the answers seem to be rather negative, and unfortunately I think this is the wide perception -- however, that doesn't mean it is true. To the answer saying "students don't know what to do so stay at university", I would reply this. While that may be true for some people, in my department I haven't come across a single person who gives this impression. The same holds regarding peer pressure.
For me personally, and for the people I know, we're doing a PhD because we love our subject. I really enjoy doing maths research: I find it incredibly interesting! Moreover, I love that I can contribute to open-source knowledge, not have my work kept hidden by an employer. I do pure maths, although vaguely applicable (eg to computer science) -- it's not that it's applied maths which would be directly used, but I'm developing techniques, etc.
While this isn't a reason for everyone, it certainly is the case for a lot of us. In fact, I did have a job offer, that I was genuinely interested in, and would've paid twice as much as I'm getting in my PhD (~£28/29k instead of ~£14k). However, I turned it down in favour of a PhD. Some of us just really enjoy research and contributing to society! :)

Agreed. PhD is not for anyone and certainly not for people that they do not know what to do. You need to like the particulars of a PhD in order to pursue it.

Well, I can say I know many PhD students who still don't know what they want to do.  And I know many undergrads who've applied to grad school not sure what the want to do (though possibly more for master's applications).  Maybe this is a more common thing to do in the US, where the system is rather different.  (I guess you are in the UK.)

That's why I did... love of the subject, to become a monk!  The OP clearly believes that everyone goes to college to get a job.  But, as I later found out, my Ph. D. did get me a some jobs.

@Kimball -- yes, I certainly agree. I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do for a career when I started my PhD (and still don't), and I know a lot of PhD students don't know what they want to do. However, signing up for 4 years of (often pretty lonely) research if you're not fully is certainly not a good idea! It's poorly paid and hard work. I could've just taken a job not being sure it's what I wanted to do (I had a job offer for twice the money I'm getting currently, and I'd be working less than I do at my PhD), seen how it went, then maybe changed 2yrs in. I'd have been paid [cont...]

[... cont] much better than I am now, would've got experience in a work environment, which is well-known to be desired by employers. People who do PhDs aren't stupid: they know they could've gone for a job instead. Not being 100% sure of what you want to do doesn't mean that if you do a PhD then you're doing so because you don't know what else to do.

Most PhD students are fresh graduates from university and thus have no working experience. They don't know what to do in their life, so they choose to stay in university.

Honestly, I have seen this quite a few times.

-1 Citation needed.

@anonymous Common knowledge...

@SmallChess Should be easy to find citations then. ;)

-1 Lots of "common knowledge" is absolute rubbish (eg bulls being aggravated by red or fish having a very short memory). What you've said does happen, but it's very infrequent -- 3yrs of research is a long time! This answer gives the "common knowledge" among bitter people: some people like to bring down others (often subconsciously): by doing this to people who have worked hard for their PhD, they feel it puts everyone on the same level. (Of course, someone with a PhD isn't inherently a better person -- but we have a culture of fear of others being better.)

Upvoted. Because even though this is not the only reason, this reason is a significant contributor. This reason can be generalized to 'a fear of industry's practices is an important contributor for people pursuing PhD, thereby causing competition'.

Define "most" please.

I agree that sometimes not knowing what you want to do can influence you to do a PhD, the thought process being "I'll gain further qualifications while I decide". However, I think this is fairly minor. After all, a PhD is often around 4yrs, and it's pretty lonely, so if you're not fully into it, you'll almost surely end up hating it. That said, I don't believe this is at all what the answerer is getting at (but, of course, I could be wrong!). (S)he appears to being saying "they don't know what to do, so just stay in university to put off deciding / having to get a real job".

-1 you don't just do a PhD because you don't know what you want to work on (in industry), because you need to know what you want to work on in order to do a PhD! This logic is completely backward, it's a wonder so many people upvoted this answer at all.

@ChrisCirefice  people upvote because I am right and you are wrong.

First of all, a large percentage of PhD applicants at the US universities are foreigners who may have completely different reasons to apply than the domestic applicants. Often it's the only way to enter the US and get a job legally. Also, they may be expected to come back to their country and hold a high position within government. For a domestic applicant, a PhD from a reputable school opens new opportunities for work in industry and government.  It's becoming almost a requirement for certain positions. For instance, in Financial industry having a PhD in Math or related field can be more desirable than an MBA.  The reason for this is the fact that today American high tech workers have to compete for their jobs with workers from all over the world. Having not the best in the world STEM high school and college education makes them less competitive. HR departments are aware of this. Having a PhD from a reputable university is an attestation of a quality education and a person's ability to conduct research and close the deal (defend the thesis). On a lighter note, it also shows that the person is willing to work long hours for little praise.

You are perfectly right. PhDs are underpaid and most of them don't get a tenure after graduating. Moreover, the "Dr." title doesn't count as much today as it was the case in the past. Speaking freely about your research is a value, but not if only 10 people on earth would understand you. You may not own your work (the government of the country may), but even if you do own your work, you most often cannot generate profit from it. Working style is "flexible": you may distribute your 16*7 out of 24*7 a week hours flexibly.
Earlier, PhD had an ideal touch. (Probably, that's the reason for so high application numbers.) Today, it's no more the case. Most of PhDs in STEM are simply doing engineering of various kinds, which they call applied science to maintain that touch and get more funding from the government. And the ones who do pure science undertake really heroic efforts or are geniuses. In addition, the PhDs do teaching and projects with the industry to get third-party money to finance themselves.
In short, nowadays, there is no sense in pursuing a PhD unless you really know what you are doing.

All that you have mentioned, I have been reading in various sites, journals and magazines. It is sad.

That answer seems very field specific and very regional specific. I accept that this is what you have observed, but it does not generalize to my experiences and observations. Maybe you can add your field and country?

@MaartenBuis in STEM.

@MaartenBuis Would you mind sharing your experience?

It corresponds to a large extend with ORMapper

This doesn't answer the question.

@DavidKetcheson The answer is probably "ideal touch". Answer adapted.

@MaartenBuis OP specified STEM already

I don't understand what "ideal touch" means. Can you expand on that?

@FaheemMitha "An ideal touch" is not a well-defined, mathematical term. A feeling of idealism comes from being good enough to be paid for dealing with research problems, which means generating and systematizing knowledge as opposed to solving the real-world problems. These tasks may be related (and we wish to pay more if they are), but, by definition, they are different.


text:
Taking year off after PhD and focus on research? Does it look bad?
Say I have finished my PhD and I would love to just write a few papers and do some research before getting a job at a university which will also involve teaching & administrative things. Also, assume I would have the money to do just that for a year, or two (I am in the Humanities & have access to a library, no need for a lab)
How would this look on my CV, how would this affect my future chances of getting a teaching position? If I don't publish anything, it will be horrific for my CV I'd assume. What if I would actually manage to publish a few good papers (and more or better ones than I would have been able to with a teaching position)

What you are planning sounds pretty much like a postdoc. Are they a thing in your field?

Can't you get a post-doc or an adjacent prof. position?

Can you get some kind of unpaid visiting research position at a university so you can put it on your CV? If you know a professor at a nearby university moderately well, they may be able to arrange this kind of thing. (At some universities, this costs the professor a relatively small amount of money in administrative fees, but at other universities I believe it may be free. Some universities may not allow it at all.)

I'm am not sure about the post-doc situation in the Humanitites - do things like these exist? @PeterShor so the thought is that it will look better on the cv to have some affiliation? how would i introduce something like this / ask for this? I am worried it will sound bad to say that I basically have the money and can afford something like this.

@K. Schaffer: That is indeeed my thought.  I know mathematicians who've done it. They were either retired or they already had a job, but also had a two-body problem. I think they just asked a professor they knew.

If you have not actually finished your PhD yet, one thing to do would be to delay your graduation by a year.  On the other hand, if you can get a job, it's possible to negotiate for some things like deferral or leave without pay, or lowered teaching/administrative duties at the beginning.

This sounds like an incredibly poor decision to me:

the job market in the humanities is very bad, even compared to the rest of academia, and very "lumpy."  There are relatively few jobs, and they tend to have fairly specific concentrations.  You are taking a huge risk by passing up a year of chances to apply; the set of jobs in your specialty, even the set of cities where jobs in your specialty are available, will likely be totally different next year.  The opportunity cost is enormous.
It will look bad on your CV.  Some people will just find it an amusing eccentricity, but many people will not really believe your unemployment was voluntary, and some may wonder what sort of person they'd be hiring into their department (most academic departments feel they have enough odd characters as is).    Discussing the matter will just emphasize that you feel like teaching and service are a burden, which doesn't make you sound so appealing as a colleague.
There's a much better solution!  Get a job (if you are so lucky), and find some excuse to take an unpaid leave. I'm sure attitudes about this vary from department to department; in my field (mathematics) this would be very easy to do, and indeed in many cases you could arrange a visit somewhere that might pay some of your expenses.  I don't think this is the same in every field, but it's still surely much better to be in a position first, rather than waiting.

Your reasoning on #1 is most accurate for the potential pitfalls of this situation. The best advice for the poster (and anyone in this situation) is to apply for any and all jobs after graduation while realizing that the poster may require a full year (or more) to find a suitable position and that the original poster should definitely fill this time by publishing as much as possible.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Found mistake in my professors book: Tell her or publish? If so, how?
I just came across quite a big problem for an interpretation my professor puts forward in her recently published book (a book containing original research in the humanities, not a textbook). I am not 100% sure, but I am pretty sure that I am right.
The error is not a factual error, but an error that concerns the logic of her argument. If somebody interprets a text, and I find very strong inconsistencies in this interpretation or a logical error even, this might not be objectively wrong per se, but it can come close to it in certain cases.
How am I to approach this? Shall I send her an email, explaining everything, or shall I try to publish it as a paper (assuming I am right about the severity of the problem)? I am worried that if I tell her, she might publish a paper herself or will tell me it's not so severe. I am bit paranoid here, I know.
I am also concerned with how to tell her - if I do. Shall I be confident and explain that I think I have found a problem for her interpretation or is this too bold? Or shall I formulate it more like a question? In the latter case, I am worried that she will not realise that I did really see the mistake and am only being polite. I don't want her to think that I pointed to something by asking a question, but that then she really came up with it. I have the feeling it would make more of an impression, if I would point straight to the problem as a problem. Of course, there is then also the possibility of her not liking me for this.
By the way, I am a Master student in the humanities. I will not do my PhD with this professor (or even at the same uni).

@user37208 "The paper needs to be worth publishing even if the book didn't exist." is definitely not true in my field and I would guess most fields in the humanities. Much of what we do is offer competing theories and respond to each other. Many published papers argue against a significant claim in a noteworthy book without offering any interesting positive claims.

What's wrong with "Hi, I've read this chapter in your book and I wanted to ask you about this and that". This could lead to a fruitful discussion, both for you and your professor. Without saying "you're wrong". If she was indeed wrong, she will realise it once you explain yourself well enough.

@K.Schaffer In your place I would , after putting down corrected matter ask if I missed something. It preserves respect while bringing it to courteous attention.

You are a student and you wish to correct a professor (I'm not saying profs can't be wrong, just that you need to be more than 100% sure you're right). You are "not 100%" sure you're right and yet you'd choose to publish the correction instead of speaking to your teacher about it? If the stuff is really wrong speaking about it to your teacher is the right thing to do. If this requires a publication you could do it together (don't worry about it).  (I also found some glitches in some highly cited papers while doing my master thesis. I communicated them to the authors and that's it.)

@BeniBogosel thanks. I talked to her. check out this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/68573/professor-dismissed-error-i-found-in-her-work-i-need-more-feedback-but-the-fie

The simple answer is that you should do both.
I do not believe you owe a professor just because she is a professor. If she has earned your respect and/or your loyalty through other means, you should certainly demonstrate it, but being a professor doesn't demand it, on its own.
That said, talking through the problem you have found with her will give you a lot of clarity on whether it is the scale of error you believe, and will help sharpen your own argument. It may not be an error at all in your professors mind. I doubt she'll hear your reasoning and slap her head, exclaiming "Oh snap! I was wrong all along!" She may simply believe it is unimportant, which is fine. It then falls to you to justify the importance of your observation.
Then you should publish this idea. The object of academia is to engage in the "Great Debate" and if you have found a doorway into that debate, and you believe in your argument, then you should absolutely walk through that door. If your professor has published the opposite, then all the better because it is something that is already in the "academic consciousness" and will consequently be relevant to both the discipline—assuming your professor is not a marginal figure—and your immediate environment.
I don't understand where the idea comes from among students that most good ideas are 'sprung' on the world through publication, or are kept private until the last minute. I know this is a common idea but the reality is much more complex, and really doesn't vary that much by discipline. Most ideas are talked out, written, then rewritten, sent to conferences, sent to journals and finally published, and that process does and should include the hostile interlocutors. By the time most ideas get published, regardless of article or book, the idea has already been widely discussed. Publication isn't really the revelation of an idea to the community but the codification of an idea, and an attempt to spread it to a wider audience.

First: Slow down.
In the academic world, books are simply collections of known things presented in a unified fashion. In fact, in some disciplines, it's almost unheard of for someone to release something novel in book form. Additionally, while book chapters are reviewed by editors and (occasionally) peers, it's not the same peer-review setting as we have in journals. To that extent, people don't typically write papers rebutting an interpretation put forth in a book; they write papers rebutting the article(s) upon which the book chapter is founded. If a book chapter does indeed contain an error, then it'll just have to be fixed in the next revision, if there is one. As such, your concern about publication is probably far overstated.
Secondly: Are you sure you have found an error? Has anyone else reviewed your work to validate what you've seen? Are you sure that you fully understand the topic? If I was a betting man, I'd place my money on the professor who's been studying the field for years and has (presumably) thoroughly reviewed the literature, so much so that they just wrote a book on it, over first- or second-year graduate student, as a simple matter of statistics.
Thirdly: You should definitely just go talk to your professor and ask her, respectfully, to clarify what she wrote. If anything, she'll probably be appreciative that you're going through it in such detail. If you have found a real issue, you'll make her aware of it, and if you're lacking some background she can explain it.

I would also not put money on this. I also haven't claimed that I am 100% sure. But I also want to point out that it is not simply a 'collection of known things', my professor aims to put forward a novel argument in the book. You write that 'If a book chapter does indeed contain an error, then it'll just have to be fixed in the next revision, if there is one.' but this does not apply, as it would be a substantial error in his theory, not just a factual error that could be corrected in a line.

I'll correct you. Many books in certain disciplines are novel arguments. In fact, most publishers in the social sciences won't even touch something if more than about 25% is found elsewhere. The lone exception are "edited volumes" which are often republished articles.

In my discipline, it varies, but books certainly do often present new research. Moreover, most publishers of anthologies want original articles unless the book is explicitly aimed at providing an overview or intended to collect together major journal articles for teaching purposes or availability.

Why wouldn't you discuss it with the author (professor), and if there is indeed something to your argument, ask if they would be willing to co-author a revision or alternate theory?  Obviously they are a subject matter expert and co-authoring would lend credibility to your new paper.

No one in my branch of the humanities (musicology) gains tenure by publishing anything other than completely original research---that is, previously unknown sources, interpreted in new ways, according to new methods.

Your view of books is definitely skewed. There are many fields where original research is presented in books.

In history, many books are written to support an argument or interpretation. Even if some of the interpretation has previously appeared in journals, the book maybe introducing new material and it may be entirely new material, summarising an entire programme of research. The book may in turn attract criticism in journal articles or even an entire book may be written as a counter argument. As an example, Fogel and Engerman's "Time on the Cross" attracted both, including a Gutman's full book rebuttal "Slavery and the Numbers Game".

No, you won't make an impression by being bold. You are a Master student and she is a Professor, even if you are 100% sure of what you say, you can't just throw your arguments at her face: because you have to show her respect, even if what she wrote is blatantly wrong.
The best way is to point it out as a clarification question, like:

I don't understand this point, because it seems to contradict with
  [what I have read in another book ; what we know about the
  organization of this particular structure ; with the latest research ;
  etc.].

In addition to not being bold, this approach has the benefit of allowing you to present your arguments point by point without seeming like you are arguing (you are trying to clarify a point you don't understand, so you can continue until you clarify it enough). And if it's your mistake, then you will learn something and you can go away without being tagged as a "smart-ass".
I used this approach on several occasions, and it always worked wonderfully well, and even opened a few opportunities (because it looks like you are pretty interested in the subject, which is probably true since you could spot an error).
And remember that making mistakes is easy, particularly when writing a book! So don't be too harsh on someone just because a few errors slipped in: this is bound to happen. However, if the book is full of errors, then you have another problem: do you really want to work with someone that is clearly incompetent or delusional? In this case, you don't need to point any error, you should just get out as fast as possible!
/EDIT: after OP comment clarifying that it is about a substantial reasoning error in a theory and not just a factual error: you can of course discuss with the professor, but be prepared that the debate can become heated. And that's totally normal and you should understand it: she studied the field for years, spent a couple more years to design her theories, and you think you can break her theory at your level of knowledge and study. Of course, this is possible: it is always easier to find a counter-example than to define a new theory. But remember that she put a lot of work in her theory, so even if the theory is wrong, you have to respect her for her effort in trying to advance the research in her domain.
Now you are free to either talk to her or publish a paper, it's your choice, but be sure to respect the person behind the research: as a researcher, your goal is to rebuke/confirm hypotheses and theories, not attack the person designing them. Focus on the content rather than the person (forget about trying to impress), and you should be good.

No respect is intrinsically due - it is a simple matter of facts that the truth of an argument is independent of the status of those asserting it. If a professor is wrong about something, that's more important than their job title.

Respect is intrinsically due to any other human being. The title is just an indication of how much time the person has dedicated to his/her research, and you can compare this amount of time with the amount of time you have spent yourself: if there is a wide gap, you ought to be more moderate, that's just logical. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to shut up, but you can just talk with respect. Not only for the recipient, but also for your own sake: you won't believe the number of crazy people that will vehemently give their opinion on just anything. Better not be amalgamated with those.

Perhaps my comment came across as too adversarial: I am merely cautioning against 'undue deference'. Broadly, I think we agree.

@user217281728 I can't agree more indeed about undue deference :)

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


text:
Is it possible to request withdrawal of authorship almost 2 years after the publication?
Is it possible to withdraw authorship almost 2 years after the paper has been published in a journal? Reasons could be anything ranging from disagreement on data interpretation, new data contradictory to the original one, etc.

I've never heard of such a thing and I would be surprised if a procedure to remove an author exists, especially that late. I can't imagine many reasons for such an action that don't seem extremely suspicious. For instance, contradictory new results don't necessarily invalidate previous ones, unless it becomes clear that the first results were manipulated (in which case a full retraction is necessary).

You can try to convince your coauthors to retract the paper. A complicated situation arises if they do not agree with your request. You can also submit a comment, stating that you no longer agree with the analysis or the conclusions. Most people would consider this to be a pretty drastic step. More commonly, you improve on the work, and submit a new paper

You cannot withdraw authorship because that is not a valid concept. Authorship is a fact. You cannot withdraw facts. You can disavow authorship, but only if your name was fraudulently placed on the paper. You can renounce views which you expressed in the paper, but cannot ask the world to pretend you did not put your name on it.

I wouldn't retract authorship, science is all about revising research based on new data or a better explanation.  I'd suggest publishing a new paper, and explaining what you disagree with or have found better interpretations of from the old paper.  A withdrawal of authorship (even if possible) would be interpreted as some form of manipulation of data in the prior paper.

Indeed. If the new data contradict the old, both with (at the given time) appropriate methodology and knowledge, that's perfectly fine. Sometimes the original data are corrected over time, sometimes the new data are actually the wrong ones. A classic example in theory is Einstein's introduction of the cosmological constant, because he didn't like the consequences of his original theory. Honest mistakes are a part of scientific history.

Is it possible to withdraw authorship almost 2 years after the paper has been published in a journal?

No, as a general rule you can't.  You can publish an erratum if there's a clear-cut mistake in a paper that needs to be corrected or noted, and you can retract the paper if the mistake is so significant that nothing of any value can be salvaged.  Retraction is a big deal, which you should resort to only if you have to.  In practice, papers are retracted either for fraud or for shockingly big mistakes.
Other than that, you can't make any changes to published papers.  In particular, you can't withdraw as an author just because you changed your mind or regret having been an author.

Reasons could be anything ranging from disagreement on data interpretation, new data contradictory to the original one, etc.

Reasonable disagreement on data interpretation would not be viewed as a compelling reason.  If you disagreed at the time, then it should have been handled then; if you previously agreed but now disagree, then the paper correctly reflects your prior agreement.
New data contradictory to the old could be grounds for an erratum or retraction if it indicates fraud or serious methodological error in the original paper.  On the other hand, the fact that the conclusions should be updated in light of new data is not in itself an error in the original paper.


text:
Dropping "acknowledgement section" in thesis
I've finished my Bachelor thesis, and it's been a fairly independent work since it was a very niche topic that I didn't really have anybody to talk with about other than my advisor. I also don't want to thank any friends or family for "support", it seems a bit silly and melodramatic.
Almost all of the theses that I have read have acknowledgement sections with several people being thanked. Is it a requirement? Should I include it, and just write a sentence or two about my advisor? Is there another appropiate way to thank just him without dedicating a section to it? Should I not thank him at all? Does anybody read this stuff, or is it just skipped? Will not acknowledging anyone give the reader a bad impression of me, in the sense that I am an arrogant jerk, or of my work, in the sense that since I am not thanking anybody, I must not have used all of the ressourcess or given it a lot of effort?

I wouldn't define thanking someone for support as "silly"...

@FábioDias while the titles are the same, I think the situations are different enough to warrant separate questions.

One option might be to put the acknowledgements within another section, like in a paper, so they can be fairly short without looking quite so odd.

You would of course need to check with your university/department specifically, but I can't imagine anyone requiring it.
That said, consider what part of your thesis people will actually bother to read.  Bachelor theses (and even masters theses) will rarely, if ever, be read for their content except by your advisors.  Maybe someone will glance at your conclusions or use your bibliography as a jumping off point.
If your family or friends were to take a look at it, they're going to see your Vita (they probably know that already) and your Acknowledgements.  And they are far more likely to glance at your thesis than anyone else (just being honest).
I've on occasion, though, found the acknowledgments section very useful.  It will often point out scholars who have helped out, libraries that have manuscripts, funding sources etc. and while technically that's probably mentioned somewhere in the paper and/or bibliography, but frankly seeing something like this

Much thanks to the Mr. I, the rare book collections specialist at J Library for having given me such wide access and assistance in research, and to the J Fund for Study which so graciously enabled me to spend the summer at K Library, and to Prof. L from M university, whom I met during that time, for her constant insights to N things.

can, in one paragraph, give more information that can help a young scholar interested in a similar field than the entirety of the thesis.

@user37208 I suppose when it comes to academic bureaucracy, anytime I say "I can't imagine..." I really should be saying "It makes no sense, but sadly, undoubtedly someone somewhere..."

I highly recommend including an acknowledgement section, as it is the unsung hero of any publication, for the following reasons.

Thanking someone for their contribution, or your family for their help is literally the least you can do. Failure to do so is a huge faux pas and can be rightfully hurtful, just look at this list of actors who didn't thank their significant others during their oscar acceptance speeck.
It is something of a record of the ways in which you wrote your dissertation and can help reconstruct some of your research, if needed. This is less likely a problem with a BA thesis, but if someone—including you later—should want to recreate your research it can be helpful to know who you were talking to.
It shows the ways in which the department worked (or didn't as the case may be). In fact, you can search by acknowledgements in the proquest dissertation database.

+1 Not thanking can be read as follows: "I have nobody to thank for this success but myself." or "All the people that surround me are just ****s and I'd rather not have worked with them, why should I thank them?" or "I do not really care about spending time to say thank you for people who sat there for 3 hours explaining me some finer points of quantum lie groups." or "I was really in a rush to submit, and, frankly, I'd rather make sure I have a printer full of ink to print the last pages of the thesis than some dumb ackno that no-one reads." It's difficult to imagine even a neutral read.


text:
Is it possible to make leaving a PhD look good on a CV / Resume?
I am in the process of leaving my PhD programme in life sciences at a top university in the UK. A PhD is simply not for me and I find the work/life balance to be intolerable; in addition, my PhD so far has included an industrial placement at a Fortune 500 company that was very eye opening and enjoyable. I am looking to leave academia permanently and apply for graduate schemes.
My question is whether it is better to leave the fact that I quit a PhD off my CV, or to have the failed PhD / MPhil on there, or to mask it as '18 months of lab experience' or something similar. Is it possible to make the fact I left a PhD sound good?

Are you seeking to leave Academia completely?  You might get different perspectives asking this at [Workplace.SE].

Thanks for the suggestion. I have posted the question there as well.

If it's feasible in your situation, maybe you could convert the phd to a MPhil or MSc, thus getting a new (successful) degree out of your time.

@user11645 it will be a far more negative image if during the interview it turns out that you omitted part of your education. And, after all, a gap will create questions (or no interview) and TAs who are not PhD students (nor postdocs) are rare: employers will easily spot that you started a PhD.

Keep it on your resume. During interviews, tell employers that you completed a considerable amount of training, and then realized that you were interested in moving into industry. Personally, I respect people who are able to recognize this and change course instead of falling prey to sunk costs and spending years of their lives slaving away on a dissertation that has no value to them.

In my discipline (computer science), almost all of the people I know who declined to finish the Ph.D kept it listed on their professional profiles with a "not complete" note under it.
They did list their experience though under "work experience", as "Research assistant" or similar and continue to keep their accomplishments listed.
Overall, I think keeping it there, even if unfinished, is better than having a long gap of 2-3 years, because big gaps of nothing are going to look worse than employment in that period that you decided (for varying reasons) to not complete. You can explain away "I decided not to do a Ph.D" in a phone screen but it's harder to tell someone "Well, I actually tried to get a Ph.D but didn't finish, sorry I didn't list it on my resume".

Along these lines, I have seen job ads (for industry positions requiring a CS degree) actually stating "PhD or PhD dropout preferred".

+1 Holes are much much much worse than claiming "failure" (well, leaving a PhD is not necessarily a failure of course). With a recent "hole" in your CV, you almost can't get a job. It's always needed to list something.

I guess it depends on the reason for leaving, e.g. I know several people who did not finish their PhD because

they got good jobs just before finishing the PhD. One may say that their next employers hired them just before they got into the official postdoc market.
(The offers were clearly based also on the expertise they gained during their work at the PhD project)
the company they founded as side job (same profession) went well so they more or less gradually switched over to work at that full time.

Both are IMHO perfectly good reasons for not finishing the PhD.
So e.g. if based on your experience at IBM you end up as their employee IMHO that is a perfectly good and also nice looking explanation for leaving the PhD.
But I'd not leave the PhD formally before the next working contract starts - this way the CV will not have a gap. And after all, even if you don't like the PhD work that much, I think it is better to go on with that than to be unemployed: quitting PhD followed by being unemployed may leave a completely different impression from the situations I described above.

If you're no longer interested in working in academia or research, having a PhD is often a strike against you in a job search. I regularly encounter negative bias against a PhD in professional and social situations. So unless you're applying for a job in a field that requires, or at least explicitly values PhD training, I'd list your 18 months as 'lab experience' of some kind. You don't want a gap on your CV, but you also don't want to trigger the negativity that too many people associate with the term "PhD".

Having a PhD may well be a strike against people in a non-research job search but I believe that it is really field-dependent...

@NSERCProtester As I wrote: "unless you are in a field that explicitly values ... PhD training". It will also vary by agency, so if I were applying for jobs, I'd prepare two CVs, one for anti-PhD, and another for pro-PhD workplaces. Both would be accurate, but the first would label PhD work as generic field experience of some kind.

Have a few examples of each?

Here is my answer to this similar question, where the OP was leaving after 4 years not 18 months. 4 years is more into ABD territory so I think it was wrongly marked as duplicate. Anyway:
Ok, this touches on multiple points:

people who leave before completing PhDs (so-called 'PhD dropouts', which is not a disparaging term) tend to be either significantly better or worse than average PhD students (depending whether the cause was financial, lack of motivation, immaturity, departmental politics, failure to define topic, realizing your field or topic was not worth it/dead/useless/bad career prospects, or (shock horror!) a better opportunity arriving).
your job is to help the reader understand which one you are
but as you figured, the resume is not the place to overexplain. You also have the cover letter, the phonescreen, and the interview for that. So be succinct and upbeat, list specific skills, tasks completed.
"I figure that the 4 years of MA/PhD work on research projects gives me skills that are valid to most employers". But you still need to list them succinctly. (You might have multiple resumes for different employers: one for publishers, one for CS, one for finance, etc etc.) Show us a sample of what you're saying? Also, state specific accomplishments or tangible results you delivered, especially since you're leaving. Any publications? or at least research reports? After four years, I'd expect several. If you list no accomplishments and no publications, then your resume will rightly get propelled into the trashcan/shredder at Mach 10.0
"All of my dissertation research was funded by a fellowship, and all of my various other research projects (where I wasn't principal investigator) were the result of competitions funded by N grants totaling $X. I have always designed my own research projects". That's gold-dust. Authoring and winning grant proposals is highly valued.
"I guess I should qualify this by mentioning that my PhD studies were in the social sciences, and there seems to be a bit more leeway in terms of describing what we do." This is a cultural US vs European difference. Hence you see very different opinions in responses to that question. Use whatever job description is correct in your country. Just don't get caught obfuscating that you were an MA/PhD research student.
Will you list your supervisor(s) as references? If yes, will they generally corroborate what you say? If no, why not, and who will you use?

My suggestion:

If you earned a degree along the way, certainly list that in the
education section.
If you were a research assistant, put that in
your work experience.

I wouldn't add "failed PhD" or "or incomplete" or anything.
Nobody will judge you for quitting a Ph.D. program if you decided you don't want to do research.

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


text:
High grade/GPA versus finishing studies in the expected timeframe
Situation:
Where I study (edit: Greece) we are generally not expected to pass all lessons on the first attempt (it is very rare actually) and often we fail multiple times before we can pass them. It is also rare to finish a school in the expected time (4 years for most schools, 5 for polytechnic) because of that, so most students finish two to three years later.
The only way to get a better grade on any lesson in the university I attend is by telling the professor to give you a failing grade, and even in other universities you can only take a few lessons again without this method, so this applies everywhere in the country.
Now, due to both a consistently bad timetable over the past 5 semesters (often ending the lessons at 9PM or even having 11 hours in one day), as well as a lot of extracurricular activity in my case (but related to the studies), it is hard to get a good grade (an equivalent GPA of 3 out of 4 is considered good in fact, not special but above average). Some malpractices by a lot of professors also play into this, but I am hoping that I am building a strong enough CV as to overcome this.
Actual Question:
Given a strong CV with a lot of related work on my own, certifications, and activity, should I try to finish in the expected 5 years of studies, but at the risk of a not-so-good GPA, or should I take more time but increase the GPA?
I am mostly interested in an academic career, for the industry I am confident that the CV I have built is more than enough to compensate for the grades.

Can you give a specific country?  There are many individuals on Academia SE from around the world, so one may be able to give you specific details :)

@tonysdg: Based on the profile, the OP is in Greece.  I whole-heartedly agree that this should be edited into the post.

Added the country, but does that matter concerning the university I graduate from, or the institution I will apply to? I was hoping the answer would be independent of region.

This isn't exactly an either-or scenario. You can lengthen the time it takes to get your degree somewhat without it negatively impacting your chances of securing admission, particularly if it's a common event for students matriculating from your country.
However, the longer you prolong your undergraduate degree program, the more you'll need to justify the extra time needed. For instance, one semester or one year is unlikely to raise red flags, but three or four years more might be much more problematic.


text:
I may not be admited to the school that have the professor I have interest in. What should I do?
I have been following a professor whose research I really like. To simply illustrate the impact of his research, let me quote a quote from Quanta Magazine:

[He] says he usually gets two responses: “You’ve opened up a whole new theory, and you’re an idiot.”

We have exchanged many emails, and I have nailed my proposed research to the point where I believe that it suits his research very well. I am really satisfied with this.
However, I lack 5 points in TOEFL to reach the minimum requirement of this school. So I have to apply to other professors in other schools. Because he has opened up a new theory, other professors research doesn't have that much in common with my proposed one. I have no complain about that, and I think I would still be happy to work on a research that deviates from my proposed one. The next professor who has research similar to my proposal, has refused me because he doesn't have intention to admit more student this year (but he says he will be glad if I apply next year).
Q: If I really want to work on this research, can other professors advise me well? In my knowledge, I also need to work for them, to enrich their research, so chances are that I have to work on a different research. And if I do have to change my proposed one, which one is more advantageous, accepting it or waiting another year to apply? It's kind of a shame to spend a whole year preparing for grad school, then suddenly have to wait for another year; but I can deal with that.

Apply to more schools now, or at least try to produce some research during the next year (e.g. internships). Otherwise the idle year will weaken your chances of receiving a position next year. It is also usually possible to resit TOEFL or any other language test before the work starts (e.g. if your program starts in September 2016, you should fulfill the English language requirements before entering: there is still plenty of time left).

but I'm afraid that the committee will make the rejection right when they see my score. Also, why shouldn't I go to work outside? I won't have an idle year.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood your question. So do you already have a second research position backed up? Check if you can resit the test without sending the current result.

no, I mean I will go to work outside academic for one year (money stuff). I have asked the department, and they say that the process is on going.

You write that you have exchanged many mails with this professor. Has he indicated he wants you to be his student? Have you asked him about this issue? Sometimes if a professor wants a specific student, exceptions can be made if the application is borderline.

@Bitwise not technically an yes, but we have discussed about my funding. Would this be a good indication?

If you are already in contact with said professor, I don't see a reason you cannot go elsewhere, have an advisor that is closely related to this field, and then have said professor as an outside co-advisor.

If you already discussed funding, that's a moderately encouraging sign. I then would not think it inappropriate to follow up with that professor, pointing out that you fell short by 5 points in your TOEFL, and what they suggest you do (don't be pushy though). That said, working with someone else if you particularly like one person'a research is pretty normal in academia; so pursue that in parallel. You might end up enjoying it even more.

@gnometorule I have mentioned about this. Since he is not in the committee, all he can say is to find out about this.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Until you've actually been admitted somewhere, it's a really bad idea to pin your hopes on only one advisor, only one school, or only one set of research directions.  Sure, there may be one particular advisor that you seem to "click" with more than any others, but you should not think of that as your only option until you actually know that it's an option at all.
Even under optimal circumstances, there is a good chance that you won't be admitted to a particular school, or that a particular advisor isn't taking new students, or that your newest grant proposal won't be funded by a particular agency, or that your latest paper won't be accepted by a particular journal, or that your latest experiment will fail, or that you won't be able to hire a particular student into your research group.  It doesn't matter how hard you want it, or how much you deserve it; you will never get everything that you want.
And you are applying under less than ideal circumstances—your TOEFL is below the minimum requirement for your first-choice department.  Unless you can improve your score before they make admissions decisions, it's safe to assume that you will not be admitted.  Don't worry about it; don't be afraid of it.  Accept it and move on.  But don't withdraw your application!
Meanwhile, cultivate other options.  One of those options might be to spend a year improving your language skills.  Another might be to apply to other advisors in the same department (although that's unlikely to work given your TOEFL score), or to other departments.  Yes, that might mean changing your proposed research, but your research career will span decades; there's plenty of time to go back to your initial proposal later.  Or you might be able to find other advisors who will work with your original proposal.
How do you know which option to pursue?  You don't.  Try them all.
I generally advise undergraduates in my department who are interested in graduate school to apply to 5-10 different departments and simultaneously to apply for industry jobs.  Apply to options that you think you might be a good match.  Remember that any particular application has a small chance of being accepted, especially at top schools like Berkeley.  Play it as a numbers game — your goal is to set up enough options, with a wide spread of probabilities, that you can reasonably expect to get a couple of offers.
Once you have those offers, then start making a decision about which one to accept.

I have known for a long time that I shouldn't put all my eggs in one basket. But I forgot that (1) I cannot get everything I want, and (2) a proposal is not a final stage. These things are obvious, but my desire is too strong that I have completely forgotten them. Thank you Jeff, for reminding me that again.

I'd say that you should really focus on getting the prerequisite language score and move on with the research position that you've been pursuing for so long. I'm sure he isn't the only adviser that shares your research interest at the school you're applying to.

But I'm afraid that I won't be admit to that school

How can you be sure that the school has more than one advisor with that particular research interest?

@JeffE by clicking in every faculty?

You could find another professor that would be willing to supervise your research while it is not in his direct interest, so that you can start now but apply next year to the professor you want to work with. You would have to persuade him that you wouldn't get in his way, that you are worth his while, and that you will be accepted next year by that professor.
In the mean time, regardless of what you do, you can work on the TOEFL score to raise it, but also continue reading on the topic you want to do research and if possible, start doing it (if it is in a field utilizing computers more than field experiments, or you can perform simulations) so you have a head start. This will also allow you to show the professor that you have already invested in the topic, and hopefully already have some results.
Finally, remember that once you complete some research in another field, you can always get back to that professor with more experience, an expanded CV and possibly a couple of publications.

would any professor accept that I will work for them for a while?

If you tell them beforehand that this is your intention, and that you will not require much of their attention, there's a chance they will. It's important to be clear on your intention to apply next year, and also that you do indeed take up little of his time. But if he has nothing to lose and it only takes up a fraction of the time a normal researcher would, I think it may work, I would personally accept it.
Another thing I noticed is that quite a few MSc degrees only take a year to complete, you could also pick up such a degree so you don't remain idle, it should also reinforce your CV

To avoid idle, should I continue my study or find a research job?

In my opinion, yes. It will contribute to your CV, and a stronger CV means a better chance at getting the position you want. Also, constant activity shows that you really like what you're doing and will not disappoint your adviser. And of course if you are sure that you didn't get the position only because of the TOEFL examination, make your familiarization with English your highest priority

Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean, which one is more advantage: picking up a Ms degree or having a research job?

I would go with the MSc degree, you can do some research while getting the degree so it pretty much also covers the benefits of the research job. The downside is that instead of being paid, you may be paying, and you may also have to attend some classes, which means somewhat less research unless you put in some of your own time. But a degree is always a degree, which is probably of higher value.


text:
What's the point in "the paper is structured as follows"?
Inspired by the recent question on list of figures: what is the point of ending your introduction with a paragraph saying "The paper is structured as follows: in Section 1 we do BLAH, then in Section 2 we do BLAH, we move on with BLAH in Section 3, and conclude with Section 4 in which we do BLAH"?
Many papers in my area do it, my coauthors add them to our papers, and I kinda took the habit, too, but I never really understood why. It looks like a poor man's table of contents. After all, we already write what we plan to do in the introduction, and remind the reader in the conclusions.

Unlike Dave and Henry, I am going to argue against the style The paper is structured as follows..., though not against inclusion of content serving the same purpose.
Quite some time ago, I took to heart advice by Simon Peyton Jones on this, which can be found here (slide 19), also echoed by Sandro Etale in his advice on writing introductions. In essence it boils down to this:

Don't write The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the problem. Section 3 ... Finally, Section 8 concludes. That is most of the time only a waste of paper.
Instead, use forward references from the narrative in the introduction. The introduction (including the contributions) should survey the whole paper, and therefore forward reference every important part.

In a consequence, the position I take on this part of writing introduction is that while it is important to inform the reader about the structure of the paper so that he/she can take the path of few surprises and easily follow the discourse, it should be however done with style. Doing it in such a poor manner as "The paper is structured as follows ..." is simply bad literature. I would argue, that it is better to firstly, clearly state the contribution of the paper and then write up the paper's plot summary leading from the introduction to the culmination of the paper in supporting the claimed contributions and discussion. I mention the references to the individual sections, and sometimes even deeper structural parts, only in passing, or include them in parentheses.
On a similar note, regarding Conclusion section, I took to heart the advice of D. J. Bernstein on writing conclusions. Citing other authors, he suggest to simply drop the conclusions part from papers and put all the important conclusions into the introductory section. Well, unless there really is something important to say there. Since then, I conclude my papers either directly by a loose paragraph at the end of the Discussion section (renamed usually Discussion and final remarks), or if I feel like there is something important to say, by a standalone short section Final remarks. However, never re-iterating what was done in the paper. The reader is anyway free to "rewind/relist" in the paper (see the very last point by DJB).
P.S.
The links to homepages of the two guys include many more good tutorials on aspects of writing/research in computer science.

I agree with this. I'd rather have an "annotated table of contents" where you provide forward references to each part of what you discuss in the paper.

Following Bernstein's advice on conclusions is potentially an easy way to get your paper rejected if the authors' guidelines for the journal to which you're submitting explicitly require a conclusions section.

@aeismail: of course sticking to such principles as I describe rigidly is dumb if it does not fit a particular situation. But so far, for conference papers and even book chapters, drastically shortening conclusions in comparison to the more standard approach, worked well for me.

However, sometimes you may bump with reviewers that want or desire a "Conclusions" section or a short summary at the beginning. Other advice I usually get is:always check the Introduction and the conclusions, and it is a bit hard if the conclusions are embedded along the paper.

@Leonpalafox The advice was to include the conclusions in the introduction, instead of as a separate section at the end. That makes it easier to check the introduction and conclusions, since all you need to check is the introduction!

Completely agree; also Steven Pinker calls such "metadiscourse" one of the features of bad writing, in his article on Why Academic Writing Stinks (paywalled link, download link) that I mentioned in this answer.

I'm not looking to write good literature.  I'm looking to present good science/math.  I'm more than a little cautious of any argument that "good literature" is the proper way to structure science and math articles if it doesn't go out of its way to specify why this coincides with "good science".

@zibadawatimmy While the content is obviously the most important part, I find that bad literature can impact my ability to read a paper quickly and efficiently as it redirects my attention from the content itself to the structure of the content/how it is presented.

The answer is really the obvious one: it is to alert the reader to the structure of the paper. In addition to this part in the introduction, the paper should also, every now and again, tell the reader where they are in the overall story of the paper. This makes it easier for the reader to read the paper, by giving them the global picture and pointing out from time to time where they are in the global picture.
A table of contents would be overkill (and it would take up too much space).

I find these paragraphs very useful (and often include them myself), precisely because it's a short version of a table of contents: often readers don't want to read the whole paper, but want to find one particular part of it.  A summary of what's in each section makes this much easier.

@KonradRudolph: Except for all those fields where that's never the TOC.  The question seems pretty clearly to be talking about fields where papers don't have a standard structure, and therefore providing some form of TOC in the introduction is useful.

Ah hmm. It just occurred to me that I’m obviously approaching this exclusively from a experimental science perspective. I see how it’s not really applicable anywhere else

If you want quick overview, you can just flick through the paper and see the clearly visable headings of each section and sub-section, no need to also list them in the introduction. That might even motivate people to right better headings.


text:
Is there a metric for the impact in teaching?
There are different metrics like the h-index which try to measure the impact in research of a scientist.
Is there a metric which tries to measure the educational impact of a lecturer or a tutor?

The h-index is a bibliometric which doesn't make sense most lecturers (though one can count citations of textbooks etc).  The analogous thing would seem to be something like the maximum h such that X has taught at least h classes of at least h students.  Internally, universities do look at how many students someone teaches, but I don't think there are any actual teaching indices.

Also, impact factor in the title (a measure for journals) aren't the same kind of thing as h-indices in the question (a measure for authors).

TL;DR: yes there are metrics that evaluate standards of teaching, but there are many and they vary widely. For the UK, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects performance indicators that include teaching outcomes. Because of these differences, the impact of these metrics vary, too.
There are two crucial problems. The first is: how you define impact? A good teacher can impact a student by inspiring to do great things- inside or outside of academia. If students leave university, how do you know what they do is a function of the teaching they have received? And even if it was that straight-forward, how do translate macro-level successes onto individual teachers? The second is: how do you compare such measures across institutions, disciplines, countries?
Most measures that try to evaluate the quality of teaching tend to be on the macro level. For instance, university league tables approximate quality of teaching using student-staff-ratio, teaching satisfaction and course satisfaction. See for example the Times Higher Education Ranking for US universities or the UK Guardian league table 2016. The THE explains here:

the Teaching metric is measured by five performance indicators: a reputation survey, the ratio of staff to students, the ratio of doctorate students to undergraduate students, the number of doctorates awarded per academic staff, and institutional income

All of these are approximations and make some assumptions about what is affected by teaching. For example, the number of PhDs awarded per staff: is this a function of teaching? In the US, where PhDs usually encompass 1-2 years of classes, this makes some sense. In the UK, where PhDs are much shorter, this is already a problematic measure.
Internal feedback mechanisms
Many UK universities use internal systems: at the end of each course, every student receives a feedback form with questions about how well they though the course was run.
This differentiates lectures from seminars/classes/labs, differentiates Teaching Assistants (TAs) from lecturers (if applicable) and includes questions on how quick the feedback on homework was, how well-prepared classes were, whether or not the TA made the subject interesting, whether they felt engaged and so on.
In my institution, every lecturer/TA gets sent their evaluations after each term, in addition to the departmental average. This way you can gauge how well you are doing according to your own students, and how well you do in relation to your teaching peers. As with any questionnaire or survey, methods are imperfect (students that don't turn up don't get to take the questionnaire etc) but it serves as an approximation. How well you do does impact your chances of promotion (this is anecdotal, however- this will likely differ from place to place).
External measures of teaching
The UK government plans to implement the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), akin to the Research Excellence Framework (REF). See here the House of Commons report (Green paper):
Inside the report, page 5 reads:

There is no commonly agreed definition of what constitutes good teaching in higher
  education. In a diverse higher education environment, we heard that excellent teaching may
  look very different across different subjects and across different autonomous institutions

Instead, the government wants to introduce metrics that can approximate the quality of teaching. The more recent white paper reads:

We define teaching broadly
  - including the teaching itself, the learning environments in which it takes place, and the
  outcomes it delivers. Such things can be measured: students assess their satisfaction
  with their courses, retention rates are a good proxy for student engagement, contact hours
  can be measured, employers choose to sponsor some courses, or work with some
  institutions, because of the industry-relevance of their offerings, and employment rates
  can be measured

The TEF is not implemented yet and reactions have included many concerns about the usefulness of the proxies and the bureaucratic burden that collecting these measures will imply. The consequences of TEF include for example that universities can raise tuition fees if they do well.
Practical issues collecting teaching data: the example of retention
Since retention and drop-out rates (especially among minorities and working-class backgrounds) are very important in measuring teaching quality, the easiest way to collect that data is by recording student attendance. Both manual and electronic measures have their pitfalls: manually calling out 150 students in a lecture is time-consuming, electronic systems prone to failure or abuse.
Assuming that this is not a problem, the next question is: what to do with students that have missed classes? Recently, my institution has been obstructed to see to it that every student that misses two classes in a row, will have a personal meeting with their tutor. This has created huge pressures on tutors who have to see up to 60 students per week. A common problem of this system for example is that students missing classes due to illness are not recognised as such. Another question this raises is that perhaps vulnerable students drop out not due to lack of teaching engagement, but rather due to reasons that are beyond university control.
This example illustrates how difficult it is to 1. define measures of teaching and 2. to collect data on said measures. As with all measures, like the impact ratings of journals, they often serve a narrow purpose and should be used in addition to other pieces of information, and not replace them altogether.
Further difficulties arise from different types of universities (for example the difference between Universitaeten and Hochschulen in Germany, or Community & Liberal arts colleges in the US), and the differences between subject areas. A computer science class with many lab hours will require a different set of standards than the philosophy lecture accompanied by seminars. Many university rankings differentiate between subject areas, regions and age of university to counteract some of these issues.


text:
Proper notation to represent a set containing sequences of numbers for scientific papers?
I would like to include a set of numbers, which are composed of by multiple sequences, for example:
{1,2,3,4,5, at steps of 1 ... till 100, 200, 500, then 1000, 2000, at steps of 1000 .... till 10000}
Is there a proper way to represent this? I tried looking up some scheduling papers in OR/IEEE journals but have yet to find papers that include such notation explicitly.

One tiny detail: in the title, you write "sequence of numbers", in the text, you write "set of numbers". The term "sequence" typically refers to an ordered set. If you need to retain the order in your work, a set-based notation is not quite what you need. If you actually mean "set", then you may want to change the title of your post.

"Positive integers from 1 to 100, the exceptional values 200 and 500, and positive multiples of 1000 up to 10000"

The way you explained the sequence in your question seems fine to me.

I'd recommend standard mathematical notation, which should be sufficiently unambiguous yet legible. Use the standard "union" symbol (\cup in LaTeX) to denote separate sets you want to take the union over.
Unfortunately, no MathJax here - so here is the LaTeX code and below the result (done using CodeCogs):
\{k\in\mathbb{N}\mid 1\leq k\leq 100\}
\cup \{200,500\}
\cup\{1000k\mid k\in\mathbb{N}, 1\leq k\leq 10\}

Depending on your layout (one vs. two columns), insert linebreaks at appropriate places, e.g., like I did in the LaTeX code but not the result.

I think it depends on your field. If you were to put that in a mechanical engineering journal it would at least be thought a bit odd.


text:
TA-ship requirement for funded international applicants
As I have read from other questions in this SE site, for all international students who apply in PhD program, it is required that to be TA for that department they have applied to. And in the other hand amount of money that will be paid as fund to that student is highly dependent on his/her progress on teaching and being a TA.
So with regard to this context, as a MSc. student with unfortunately severe stuttering, cannot become a TA or teacher (only in such cases that I should speak to teach a group of students, however in any non-speaking ways to teaching or being TA I have no problem)
My questions:

Is speaking required in all types of TA-ship and teaching? In other words, are there any other tasks that are considered to be part of TA-ship and teaching which do not require speaking/lecturing?
What are the chances of me being funded? (Are there any exceptions for getting funded for such students?)

More context about me

Currently MSc student (in Iran) and interested in applying for PhD program to North American universities.
Field of study/interests : computer science/software

My background/achievements

BSc. and MSc. GPA > 18 out of 20 (Also #1 in BSc.)
Graduated from most prominent university in Iran, Sharif Univ. of Tech.

If your question is only about the USA, you should probably say so. There are also international students in Europe, who may or may not need to be TA.

No not all international students TA (not even in the US) many international students get funding by other means, such as research assistants. This of course depends on the program and school.

Not all TAs teach. Many are just graders. Some folks serve as research assistants instead.
That being said,  there have been many professors who have been stutterers. It's no reason to avoid graduate school and certainly you should try to get as much teaching experience as you can in graduate school. Your school is required by law to give you the accommodations and support you need to be a successful scholar.


text:
Locating old Russian literature in the US
There are quite a few old Russian papers and books I've been trying to track down for a few months without success. (I have some listed here.) Many old Russian journals and books are in US libraries, and I think I'm aware of all or nearly all of the resources my library has available to me. If the journal is not available in the local library or online, I'll look on WorldCat, and use my library's interlibrary loan service if I can find an entry on WorldCat. Basically, if it exists on WorldCat, the interlibrary loan service is likely to obtain the paper, and if not, I'm usually out of luck. Overall my success rate is probably only about 50%.
Herein lies the problem. Very few Russian libraries participate in WorldCat, and in my experience libraries outside of the US are less likely to provide scans. Basically everything I have been able to locate this way existed in the US, and there are many Russian journals which never seem to have made the trip to the US. Or if they did make the trip, they exist only in the Library of Congress, which requires you to visit in person. (Not such a huge issue for me, as I have family in the DC area, but this could be prohibitive for others.)
Are there any resources in particular for Russian papers that I should be aware of?
The previous question titled "What do you do when you find yourselves with an unreadable/inaccessible paper?" is related to this, but I'm aware of everything mentioned there and/or what is mentioned there is not applicable, and am looking for something more specific to locating Russian papers in the US.
(I'm looking for engineering and physics papers primarily for experimental data and models to use in my own research. In general, these papers are quite old such that the authors are inaccessible, though in most cases the journals are still active.)

It is not clear what do you mean by "Russian papers and books". Please clarify what type of literature you're looking for, in what knowledge domains and/or fields of study and, if possible, what you plan to use that literature for. All that might improve your chances to get a decent enough answer.

@AleksandrBlekh, fair point. I wanted to keep the question general to help others more, but I added a bit about my fields of interest and motivations.

If it is a paper you are after, and the journal is still in existence, try contacting the editor of the journal, and asking for a copy of the paper.
Depending on the age of the material you are trying to access, it is quite possible that the original authors are retired, dead, or otherwise hard to contact. If the journal continues, however, the editor(s) of the journal will have an interest in helping you obtain the information you require, with a view to having their journal cited.
I had this exact problem with a few old (~40 years) papers published in Russian journals to which I didn't have access. I contacted the editor directly, and was rewarded with photocopies of the papers I needed.

This is a great idea, which I have tried once before without success. Perhaps our approaches differed in a way that made mine less likely to work. How did you contact the editor? Was it by email, regular mail, or phone? Also, did you write in Russian or English?

@BenTrettel I wrote, by email, in English. If you approach the editor politely -- of course -- explaining the efforts to which you've gone to try and get your article, you'll be following pretty much what I did.

Tried emailing another Russian journal several weeks ago. Was polite and I briefly explained that their journal was entirely unavailable in the US and I have had no luck finding the paper's author. Again, no response.


text:
Is conflict of interest applicable for independent research?
How should I answer the conflict of interest question during submission of paper if I have worked independently without any funding agencies and as a sole author?

Then you do not have any conflict of interests, unless you know someone of the editorial members personally.

@Alexandros, typically don't you need to more than just "know" them but to have had an academic relationship with them, e.g. co-pi on a grant, co-member of an editorial board or program committee, supervisor or -advisee relationship, co-author, etc.?

Could you please write down explicitly "the conflict of interest question"? It is not as standard as you may think.

Could there be a conflict for reasons other than funding? For example, I used to work for computer manufacturers. Suppose I, independently and without funding, wrote a paper about computer architecture that made my then employer's products look good.

past advisors, for instance, are always conflicts of interest (depends on the kind of COI you are talking about...reviewing, for instance)

If your case is a case in which conflicts of interest do not apply, then you simply state:

The author declares that she/he has no conflict of interest

assuming you are the sole author, in the appropriate section, usually stated Conflict of Interests. Note that some publishers, such as Elsevier, require you to sign a form for this purpose as well before even beginning the review process.
For further information you may refer this post:
Clear explanation of Conflict of Interest with examples in journal articles

A nice rule of thumb is: would you be happy for the circumstances of the development of your paper be published in the New York Times or on BBC at prime time? If yes, you do not have a conflict-of-interest or other issues with integrity.


text:
Why is the deadline given for refereeing manuscripts so much shorter than the typical time between submission and acceptance?
On a few occasions, I was asked to review manuscripts (for well-known, mainstream journals) with a 2-3 month deadline.
I found this to be a short period given that the papers published in these journals showed about a one year difference between the dates when the papers were submitted and the dates when the papers were accepted. So I was wondering - why is there this discrepancy?
Do reviewers usually request for an extension of the deadline? Or is it common for reviewers to not take the deadline seriously (i.e. to ignore the deadline and submit the referee report after several months when it is done, and perhaps the editor needs to take the initiative to remind the reviewer to submit the report)?
I assume this one year difference is mainly due to the referee's delay rather than the authors having to make revisions (at least with my own papers, it often took several months before I received any referee reports).
While I have met the deadlines in the past, I wonder if I am perhaps allowing myself to be pushed around a bit in the sense that maybe I shouldn't drop my other work just to finish the review on time. I have reviewed only a few manuscripts so far, so I am new to this. I'm not sure how bad I would come across (relative to the norm, that is) if I don't take the deadlines seriously.

Can you give your field, given that the typical review times and customs vary strongly across fields?

@Wrzlprmft Yes, theory (algorithms, combinatorics).

Theory of what? I presume computer science, but I’d rather check.

@Wrzlprmft yes, cs.  for eg, discrete applied mathematics.

As an editor, I can say that it is very common for reviewers to submit reviews late, or to ignore invitations without responding so that it takes a while to give up on them and find suitable alternative reviewers.
This doesn't mean that editors and authors don't notice and grumble about late reviews or notice and appreciate reviewers who submit their reviews on time or early! Please keep submitting your reviews on time if you can and ask for an extension rather than ignoring deadlines if you can't!
In my field, a 2-3 month deadline for reviews is longer than usual (my journal normally asks for a 21-day turn-around, and this seems typical of journals for which I am asked to review). But papers still frequently take a year from submission to publication due to delays in review, revisions, and final publication after acceptance.
However, I would also say that most papers are sent back for revisions if they are not rejected outright, and revisions typically also take months.

So when the 2 month deadline approaches, I could inform the editor I need another month?

Don't tell the editor you need another month @svsring, Either provide a deadline that you are able to stick to or decline to review the paper (this works for everything, not just reviewing). Things get delayed forever, which is what you're saying happens, if everyone continually puts them back.

To answer the question on why there is a discrepancy between "submission to acceptance" and "time for review":

There are several other steps that are short, but add up. These steps may or may not all be present for a specific journal work flow - here are a few: After submission an editor has to be assigned. The editor checks if the paper is appropriate. The editor has to assign a reviewer. The editor has to read and evaluate the reviewer reports. The editor has to form a decision. Some steps may occur multiple times if there are revision round. If any of these steps may take from a few hours to a few days or even a week (think about delays due to different time zones, weekends, holiday, business travel...) you see that it's easy to get a total of more than a month.
Often reviewers are invited but decline. It happens frequently that a number of reviewers decline before the editor manages to find enough reviewers willing to do the job. Delays due to declining reviewers can easily be in the range of more than a week. Sometimes I get an invitation to review and the online system indicates that the paper has been submitted several weeks ago.