text:
How can slow thinkers learn to respond to questions?
I'm a postdoctoral researcher in STEM and I've always been a slow thinker. I need to slowly process research issues, theory or ideas with pencil & paper or on a whiteboard. I often need to have visual aids (drawings and writing) to help me think. Insights on relatively easy things, like understanding bugs in my code, come to me only the next day (after a good night's sleep). Insights into more complex theory can come to me only after weeks, months or even years... I've always had a sense that my colleagues process things faster than me.
But every once in a while I'm in a situation where I need to answer a question that requires quick thinking: at conferences, at group meetings, when having quick chats with collaborators. Those questions usually appear with the following pattern: I present a piece of a mathematical formulation that I've been developing to solve a problem and someone asks me:

But wouldn't this formulation be equivalent to XYZ?

I find that I can't answer those questions even though I know what XYZ is. It would require me to sit with a piece of paper and convince myself that indeed my formulation is equivalent to XYZ or that it's not. So I usually just answer: "I'm not sure, I'd have to think about this." Sometimes I might have a vague hunch about the answer and I answer: "I don't think so, but I'd have to think some more about this." Other question types that get me stuck are things like:

Isn't [insert name of a mathematical tool] what you need to solve your problem?

On the spot, I have no idea! Even though I've heard of the [mathematical tool] before. I have to go back to my desk and think for a day or two if this is what I need.
At least if I've never heard of these things it would be normal to answer "I don't know." Instead, this really is being hampered by my own brain's processing capabilities...
This is sometimes hurting my progress because if it's my advisor asking these questions during our weekly meetings then we often can't progress any further with the conversation. I have to go back to my desk and come back to my advisor a week later with an answer.
Although I've been doing well in research so far despite my slow processing (as long as I get enough time, I can figure stuff out in the end), I'm worried that as I progress in academia and still can't think on the spot, this will start to look unprofessional. For instance, I've been observing my advisors and they always seem to have some answer to questions that they get. I think I've never heard my advisor say "I don't know" to a conference question.
Can slow thinking start to look bad in my future academic path, say when I need to give an interview talk for a grant? What are some strategies then that slow-thinking academics use to become better at answering questions that require thinking on the spot?

Having an answer to all questions speaks of preparation, not intelligence. If you have iterated through all conceivably relevant tools on your desk, of course you will be able to answer whether a given tool is relevant. And if someone else needs 15 seconds to think of something you haven't thought of, either you're not well prepared or lucky because you have just advanced your research. (There is no need to be prepared for every question when talking to your colleagues about an open question, au contraire, that is how you get prepared)

Getting a good answer slowly is almost always better than getting a bad answer quickly.  I'm also a slow thinker, and personally I find it is best just to be open about it. Those around you also ought to adapt to you, rather than just you adapt to them.  That is especially true of your adviser.

XY: How can teachers learn how much time is needed to give high-quality answers and not expect instant answers? Classic problem one sees every beginning teacher do... and even some experienced ones. From the teacher's point of view, waiting even 3 seconds feels like an eternity. From the student's point of view, unless the question was utterly unnecessary because they already understand the content that deeply, 3 seconds is just enough time to begin processing what the question is asking...

"a moment please" ....    Answer first piece of the answer.

<think a bit more, gaze at ceiling/window>   Another part of an answer   (feel free to walk back anything already said too)

The person who asked it probably doesn't know the answer either. Their "fast thinking mode" made the connection: hey, this looks a lot like XYZ! But it takes slow thinking to sit down and work out whether it actually is XYZ. The fast thinker is wrong often.

My guess is that a decent number of these situations are just a consequence of you wanting to be absolutely sure before answering. I used to be extremely impressed by some people's abilities to answer questions very fast. But then when inquiring further, sometimes it turned out that they just had a very vague idea of the answer and at the same time were confident that they could work out the fine details if necessary. The fact that they gave you an answer is therefore a consequence  of a lower threshold for certainty before answering.

@LukeSawczak The question isn't about students and teachers, though.

@mechanodroid Yes, I do strive to be sure, so I think your diagnosis is accurate. I  sometimes suspect that some academics tend to BS answering questions ;) But some academics I've had the pleasure to work with are genuinely fast at bringing some thought on the spot that proves to be a reasonable thought. I now understand from the overall theme of the answers I got here that it likely stems from having given it a lot of thought before.

I've had similar feelings before, and these are some things that have helped me.
First, as others have said, there is no problem with saying, "I don't know." It's better to be honest than to make something up that is wrong.
In a conference talk or seminar, one approach is to give yourself a moment before responding. You can use filler phrases like, "That's a good question," or even simply pause, before starting to respond. There is nothing wrong with this. Sometimes simply having a moment to relax can help you appreciate the question and calm your nerves. Many times, you will have thought more about the topic than your audience, just because it is your research. So you may be able to connect the question to material you have prepared, either backup slides or even something you are planning to talk about later in your talk. Keep in mind as well that sometimes an appropriate way to answer a question is to not take it literally, but to identify a kernel of confusion in the question, and address that. (On Stack Exchange one version of this is called a "frame challenge.") Generally, being able to connect a question to material you have previously prepared is a useful skill and is often relevant for addressing questions. Going along with this, of course, is that it does help to try to anticipate questions and either plan to address them in the talk or prepare answers as backup slides or notes that you can refer to if asked.
In a research collaboration setting, there is a bit less pressure to "show off." If someone is asking you whether "technique A will solve problem X," and you don't know, you can always turn it around and ask the questioner to explain in more detail how they would use technique A. This could help spark a discussion. Another skill to develop is to proceed with, "I don't know but let's suppose that this can help," and see where that leads. Oftentimes, especially in informal discussions, questions aren't meant as "exams" and it's not important to get all of the details exactly right in the moment — just assuming an answer and talking through the consequences can be useful. For example, it may reveal a contradiction that suggests the answer won't work out the way you assumed, it may clarify the important property you need to show, it might open up a new direction you hadn't thought of. If the question needs a solid answer, and you don't know off the top of your head, then I don't think it is a weakness to say that you need time to think about it — it sounds like a potential new research direction has been identified and you need to explore it.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the audience asking the question should inform your answer as well. Someone may ask a question that brings up a bunch of technical issues for you. But maybe the person asking is not an expert in your exact topic and is looking for a more general, high level answer. Your answer should address where they are at. Sometimes, you can "unfreeze" yourself by realizing you have internally taken several logical steps past what the question is actually asking (probably because you are so familiar with the material) and bringing yourself back to where the question is and answering in a more basic way.
Finally, keep in mind that you can say something interesting without giving a direct answer. Just explaining your thought process can lead to an interesting answer. So for example, "Yes, that approach makes sense conceptually, although there are technical issues X, Y, Z that I would need to think about," can help your listener understand where you are coming from, more than, "I don't know."

For me, it is helpful to explain a problem to others. While I'm explaining it, new ideas emerge and the solution finally arises in my head. Not always, mind you, but expressing problems in language will definitely help to solve them.
Of course, it will be best to explain the problem to a peer who might ask helpful questions, but if none is around, you might as well talk to your pet, or, missing any companion, a potted plant or the wall. In short: Please do not expect to have the fully formed answer in your head as soon as you are being asked, but trust that your mind will come to the answer while you speak.
My advice: Start your answer with explaining the steps which you need to undertake to test if formulation X is equivalent to Y. Continue, and you will get new ideas while you speak. When in front of an audience, you can win some time by saying first "let me think about that" or simply repeating the question in your own words. That alone will already help your mind to grasp the problem and prepare a proper answer.
Sure, this does not work all the time, and a honest "I need to think more about that" is better than a confident but wrong Yes or No. But with your explanation you demonstrate already that you understand the question and master the concepts, so it will be a win for you in any case.

In the software world, we tell it to the Rubber Duck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

"Start your answer with explaining the steps which you need to undertake to test if formulation X is equivalent to Y. Continue, and you will get new ideas while you speak." That sounds like a helpful strategy for me, especially for the meetings with my advisor. I haven't done that before so I'm going to try :) Thank you!

@Buffy My source is a bit older: On the Gradual Production of Thoughts Whilst Speaking

@student If it helps, keep in mind that the purpose of asking a question is not always to get the answer. For example, sometimes it's to elucidate an argument or just a prompt for discussion.

When I give conference talks, and it's time for questions, I often remind the audience:

And remember, a question is when you want more information from me

This reminder is necessary because SO MANY questions are not that. People want to tell you something (I agree with you, I am working on that too, I think your stuff is related to my stuff) and they do so disguised as a question. I'm not telling you to start issuing this reminder, though, because I think some of those "not really a question" have value for you. I think you would do well to adopt a more generous variant of "I'm not sure, I'd have to think about this" such as:

Thankyou! I never considered [combining those two, expressing it like that, using that tool] even though I am familiar with it. I am going to give that some thought after I get back from this.

Optionally

I would love to followup with you about this next week [get their contact info if you don't have it, or ask them to use yours which should be on the slide being projected behind you.]

In some contexts, you can also let the question be the start of a conversation (not when there's a lineup at the microphone at the end of a talk, but during a hallway track or a free ranging meeting of a team):

Interesting. I didn't consider that. Can you elaborate?

Let them lead you through the thought process instead of going away to work it all out for yourself before saying anything.
If you are a little more generous with "thankyou!" "what an interesting idea!" "that's a great suggestion" and so on, you will probably get a lot more useful ideas and suggestions from people. If you aren't willing to even say these fairly bland and noncommittal things until you've given several days of thought to what the person has said, you're probably holding your praise a little too tightly.
For your supervisor, you take a note that you need to try the thing that's just been suggested, and you carry on with your discussion. You should not be utterly blocked on the one single suggestion that has been made or question that has been asked. On the rare occasion that you are, then I guess the meeting ends and you head off to get unblocked.

Just to reiterate some points others have made: not-so-many people are adept at "solving problems" in real time, either during timed exams or when giving talks. The only reliable way to do such a thing is to have already thought about it, and just remember the conclusion.
True, you cannot anticipate every possible question, perhaps especially hostile/prankish ones, but you can (and this would be good, anyway!) look at stuff "adjacent" to your specific project... pre-emptively... the same way that good-faith questioners who're engaged with your presentation will wonder about.

Perhaps it is just that you want to be sure before you give a definite answer and if the thing asked about has any complexity that is quite hard to do.
Complex question require thought and thought takes time. It is unlikely that you can think of everything to anticipate every situation, but for those situations in which you are likely to be asked hard questions, such as job interviews, try to anticipate the questions and prepare in advance.
When asked such questions, those that require analysis, maybe the best answer is "Maybe, give me a bit of time to think about that. I'll get back to you."
I'm assuming that you don't have to puzzle out "all" questions. I have a recall problem due to aging, where I often can't think of the names of things or concepts, but I know those concepts very well. I doesn't sound like you have a problem like that, but, rather, that you'd rather think and then give the right answer rather than rattle off something that turns out to be wrong. Caution, not indecision.

To address a specific case from your question:

This is sometimes hurting my progress because if it's my advisor asking these questions during our weekly meetings then we often can't progress any further with the conversation. I have to go back to my desk and come back to my advisor a week later with an answer.

This shouldn't be too much of a problem if you have multiple strands of work on the go.  That bit of the conversation gets put to one side and you move on to something else.
However if this is the main or only important topic, I would look to get some feedback sooner - a quick read and a quick email while it's still in the adviser's mind.  This does of course assume that they actual read the email soon, but you may also be able to discuss it with someone else.
If you circulate meeting notes (after a complicated technical meeting with a student I ask them to summarise in an email; this is quite a common approach) you can slip a couple of questions in there, but draw attention to them in the subject line

There's nothing wrong with responding "I'll have to think about that".
It's helpful to also add some "I've heard about that" or "that sounds like it might be a good idea", if applicable.
If you're responding that to a question while the presenting at a conference, you could add something like "feel free to reach out via email if you want to discuss it further" (assuming your email address is shown in some easily accessible place, like on your slides). Or say that they can talk to you about it right after the presentation, if you'll be available.
If your advisor asks this, or a peer or collaborator asks it in a group meetings or chat, you might be better served with responding with something like:
"That sounds like it might have potential. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say that?"
The Q&A section of a presentation wouldn't really be the place to have in-depth back-and-forth discussions of ideas, or to get more input from the audience beyond some questions, follow-ups and notes. But in a working environment, it's much more appropriate to ask people to explain why they suggest something, especially if progress is contingent on that.

If your advisor asks this, and you have to go look into that, and you're blocked from making progress for a week until you can talk to your advisor again, that might be a bit of an XY problem. You want to know how to respond to that question, but the real problem may be with only meeting once a week.
One might solve this by:

Scheduling a follow-up meeting for tomorrow during the meeting with your advisor, to continue the discussion after you're looked into it.
Discuss things further via email or other means of communication.
Send some initial notes via email, which they can respond to via email, and you can look into what they say before your meeting.
Make a plan with your advisor for whichever outcome (if and when that makes sense). If they ask about using some tool: If it's viable, you can start using it. If it's not viable, you might continue without it.

You'll have to figure out for yourself which of these would work for you (if any of these work for you - it's also possible to be stuck in a dysfunctional system without being able to do much about it).


text:
Is it normal for a revised submission, which is reviewed by the same reviewers, to take a longer review-time than the initial submission?
I have submitted a manuscript to a journal. Five months after the initial submission, I have received the decision, which was a major revision. After submitting the revised manuscript three weeks later. It has been now six months since the submission of the revised manuscript. I understand that this can happen if one of the reviewers was changed but what if the reviewers were the same? Shouldn't the time spent in reviewing the revised manuscript be less that the one spent in the initial submission?

On average, your reasoning that a revised version should be quicker to be reviewed is sound. But the average duration is not what you experience, you get the time the actual persons which are reviewing your concrete paper take.
Maybe one of the reviewers is just more busy now? Maybe they became a parent? Maybe they just have less energy to spend on work now? Or more teaching obligations? An exciting new hobby?
Maybe your paper had some obvious flaws in the first round, but now with those out of the way, it is much trickier to figure out where there are some subtle issues left or not?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do research funders make sure their money is spent reasonably?
How do research funders audit where their money is going? Say they give some amount to a professor, after one year the professor didn't produce a thing in his research. How does it work?
It seems very unlikely to me that these funds are run by people who doesn't care if they throw their money like that.
The problem is that some professors are not active at all, they offer really low quality courses, they use the same material, same assignments, etc. You would suspect they are good at their research, but you hear similar things from their students. Still, they continue to receive grants and money from the government !

This is likely to be grant-specific. NSF requires annual reports, but, also grants are typically given for a 3 year period. If after 3 years nothing of value comes out, the person will not get a grant next time they apply. Also, grants are given to people with proven track record, so it's very unlikely that the research productivity goes to zero.

It's not really an answer to the question, but teaching is totally orthogonal to getting grants. Grant agencies don't know or care how good of an instructor you are (not that same material and assignments are bad ...).

I also doubt the students have seen the grant proposals and reports, and they may not even track professor's publications closely: it is with them the professor does not produce much, they may be very active otherwise. And that activity may even turn into mostly administrative at some point while still being grant-worthy, depending on the country, funding agency, university, and the lab.

If the researcher has not produced anything after a year, they will find it difficult to obtain any grants after that, because recent publications are a factor in grant decisions. It would be a great way to stall your career. So researchers tend to try pretty hard to produce something once they receive a grant. Also, there's not that many sources of funding out there, so if you totally waste an agency's grant they might remember it when you apply to them again.
Some grants restrict what they may be used for. You cannot, for example, apply for a grant saying you will research X and then instead research a completely different topic Y. Everything you purchase or pay for with the grant money has to be tabulated and reported to the funding agency. If there's stuff that is obviously not related to the research, there may be various repercussions. It depends on the agency how closely they look at your expenses and how strict they are about judging them.
There are also some grants that are structured in installments. You don't get the whole money right away. You have to meet with the agency's officials periodically (for example yearly or every 6 months) and give them an update on your progress. If they don't like the update, you might not get the rest of the money.
Lastly, there is not necessarily an expectation that results must be produced. Science deals with the unknown, so it's inevitable that sometimes the hypothesis just turns out to be wrong. So many funders take broader view. They accept that there will always be some studies that fail, and it's not necessarily the researcher's fault. At the proposal stage, they try to pick applications that would still produce some useful results even if they failed.

The problem is that some professors are not active at all, they offer really low quality courses, they use the same material, same assignments, etc.

Research grants don't really care about the quality of your courses. They are primarily concerned with research. There are sometimes specialized grants that do also take teaching/outreach into account, and these will of course expect you to provide evidence that your courses are high quality.

First, researchers have to request funds for specific purchases, budgets are usually provided as part of the grant proposal. Rarely can a researcher request substantive funds without a clear purpose.  The most open-ended type of funds are "summer salary." This is literally pay for the summer, since most professors aren't paid over those months. If someone wants an academic to work during that period (typically research but could be otherwise), it's common for them to request payment. This is summer salary.
Most researchers don't get research funds deposited into their personal accounts. The funds typically go to the university they work at, and then are disbursed after receipts are shown or through the normal purchasing process at the university.
These processes tend to be extremely bureaucratic with great oversight. For example, timesheets might need to be shown for summer salary to be collected - even if the research has been created and published.

I am not familiar with the 'normal purchase process' in universities, my understanding is that professors have fixed salary amount which they receive from the universities as private entities, no? Are you saying they receive their funds as well through the payroll system of their universities?

@metaUser What do you mean "receive their funds"?

@metaUser I'm saying the university will make purchases on the researcher's behalf. If I get a million dollars for a particular piece of machinery, I don't buy it myself - the university buys it using the grant money I've acquired.

I don't know precisely, I keep hearing things like this professor has received this much money from this grant. I don't think universities are involved in that.

@metaUser RegressForward is explaining that when you see that, it isn't money given to the professor, any more than if you hear that someone working for a company "had $15million in sales" means that person made $15million salary. When a professor receives a grant, it's their employer that gets the money. They may use some of the money to pay the professor a salary, some to pay for other costs like the building the professor has an office in, some for equipment the professor or their students need, some to pay students, etc, all depending on the type and purpose of grant.

Ok, then what motivates any professor to work harder to get grants, if he already receive an relatively good fixed salary from the university?

@metaUser They typically care genuinely about their research, and a successful research record is necessary for tenure and keeping a job. In most cases, they care about their work enough that they are giving up a substantially higher salary that they could earn in the private sector. Professor is not a good career option for someone primarily motivated by their own salary.

@metaUser You need grants to do research these days.

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


text:
Bad grades first semester at an Ivy for math. Options for to grad school?
I’m a math major at a ~T10 school (Ivy) about to start his freshman year second semester. I worked hard to be accepted and took several state university courses, both excelling in lower-level reqs and some upper-level ones doneto get here as well as conference research +  olympiad achievment in relevant fields.
I’ve always had dreams of going to a great R1 grad school, but this semester I finally caved, scoring projected B range grades across the board (maybe even a C). So much of this was due to a shattering in work ability largely caused by physical health problems that emerged when I got here. The first two months were nicely motivating because of college’s novelty, but the last two came to break me and it killed my final exam performance even though my homework averages and midterm performances were decent.
Well, I’m taking the part-2 iteration of these sequences (algebra and analysis) and am determined to do better when finishing off the semester, but can’t help but feel ashamed especially when I had so much momentum.
Will drive and exceptional performance alone from here on out, including in graduate courses beginning next year in the same topics dig me out of this hole, when considering REUs and/or quant trading internships beginning summer of 2024?
I know I already threw away industry internships for this summer, but was hoping to do some research with a professor/group here and take a few summer courses to up my GPA, citing my previous experience as a strong point.
I was asked about if one of the generic FAQ pages answered my question - what I meant to ask was how might I be able to score math-related research this summer. I know that there's a barrier to meaningful research in pure math due to training requirements, but I hope to counteract this by being accelerated during some point in my time here.

Does this answer your question? How are Ph.D. applications evaluated in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Am I likely to get into school X?

This is why the first two quarters at Caltech are — were? — pass/fail only.

@chuloobydooby IMHO, if you recover and stay in "good shape", and if your GPA is nondecreasing, then your first semester shouldn't be your "academic death"

Agree with @RodrigodeAzevedo. It's just the first semester of you freshman year. You will get there if you keep it up. Pure math is not something you want to accelerate. You need to study it bit by bit.

You've got three years to figure this out -- no need to worry about it right now. As a math major, you can do this kind of math yourself: If you got all As from here on out, the remaining 7 semesters of your undergraduate education would get your GPA up from your current GPA (around 3) to near 4, which is plenty good enough to get into good grad schools, and will be even if you didn't get all As. You also have plenty of time to figure out where you fell short this semester. Finally, admissions committees for graduate schools are interested not just in GPA, but also in the trajectory of grades; a single poor semester isn't going to derail an application.
In other words, let past things go. Focus on what you can change: What happens in the future.


text:
How can one demonstrate that he has research potential to the admission committee for PhD admission?
Pleas forgive me if I am at the wrong place as I am asking on behalf of a friend from his account and I don't have much experience in higher education.
So here's the story. My friend went to university with me for engineering. He flunked classes and was like at the bottom of the class for first 2 years with mostly Bs. In his junior year, he got serious after talking to one of his professor and started working on the subjects he ignored before. He started getting grades in his 6th semester and was getting all As. In his final semester, he decided to go for research but knew that since his grade was 3.32, he won't get into a good university. So he planned it out and worked for 1 year and then went for MS at a public university in the US.
Now I know he worked really really hard as he audited a class on differential equations to build his fundamentals along with the regular classes. After first year, his grades stood at 3.9 with A in all classes except one. After his first year, he joined a lab as volunteer to get some research experience. The work was good and he was enjoying it. Now sometime in May end week, he was recommended for a paid position in the lab for the fall 2023 semester. During his interview he disclosed that he wants to go for PhD and although he was hired, the lab director told him that he will not get a single admission if he doesn't have any publication before applying.
He started working around the clock. The only relevant conference he can aim for has its deadline in September and he is saying he is sure that he won't be able to make the deadline as research is new for him and his the lab director is refining problem statement again and again.
I know him for 7 years now. He is one of the best guy I can ask as a friend and it breaks my heart seeing him so depressed. Last week around he went for a free counselling session. I am asking him to take a break but he says that it already is impossible to finish things on time.
I started reading online about PhD admissions and understood that one has to show his research potential. I would really really appreciate if someone could help me with this.

"he was recommended for officially joining the lab" do you mean a paid position?

@EarlGrey Yes, he was volunteering with a PhD student in that lab. Now he got a paid position for 6 months.

First the great thing: you do not mention anybody saying anything about his GPA or whatever marks: so it is of no relevance now, the past is past.
Let's start being pessimistic and unnecessarily demotivated:

the lab director told him that he will not get a single admission if
he doesn't have any publication before applying

looks like a crap advise, unnecesarilly putting stress on a person.
Or it may simply mean "stay with us, you will be co-author of some publication and then you will have a potentially good CV to apply for a PhD position".
But I would be Looking at the bright side of thing, they gave him the lab position, so your friend can take his time and work toward a publication (maybe not on his own).
He may be a co-author, or even a first author, if he has some idea on how to interpret the data, or how to collect the data, or to find out valuable informations for data being "discarded".
Your friend is very lucky because he is already doing things that a PhD would do (i.e. working as a lab technician) without the expectations they would have from a PhD (work at least 8 hours a day, 7 days a week as a lab technician and please also do some teaching assitant for this course and do not forget about working towards your PhD).
Even the part:

he won't be able to make the deadline as research is new for him and
his the lab director is refining problem statement again and again.

is fully belonging to a PhD's life, constant running with an "unsatisfied" advisor it is what PhD life is but your friend can at any moment step out of this and say he is not ready, no one is forcing him to attend the conference, it's his own decision.
I have a gut feeling that after 3-4 years in the lab either he will go through a smooth PhD with the current lab director or he will have enough understanding of how lab research and PhD works to find his own path through (or outside) the academia.

I understand. But the position was offered until the end of this year and the PhD applications are usually due in December. What can he do to prepare himself to get a good admit? Again I apologize if I am not able to understand what you are implying as I have almost 0 knowledge about this.

To puit it shortly: with this 6-months contract he has been offered a sip of PhD's life: poor paid, a lot of lab work, some abstruse deadline to present some undefined research, the pending threat of the end of the expiring contract. If your friend manages to survive and he likes enough the positive aspects, then he is ready to pursue a PhD. If not, it is time for him to reassess what he though research life is and what actually really is. He may not see it, but he is extremely lucky. He is getting a 6-month paid trial version, with the non-zero chance of extending it into a PhD position.

First things first: your friend should familiarize him/herself with the graduate school admissions process, because they seem to be making some unfounded assumptions.
Admissions criteria vary greatly among schools, but most candidates need to be accepted (1) at the administrative level, say, by the "Faculty of Arts and Sciences" or the "School of Engineering" or whatever administrative structure exists; and (2) at the lab/PI/research group level. At some universities, all admissions are at the admin level (e.g. a committee made up of professors and admins), then professors pick students from those admitted. At the other end are universities where individual professors admit students directly into their labs/groups, and the admin just rubber stamps their decision. Most universities have an admissions process that is somewhere in between.
What this diversity of admissions process means is that there are as many criteria for admissions as there are admissions committees and professors. Some professors might only want students who have a proven publication record, for example, first-author publications. Others just need expendable cheap workers to run experiments, and will admit any warm body.  I know of a professor whose only criterion for admissions is that the person be a young white thin woman. But in general, professors and institutions want students with proven intellectual potential and discipline (= good GPA and GRE), who know what they are getting into (= research experience), and who are easy to get along with (= can manage an in-person interview.) There are no set criteria or cutoffs, like having a GPA above certain threshold or certain number of research hours or publications. It is absolutely not true that you can't get admitted to a graduate program without publications.
Your friend is already doing research, so he presumably has a lot to talk about: the process or refining a research idea/project, research techniques he learned while working at the lab, and presumably some research ideas of his own. This means that he should be able to talk intelligibly with prospective advisors about possible projects. You also mention that he has been working "around the clock" to please his advisor based on vague promises, which shows he is primed for exploitation. He will fit right-in as a PhD student.


text:
How is thesis evaluated in pure mathematics for PhD?
I am a Ph.D. student in pure mathematics with a few published works in my field. I would like to know how Ph.D. students are evaluated by the examiners before the defense. What are essential points to be careful about when writing a thesis? I would also like to know how much time is usually taken from submission to defense.

What country are you studying in?

@AnonymousM Yes I have asked him but still, I would like to know from other people's perspectives.

@Buffy I am studying in India

It will range from "read all proofs closely" to "do not even open."

Also, possibly significantly, by "with few published works", do you mean "A few published works..."? In contemporary U.S. English that would mean that you have 3 or 5 papers, or more. To say you have "few published papers" (without the article "a") would mean that you have perhaps just 2, or 1, or none. Yes, this is a volatile aspect of contemporary U.S. English... but/and can you clarify?

@paulgarrett I did not know the difference. Thank you. I have 2 accepted and 3 published research papers.

I don't know if this is applicable to India, but, since you want a general answer, I can say a few things.
Generally, at least in the US, the expectation is that the thesis is publishable work. In other words it makes a significant and novel contribution to mathematical knowledge. You don't have to solve a famous unsolved problem, but you need to make a definite contribution.
Your thesis needs to show that you have some deep insight into a narrow part of mathematics and that you have the capability to do more, perhaps in collaboration with others.
It should also demonstrate that you can write and express things clearly and correctly.
However, your thesis can be your first significant work, not the most important work of your career, assuming you stay in academia. So, the Riemann Hypothesis is out.

I have no idea about timing. Your committee will need time to do a review, hopefully more complete than a cursory reading. Most of my committee (long long ago) couldn't understand everything in my dissertation, as they were from different specialties, but they could sort of grasp its importance. The latter was partly due to the assurance given by my advisor to them, as he was well respected.

"However, your thesis should be your first work" is simply wrong (but true for most students).

How about "can be your first significant work", then, @MoisheKohan. That was my intent.

Much better.....

@MoisheKohan, my "first work" was more than 60 years ago in secondary school. It was published (part of a book) only recently. It won an award back then, but wouldn't have been publishable as a stand-alone (then or now). But it was "insight revealing" and so has pedagogical value for those learning math.

Examples I had in mind were Milnor's paper "On the total curvature of knots" (not a part of his thesis, 121 citations on MathSciNet), or John Pardon's undergraduate work, or Drinfeld's HS work...

... yes, let's not be tooooo pedantic in use-of-words here... :)


text:
What is the normal timeline between verbal offer and written offer?
So I was offered a tenure track verbally. I am going to accept this offer next week verbally. Because I asked for a week to think about this.
So I was wondering how long it can take to get the written offer signed by the provost or president may be.
I know it varies depending on the university. But I just want to get an idea

This is completely variable and depends very highly on the college/university and how it operates.  Ask the person with whom you have been discussing the offer, not us.

I asked just to get an idea

Somewhere between a day and a year? But, I'm guessing that's not very helpful. More useful to ask the people who can give a better answer, like AlexanderWoo suggests.


text:
Should I (and, if so, how) signal refused offers to a tenure committee?
Within one year I will be up for tenure evaluation, after a "standard" 6-year tenure track. I have held the position of assistant professor and, if given tenure, I will hold the position of associate professor.
Lately, I have applied for (tenured) associate professor positions at other universities of roughly the same standing as the one where I am currently working.
I have received offers at most places where I applied.
However, because of personal reasons, I am no longer considering moving and I strongly prefer to stay in the city where I work now.
(New facts intervened between the moment I applied at these places and the moment I received the offers.)
Talking with trusted colleagues, they agree that these offers constitute useful information for tenure evaluation, but no one is sure about how this information should be conveyed.
Facts which might be important to know:

In my field and region, listing declined offers in one's CV is virtually unheard of.
In the past, I won two grants/fellowships which were incompatible with each other and I accepted what is commonly considered the more prestigious of the two. In this case, again following consultation with trusted mentors, I have listed the declined grant in my CV. Such a practice is common and uncontroversial. (Here by "grant" I mean something like an NSF or ERC grant.)
I work in a minority discipline within my Department of XYZ. My discipline is more commonly found in Departments of ABC. As such, people on the hiring committee might not be able to perform the most accurate assessment of my research achievements. For example, they might not be able to name the most prestigious journals in my field, and they are even less likely to be able to judge a paper on its merit (which one might otherwise do, if one cannot or does not want to use the prestige of the journal as a proxy). On the other hand, they can easily understand the implications of the fact that another institution which they consider "a direct competitor" extended an offer for a tenured position.
The offers I received were in Departments of ABC.
When tenure evaluation comes, the committee will also ask for evaluation letters from experts in my field. These letters are usually taken into account. I do not have a choice about these experts, nor can I trust that the committee is capable of recognising and reaching out to actual experts/leaders in my research area.
The success rate for tenure evaluation at my department is roughly 35%. There are no set criteria, such as "Publish at least N papers in journals from this list".

Question: what is an appropriate way (if I should at all) to convey the information that I have received offers for tenured positions at similar institutions? In case I should do this, should I aim at the tenure committee, the external evaluators, or both?
Similar questions:

Is it appropriate to include declined post doc offers on your CV?
Stating a post doc research fellowship that I declined on my CV due to personal reasons?

Interesting. This seems to be very different between cultures. In Germany, in my understanding it is absolutely common to list declined offers in your CV: "Ruf auf W3-Professur in X (abgelehnt)" = "Offer for a full professorship in X (declined)". You typically use such offers to haggle for more compensation or resources at your current university ("Bleibezulagen").

I guess that I wouldn't put such things on a CV. But one option is to make it generally known around the department that you've turned down a few offers. It doesn't need to be more specific than that and it could, perhaps, only be among your friends in the department.
This could open the door for questions about it, in which case you could be more precise.
Just be sure that you express enthusiasm for the current position so that you don't seem like someone who will leave soonish.
Note that if you aren't offered tenure it is common (maybe not universal) to have a year to arrange other employment. But it is also reasonable (and wise) to explore possibilities prior to the decision date. That shouldn't be held against you, but we can't guarantee that.

This is the right approach: To let other people know about it.

Thanks for your answer. It sounds reasonable, no one else is answering, and 24 hours passed. Therefore, I am going to accept it.


text:
Regarding spam emails
Now after I did publish some work in an academic journal, I receive tons of spam emails that invite me to conferences and ask me for sending them papers. Sadly, these emails seem to easily pass my spam filter.
What is the reason for these mails? Are these "real" but predatory journals? What is the motivation of the people (bots?) to send thses emails in the first place? Are these simply fishing mails? Do legitimate journals send out emails of this kind? Basically, should I ignore all of those mails or might there be some important ones that I dont want to miss? What would happen if someone would actually answer those mails? I dont even want to click on any link in these mails as this possibly would instantly cause my PC to literally burst into flames.

In particular, I think the previously posted answer "Ignore it" is correct.

How can a journal be both real and predatory?

Don't click links from any untrusted source.

would instantly cause my PC to literally burst into flames :)

The reason is probably for them to make money.
The "invitations" to conferences as "honorable speaker" or "invited speaker" probably want you or your university to pay conference fees. Some people believe that listing these "invited" talks improves their CV. So the business model is probably selling invitations to conferences. Of course it is also possible that there is no conference at all, but that they would be happy to take payment or credit card details.
However, it would be too easy to write every email off as a fraud immediately: if there is an actual conference and enough educated people end up going there to give interesting talks, the conference could be interesting. I would not count on it, but assuming malice may not be necessary. Someone could simply be trying to set up a "scientific conference organisation business", not necessarily with bad intentions.
A similar reasoning applies to the emails from journals.
Besides journals and conferences, I have also seen emails offering to publish theses as books. These emails often state that your thesis is amazing and should certainly be published. I'm not sure what would happen exactly if you react, but it is very likely that you will be charged publication fees of some kind, and possibly some other fees, and some more, and so on until you stop paying.

I remember an anecdotal story of someone who went to such conference and ended up in a tiny room with a bunch of similarly sad and lost people giving talks on completely unconnected topics, with a (seemingly) relative of the spammer manning the projector. It's a family business!


text:
Request an extension for paper revision
The deadline for submitting my revised paper for a journal is July 30th. I emailed the editor and asked for the deadline in two weeks, but the editor did not respond. Where is the problem? Why didn't the editor answer? Is this common? I'm afraid the deadline will come and my request will be ignored and the article will be rejected. I would like your help.
I am sure the email address is correct and sent.

How long have you waited?  Editors are busy people.  I know of an Editor who only attends to his/her journal responsibilities one day a month.  You can try emailing the admin person for the journal.  In my experience, missing a deadline won't result in a rejection.  I had journals chase me after the deadline of my papers.

Thanks for your answer Prof. ...  Among a week. In his previous email, the editor himself suggested that I have this option to request an extension.

Thank you very much dear Ronald. Its alright. I'm not worried anymore.

First things first: we are all humans, and the editor is probably aware if this, too. Hence, I believe that missing a deadline (in most cases) wont cause immediate rejection of a paper even if you had not asked for an extension.
As editors are commonly very busy, you should not put that much weight on him/her not responding within a week’s time. Furthermore, if you clearly requested an extension of the deadline to a new date X, you have fulfilled your obligation to request an extension. Therefore, under normal circumstances, I would assume that you are now on the safe side for the time being, although the editor did not yet respond.

Your answer was promising. So the reason for this is my inexperience. Thank you very much dear pbaer.


text:
What do I do if I'm unqualified to referee an article?
I met someone at a conference and we had a good conversation. We emailed after for a bit. He is the associate editor of a reasonably well respected journal. He asked me to referee a paper and I just said yes without thinking much about it - he went to my talk and we talked for awhile so I assumed he knew what I knew well enough.
Now that I'm looking at the paper I have no clue what to say about it. I work in probability and this paper is straight up statistics. It uses a lot of jargon I am unfamiliar with and I have nothing valuable to say about the paper.
How should I proceed? I feel like my only honest review is "I don't know enough to judge the merit of this paper". I actually don't even like much of statistics and I'm uninterested in teaching myself the necessary statistics to understand this paper (which would require significant time and effort on my part).

How long has it been since you accepted the invitation to referee the paper?

It was a couple months ago. I looked at it a bit then and thought it was kind of far, and now I'm looking at it again (there was a deadline of three months) it's very far from me.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/193135/how-often-do-editors-reach-reviewers-whose-expertise-dont-match-the-paper/193136#193136

I think making everyone wait a few months isn't great but it's too late now, just tell the editor that you can't review the manuscript after all.

Send an email back saying that, having looked at the paper, you don't have the experience to comment on it.
It is more common than you think. The editor has other options. And it is better if you don't hold up the process.
And, yes, as user Anyon notes, the editor is due an apology unless you have been working diligently on the paper for those two months. But, politeness suggests it would be wise anyway.

This is the right course of action, but I think that email should probably also include an apology given that OP has potentially already held up the process by a couple of months.

@Anyon, indeed. I missed that comment initially.

Is this actually more common than one might think? I don't think I've encountered this more than once or twice in the past several years I've been an editor. Usually when the reviewer says they're unqualified to review an article, it's before acceptance. The broader example of a reviewer declining to review an article after accepting it (for whatever reason, e.g. something time-consuming came up) happens more often, but is still not common.

@Allure For the standard e-mail reviewer invitation, you usually get to read the abstract before clicking accept, and that's generally enough to determine your competency. However, I've gotten a few "conference cocktail party invites by editor," like the OP, and those seem to result in the article getting e-mailed directly, or at least put in the system as an accept.

The editor could be legitimately annoyed by the delay.   But what are your options?  'Fess up and apologise.  Is anything else even remotely conceivable?


text:
Where can I report incorrect metadata obtained using DOI lookup?
Many entries in the DOI catalogue contain incorrect information. Is there any central way to report such entries (to the DOI team or the publisher*)?
Example:
When importing a work into a reference management software by its DOI this results in:
title={This Is An Example},
journal={Big Journal},
author={Author, A.},
year={2000}

But correct would be:
title={This Is An Example},
journal={Big Journal},
author={Author, A. & Bauthor, B.},
year={2000}

* I am aware of the possibility to write each publisher an email. But I am looking for a faster solution

I don't understand the question. You may want to elaborate exactly what you mean.

@user2705196 does the example help?

Importing where? How?

@FedericoPoloni any reference management software. I updated the question

I'm still confused. What is a doi catalogue?

@user2705196 I added a link

You seem to be fundamentally confused about what a DOI is and what services commercial databases for the scientific literature provide. But it looks like one of the answers figured out where you're coming from and is trying to clarify!

I can understand your frustration at trying to create an accurate bibliography, only to find that the data you believed would be correct actually turns out not to be! To answer your question, however, requires an understanding of how, and where, your problem might have arisen.
The first thing to understand that there is no DOI catalogue. As Wikipedia explains, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is "a persistent identifier or handle used to uniquely identify various objects". It's primary purpose is to provide a persistent link to a digital "object" such as a journal article, despite the fact that the actual location of the journal article on a publisher's website might change. One consequence of this is that it becomes the responsibility of a publisher to inform the maintainers of the DOI when a link to which a DOI resolves (for example, when one browses to
https://doi.org/nn.ddddd/thisisthedoilabelgivenbythepublisher) is changed.
Moreover, when a publisher first publishes an article and notifies the DOI maintainers, the primary thing that they are doing is telling the DOI maintainers the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to which the DOI should resolve.
The question that underpins your problem is not really about a non-existent "DOI catalogue" (which at best might be conceived of as being the database that links a DOI to a URL) but instead, a question about how, and from where, your reference management software (which I'll call RMS for conveniece) is acquiring the metadata about an article, and how errors might be introduced in the process.
There are several possibilities, so much more likely than others. Here I simply list some of the possibilities with different possible variations:

Scenario 1: When you enter a DOI into your RMS it uses https://doi.org to resolve the DOI to a publisher's URL but the resolution is incorrect and the reference management software ends up on a page for the wrong article. In my experience, this is just about the least likely of the various possible errors. Nonetheless, if it occurs, it is almost certainly the publisher who has made an error by incorrectly notifying the DOI maintainers of the correct URL and so it is the publisher whom you would have to contact to correct your problem.
Scenario 2. When you enter a DOI into your RMS it uses https://doi.org to correctly resolve the DOI to a publisher's URL where the journal article appears. Several things can now go wrong.

2a: The publisher has published incorrect metadata on the page (e.g., omitting an author's name or incorrectly stating the page numbers of the article). In this case, you would have to contact the publisher.
2b: The publisher has published the correct metadata and you try to import the bibliographic information directly from the correct web-page but your RMS does not scrape the information from the page correctly. In this case, you would need to contact the maintainers of your RMS.
2c: You choose not to have your RMS scrape information directly from the web-page but instead choose to export the bibliographic information from the page using one or other available export formats such as *.ris . The export process might either go correctly, and export the correct data, or fail and export incorrect data. The only way of finding out which has occurred would be to examine the exported metadata file using a text editor. If the exported data is incorrect, contact the publisher. If the exported data is correct, then the error will have occurred at the final stage of importing the metadata file into your RMS. The problem should be reported to your RMS producer.

There are, of course, yet more possibilities, but these are the most likely ones.

Assuming the metadata retrieval method you're using uses CrossRef behind the scenes you can contact them. This is the case, for example, when adding references by DOI in JabRef and Zotero.
(If the method doesn't use CrossRef's services I suppose you can still verify that the problem is present in their metadata before contacting them.) According to the FAQ:

I’ve found a problem within your metadata - how do I get you to fix it?
While we aren’t able to correct the metadata provided by our members, report any metadata issues to our support staff and we’ll contact the responsible member and ask them to make corrections.


text:
Can I submit a paper to arXiv when it is still pending on Hal, and waiting to be transferred from HAL to arXiv?
I submitted my first paper to HAL over eight days ago. It is still on awaiting moderation status.
When I deposed it on Hal, I checked the box indicating that I wanted it transferred to arXiv. But since my paper is pending on Hal, can I submit it to arXiv myself? Or will there be, at the end of the day, two versions of the same paper on arXiv, the one I submit and the one transferred by HAL?
P.S. I am a mathematics Ph.D. student, and this is my first paper.

Please only ask one question at a time. Otherwise your question will be closed.

Does this answer your question? What is the average waiting time for a paper deposited to an open archive such as HAL?

I disagree that this a duplicate, the other question asks about waiting times with HAL, this asks if one can submit to arXiv meanwhile.

I would recommend waiting longer for HAL's moderation process to run its course, not least to avoid wasting arXiv volunteer moderators' time. Be sure the HAL submission isn't stuck because the moderation team sent a request you didn't notice or respond to.
On arXiv's end, the moderation process and automatic scans for textual overlaps will very likely detect such duplicate submissions and stop double posting from happening. Here is the relevant bullet point from the documentation page for Third party submission:

As part of moderation, arXiv does not accept duplicate content. If a work already exists on arXiv then any new versions should be replacements of the existing arXiv version. In cases where an author already has a paper on arXiv and the same paper or updated version of the same paper is submitted from a proxy, the submission will not be accepted as a new work. arXiv will inform the proxy of the existing arXiv identifier and how to post the new version as a replacement.


text:
Why do some supervisors get angry at the idea of PhD students going to the industry?
I'm doing a PhD in physics in Europe, and planning to go to the industry after that. All the former PhD students that graduated from my group have gone to the industry, and all the current PhD students are planning to do the same. The main reason for this is that we can get jobs where we have to work half, earn double, get more respected and appreciated than during our PhD. Also, many want to stay with partner/spouses and start a family.
My problem is that I will have to tell my supervisor at some point of my decision. They really do not accept that we all want to go to the industry, and they get really angry and disappointed about it. Last time we spoke, they told me they don't understand why people don't want simply to move to the other side of the planet to pursue a postdoc, instead they want to have roots here, together with their families. Why do I care? Because I want to finish the PhD as soon as possible (I hope to submit my thesis soon), and I don't want any unnecessary trouble for my graduation.
To prepare myself for this discussion, I would like to try to see things from their perspective, to understand why they have all this anger about it, which is unreasonable to me. So I am asking to you, why should a professor care about the life choices of their students? Do they get more funding if their former students become postdocs? Is it about prestige? Are we ruining their CV by going to the industry? Are they getting mobbed by the other professors, if they can't present an army of successful postdocs? Are they losing possibility of coauthorships on papers? Do they feel failures as supervisors? Are they worried that we might be happier and richer than them?
My supervisor has always been absent during my research, so it can't be that I have been a waste of time for them.
In my subfield I have seen that many seniors have the following attitude: we are very lucky people, because we're paid to do something that is a hobby to us, so we are not working one day of our life. This is not a job, rather a mission to expand the horizon of humankind's knowledge. This unfortunately translates, for us students, that everything else is seen as a distraction: family, friends, hobbies, free time and stuff should be avoided to focus 24/7 on our research. Also, we are all expected to strongly desire to become professors. So, could this anger come from some sort of sense of betrayal to these community values? Is it a sort of fanaticism?
I would like to approach this discussion in a professional and mature way, and understanding their feelings could help me in phrasing things in the best possible way, without blaming them for anything.

"All the former PhD students that graduated from my group have gone to the industry, and all the current PhD students are planning to do the same." Just to be clear: This really isn’t hyperbole and not a single student of theirs ever has continued in science?

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108543/what-makes-academic-failure-different-from-failure-in-another-career

You seem to be extrapolating from a sample of one. We don't know the person. They are what they are.

@MisterMiyagi: no, this is not an hyperbole, I really mean that. Out of curiosity, I have counted all the past and current students, and we are 18 people in total.
Some of them might have thought about staying in science at the beginning of their PhD, but they all changed their mind during their PhD.

@Buffy: I actually know around 10-15 professors in my subfield that think like my supervisor. The difference here is that I don't have to daily deal with them, I don't depend on them for graduation, so I don't care. I stopped going to conferences to avoid meeting them. However, if they exist, this phenomenon might be unfortunately more common than we think.

I would guess that it is a combination of most of those, except the one about being "mobbed" which I can't understand. Also they might feel disappointed in you because you seem to care about money too much, as they see it. Perhaps they have adequate salaries, and regard it as distasteful to want a high salary so much that you would abandon academia for it.

As a tangential remark, given all that I've read the past few years about colleges and universities (at least in the U.S.) downsizing and even closing degree programs (both undergraduate and graduate) in order to shift increasingly smaller resources to degree programs that are perceived as having greater employment options for their graduates, a professor in a situation where his/her students have obtained reasonably lucrative jobs in their field of study would likely be viewed very positively by the college/university administration.

A professor might regard academia as having higher status than industry; if all his students go into industry, they could drag his status down. Another possibility is that a professor wants to have people following in his footsteps; his students would be the obvious candidates for that.

@BlackPhoenix Okay, if every single one of my students would show me they consider my line of work not worthwhile, I would be pretty unhappy too. Whether this applies to your supervisor depends on them, of course.

I usually tell students that if none (or extremely few) of the PhD students of a given professor stay in the field (not necessarily forever, but maybe for an initial postdoc) to consider that a red flag when picking a PhD advisor. (Note that I am in the UK, a PhD plus initial postdoc takes about the same time as a USA based PhD.)

This question was closed by supervisors who get angry at the idea of PhD students going to the industry. [comment removed]


text:
Is it possible to get back to pure math graduate study after working for two years?
I graduated with a honors computer science bachelor degree back in 2020 in Canada. During my last two years in the undergraduate study, I developed a strong interest in pure math especially algebra related courses. So I decided to continue with an after degree program (like a second degree) in Honors mathmatics.
However, I didn't do well in the pandemic and only got a C+ in the functional analysis course, which discouraged me somehow. Also, there were some personal financial issue at that time, so I decided to graduate in 2021 with only a Specialization degree in math (because I didn't complete all required courses for honors degree, but enough for specialization).
After finishing my undergraduate study, I worked as a programmer since then and was able to save some money. I don't hate my job but I never felt fulfilled writing code. In my spare time, I would do some self-study with textbooks, but I always want to study full time again. But now I am not sure how I should continue, so I was wondering if someone could give me any advice. Thanks a lot!
TLDR: graduated in 2021 in cs and math, work as a programmer since then, now want to get back to university to study more math but don't know how to continue
For my undergraduate study in math, I got a 3.2 GPA, and had taken all required courses in a math degree. I also had a paper published in CDC conference, it is related to game theory, I don't know if it would help my application or not. I don't know if it would be too unrealistic, but my final goal would be entering a top university  for PhD in pure math in the future. So here are some of my questions:

Should I apply for Master degree program or some non-degree program first to boost my GPA?

If I am gonna apply for Master degree program, should I apply for Non-thesis or thesis based program if my final goal is PhD study?

Any general suggestions or comments for my current situation?

Thank you so much for reading my messy words! I appreciate any advice or comments

Where is this? What country?

Sorry I forgot to mention, I am in Canada. I will update the description now.


text:
How to restore lost patience during a PhD?
I am pursuing a PhD in theoretical physics in Europe, meaning I already have a Master's and I have currently done 2.5 out of 3.5 years of my research project.
My question to the more advanced people here is: How do you deal with patience exhaustion during your research work?
Let me better explain. I like thinking to have a patience reservoir that helps me dealing with day to day difficulties. The level of patience in this reservoir goes up and down all day, every day, according to how both my research and private life are going (I suppose that there is some restoration rate as a function of time). However, I lately feel that because of my research the depletion rate of my patience is way higher than my restoration rate, meaning that my patience level has hit the bottom of the reservoir and doesn't go up anymore.
The reasons for that are many. During my first year of PhD I was accumulating a lot of frustration because my advisor was leading my research (I was not sure myself how to do research), but their time was short and they were always giving me opposite ideas (first do A, then undo A, then do A again, and so on). I can say that I was "conducting" my research tasks the same way a headless chicken goes through a labyrinth.
At the end of my first year I was forced by my supervisor to move to a different city (several hundred of km away) to continue my research there. In that period I was struggling a lot, because I was terribly missing my family and colleagues, and the life in the new research institute was very bad. I had such a different topic that the other people would not really talk to me about work, so I had no support at all. I was feeling kind of betrayed, so I decided to become (almost) completely independent and do my own research, in absolute solitude, without letting my advisor telling me what to do anymore. It turned out to be a good strategy, and my advisor surprisingly accepted this way and encouraged me to continue. There were weeks in which I have completely lost my voice, because I was not talking or emitting any sound for weeks. The almost completely independency brought some order in my mind, but also a lot of difficulties: I had to search the literature, find scientific questions, and then organize the paper that would have answered those questions. And to be in my second year, that was pretty overwhelming.
At the end of my second year, I was allowed to come back to my old institute and my life has greatly improved. However, even if now I feel much more comfortable in conducting my own research, I have started struggling in many other ways. First of all, my advisor in now expecting me to publish several papers before I finish, that is a workload higher than those of the postdocs in my group. Second, I have to babysit the younger students, which leads to a huge time consumption from my side. Third, I have started questioning if all we do (as a group/field/community) is not just a waste of energy, time, and public money. Fourth, I am trying to finish as soon as possible to escape academia, but first I need to learn a few other things (e.g. the language of the country where I am currently based), which adds to the previously-mentioned workload. And lastly, all the other PhD students are struggling with burnout, and I can't help them much, so I feel powerless.
Right now I feel I do not have the patience to cope with this enormous pressure. Every time my code is crashing, I would rather burn the computer rather than start debugging as always. Every time something else is happening, I would like that problem to disappear rather than solve it, and this is not me. I try to take some time off, and maybe do some sports, but this helps only a little. As I don't have any possibility to lie down on a beach for six months, is there any trick to raise patience levels that you would like to suggest (I thought about quitting, but after all this mental investment it's not an option)?

It sounds very hard. Do you mean that you literally didn't talk to anyone for weeks when you were in the other city? I understand that you judged it was good for your research but it sounds very bad for mental health. At least you are back in the city that you prefer now. But I think you should seek counselling or therapy and talk to a doctor about your problems. Also I am not sure that it is a question of levels of patience. I think there are other better ways to describe these problems - maybe stress, depression, overwork, exhaustion.

Are you a part of graduate school? How your progress is documented?

You say ‘At the end of my first year I was forced by my supervisor to move to a different city’ and ‘At the end of my second year, I was allowed to come back.’ Your phrasing suggests to me a bit of counseling could be helpful.

Short answer: Seek out a mental health professional, take more breaks, and find a stable work-life balance
A few sentences jump out as suggesting you're experiencing severe burnout and negative mental health consequences due to overwork and the circumstances you described:

I was forced by my supervisor to move to a different city...I was terribly missing my family and colleagues...do my own research, in absolute solitude...There were weeks in which I have completely lost my voice, because I was not talking or emitting any sound for weeks.

Humans are social creatures. The negative mental health consequences of solitary confinement are well known. It seems clear to me that you are experiencing burnout, e.g., when you write:

First of all, my advisor in now expecting me to publish several papers before I finish, that is a workload higher than those of the postdocs in my group. Second, I have to babysit the younger students, which leads to a huge time consumption from my side. Third, I have started questioning if all we do (as a group/field/community) is not just a waste of energy, time, and public money. Fourth, I am trying to finish as soon as possible to escape academia...Every time my code is crashing, I would rather burn the computer rather than start debugging as always.

Ideally, research is meant to be a fun and rewarding activity. When negative emotions, anger, and the desire to escape are the first reactions, it means you're overworking yourself. If your advisor's expectations are unrealistically high, you can raise that with a trusted mentor (e.g., someone on your committee or the department chair). It is not necessary to work yourself this hard in order to succeed. Give yourself permission to focus on what's best for your own life, i.e., a sustainable work-life balance. Developing that will have positive ramifications for the rest of your life. It will take time to get back on track in the non-work side of your life. Give yourself that time and make it a priority. Cut from non-essential activities like babysitting the younger students. Don't stress about finishing as fast as possible: you have a long life ahead of you.

I am less patient with my children when I am stressed. Irritability is a sign to focus on mental health.

Yes, absolutely.

@David is correct about what you need to do: cut non-essential activities and don't stress.
But we all know that's really hard to do, so i was hoping to give you a bit more on how you might do that. And the way to start is by realizing that you are the problem, nobody else. This might sound harsh at first, as your situation sounds shitty and you're used to people offering support, but you have done this to yourself.
You have done it to yourself the way i've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of students and employees do it over the years. (I have spent a decade in academia and the last decade or so in industry) Namely, you have done it by not knowing when to say "no".
Academia is notorious for pretending to be a polite and nice place where we all hold hands and sing kumbaya. That generates an enormous pressure on students especially to overcommit and try to get way too much stuff done just to please their supervisor or compete with peers.
But it is not impolite to say: no, i will not do that. It is not rude to set boundaries and value other things than work. These are boundaries that you must set. It would have been easier to do so in the very beginning, but it is still doable now. (Though if you let stuff like this fester for too long it becomes a bit like enforcing the pre 67 boarders ;) ).
Bottom line: Do some resource budgeting and accept tasks up to 80% load. Don't take more than that, to have a buffer for estimation errors. All the extra time you've gotten, enjoy with friends, family and riding a bike.
Last thing, to put your mind to rest on the question of "is my research useful", the answer is definitely no. The vast majority of it is a waste of time and money. But that's a good thing... less pressure to put on yourself. Enjoy poking around an insanely complicated systems. It's fun! Remember how it was fun at some point?
Good luck mate!

Thing is, I have many short contracts during my PhD, meaning I am always either  in probation or waiting for extension. If I say no to my advisor, or if I behave not as they want, I will not get the next prolongation (it already happened to other students). So the only way I can diminish my workload would be to quit. I must say there is no competition among students, we all want to go to industry so the atmosphere is supportive and not competitive. So as you see I am not competing with others, but not even try to please my advisor. I just try to arrive at the end!

And of course I know a lot of the stress it’s just me, don’t worry. But I find it difficult to enjoy research when the working conditions are in general very poor.

@BlackPhoenix the fact that there are multiple contracts is insane. Normally, at least in my country,  there is just one go/no-go decision. Even working at McDonalds has more job security. Om the positive note: the longer you are working at your PhD, the more likely it is to finish. For a supervisor a finished PhD looks so much better on your CV compared to a dropout. Multiple dropouts will even raise red flags.

That sounds a lot more terrible than i imagined, sorry you're in the middle of that @BlackPhoenix..
New advice then: fight your way to the end and then get the hell out of there!
Also, might wanna complain to university admin stuff or something like a stunden union, cause your contract situation sounds borderline illegal.
Read you own argument from before: you sound seriously trapped. Than is not bueno...


text:
Starting your own postdoc right after a PhD in another research lab
I am in the third year of my PhD in computer science and I'm graduating in a year and three months. I'm no longer interested in the research that I'm doing in my PhD and I'd like to switch to another computer science subfield for my postdoc.
In particular, I have a research idea that I would like to pursue in another lab.
Why another lab? Because this new field is a bit interdisciplinary and involves not only computer science. My goal is to join a lab where I can learn new skills related to the other discipline. So, I have a defined career plan as well since my goal is to become an expert in this new field. I believe that choosing the right supervisor/group is a great opportunity to learn these skills and also to join the research community of this new field.
At the moment I have found two possible supervisors that do research on this problem and they could be interested in my research idea. I'm also considering that I'd like to stay in Europe.
I wanted to ask you how you would approach the potential supervisor.
I'd like to send a short email to one of the potential supervisors by introducing briefly who I am and what the research topic is about. I'd attach my cv. Since they don't know me and they don't know my current supervisors, how could I maximize his attention? What would you suggest? One of the supervisors wrote a position paper that discusses this problem and I thought to mention this paper in the email and link it to my research idea. I was really able to find him thanks to this paper that he wrote.
I'd be ready to write a grant proposal in the case they don't have money. I know that this is something that every supervisor desires. In this case what you would do? I'm a bit worried that working at the same time on both the research proposal and my PhD thesis can be hard and risky for both. Also, what if I write the research grant and it is not successful, should I find another random postdoc and try again the next year?
Another question is about the right time to start doing this. I thought that 12 months in advance might help both me and the potential supervisor so that we can plan funding in advances. Is 12 months a good time?
Should I also ask for suggestions to my current supervisor? He doesn't know yet what my plans are for the future.
Any similar experience would be welcomed.

Discuss all of this with your supervisor. They are best placed to advise you based on their knowledge of your skills, strengths and field.

Does this answer your question? How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?

"Is 12 months a good time?"  Yes.  13 might be better.


text:
My PI suggested that another postdoc draft an individual fellowship proposal centered around my original idea
I won a grant that I wrote myself, but it was awarded under my PI's name due to the rules that prohibited including my own name. Nevertheless, I was thrilled about it as it is highly beneficial for my future career and aligns with my current and future research goals. I acknowledge that without my PI's CV and expertise, I would not have been able to secure the grant, so I am grateful for their contribution.
Currently, I am working on another topic and we are planning to hire a postdoc to conduct experiments related to the grant idea. I am pleased about this because even though I conceived the idea and won the grant, I would prefer to supervise someone else since I am not an expert in this particular field.
Furthermore, in addition to hiring the postdoc, my PI has also proposed that another potential postdoc write their individual fellowship based on my grant idea. My PI has assured me that I would be fully involved in this process, which could lead to more experiments being conducted and the establishment of a larger research group dedicated to this topic. Consequently, we may have two individuals working on this idea, with both myself and my PI serving as supervisors and co-authors for the potential publications.
Although I understand the benefits of this approach, I can't help but feel disappointed as it seems like I might be losing ownership of my research agenda. If this person were to win the individual fellowship, they would be building upon my idea without my name being associated with it.
Fortunately, my PI has assured me that they will not proceed with this plan if I disagree, which shows their understanding and consideration. I am uncertain about whether my concerns are justified. Should I allow this person to write their individual fellowship based on my idea?

So you don't want to personally work on the topic, but are also not happy that other people get funding to do so?

I would gladly welcome additional funding and the opportunity to collaborate with others. However, I would like my name to be included in the individual fellowship since I’ll assist with the writing process and it is my idea. My PI’s plan means that the postdoc could win a prestigious individual fellowship without me to be acknowledged because the rules don’t allow it.

Nasty question: why did you collaborate on a proposal that was not brinigng you funds? Do you have a permanent position?

I decided to write a grant because it's my first postdoc and I have no prior experience with grant writing. I wanted to gain experience in this area and learn more about the topic. Plus, it will be good my CV when I apply for a permanent job in academia later on.

To offer a different perspective -- that of the person who manages the money of PIs -- from our perspective, the entire point of the postdoc position is to help the PI write grants.  We encourage faculty to require postdocs to help write their grants.  It is also the postdoc's job to help mentor the junior lab members.  This helps free up time for the PI to do other things, like grant-writing.
As you can imagine, grant-writing is very time consuming, and some have to have a large number of applications per year (~20) in order to fund their lab.  Others who do fewer submissions per year (1-2) stake their entire lab's funding on an annual review process.  If you are interested in becoming a PI yourself, this is a basic, essential skill that most junior faculty struggle with for years.  Getting practice now is the smartest route you can take without the full burden of the administrative pieces -- which by the way, are heavier than folks realize.  Try reading through 300 pages of rules for a federal application and another set of rules for the administration of the award, and you will understand that it's a lot more responsibility than just writing the science portion.  Sponsors turn down great science over dirty administrative components all the time.  We call this a "return without review."  If your PI is giving you this experience now, take the experience and be grateful.  Some PIs are principled about not involving their postdocs in the process, and they show up as junior faculty completely clueless on how to run a lab.
If you want to be successful in academia and the grant-writing process overall, contribute without thought of getting credit.  My most successful PIs are the ones who collaborate with everyone and do not worry about getting credit.  They are the most sought after in grant-applications and often have to turn away potential collaborators.  Learn to be a good academic citizen first, and the opportunities will come.  Single-PI grant submissions are mostly a thing of the past.  Few areas still support this, and usually the funding is very small (~$100k total costs/year at NSF).
For what it's worth, I learned this lesson from the CS community--unlike other science communities that care deeply about earning royalties, the CS community believes in open source and sharing freely.  One cannot deny the surprising power of giving things away.
If you are interested in getting your own grant, check your institution's rules on PI rights.  Some offer them to postdocs depending on the conditions.  E.g., there is an entire series of early career awards from NIH (K awards) and formal postdoc fellowships from NSF and NIH.  Show your prowess by funding yourself.

I would prefer to supervise someone else since I am not an expert in
this particular field.

in combination with:

the establishment of a larger research group dedicated to this topic.
Consequently, we may have two individuals working on this idea, with
both myself and my PI serving as supervisors and co-authors for the
potential publications.

Makes your plan (becoming a co-supervisor in a larger research group dedicated to this topic) pure wishful thinking. Co-authots, maybe, but you admit you are not an expert in the field, so how could you contribute? The possibility/opportunity for non-expert to contribute in a certain publication are very scarce, and generally this possibility/opportunity is reserved for PhD students, because they are becoming the expert in that field.
You PI will probably just have you as long as your contract lasts, they will be thankful for your contributionx, they will provide reference letters and hopefully back your cliam that you won a certain grant ... and that's it. Pragmatically, it is extremely unlikely you will be considered for any role in a new research group, unless you won a big grant (for example the European ERC) that provides directly to you the funds to start the new group...
Hurry up with publishing "something" related to this idea, so the future grant winner can give you the best and the most appropriate acknowledgement: citing you with reference to a peer reviewed paper.


text:
How to extend and convert a conference paper into a journal submission?
I have been asked to develop an extended version of an accepted conference paper. This extended version will be submitted to a journal for review.
Please tell me how to develop the same. Is there any need to provide complete/partial results in this extended version?
Is it insufficient to further improve the idea instead of presenting the results?

Is the (full) paper set to be published in conference proceedings? That would make a big difference in the answers. Assuming this is not a specialty like computer science where a lot of stuff is presented in conferences only rather than journals.

This varies from journal to journal. For example, in some subfields of CS (where this comes up all the time), the informal rule is that the journal version should have at least 30% new content (including new experiments, new algorithms and so on), and this new content should be identified clearly in a cover letter. In other subfields (like in theory) the expectation is that all proofs will be presented in full detail (no sketches), but new results are not necessary.
So it depends greatly on the subfield and the journal. As always, when in doubt, ask the editor of the journal, or colleagues who've submitted there before.

The key is to have some added value in the journal paper with respect to your already accepted conference paper. Typically extended versions take the results in the initial paper a few steps further, Ideally, extended versions are more thorough with regards to theory but may alternatively including a new set of experiments to corroborate the original work published shown at a conference.
Partial results are less commonly introduced in such papers (in my field). Conference papers tend to be brief or discuss early results of novel work, so often some relevant material is omitted in them, which can then be placed in extended versions. This depends heavily on your field of study, so YMMV.

I think one need at least to rewrite Title, Abstract and Introduction and Related Work. The key is Rewriting in new word no merely adding new sentences. You think you want to revise your Conference version paper as a new improved detailed version.

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


text:
Publishing papers with two different surnames
I am dual nationality. My surname on my both passports is totally different in terms of writing. Because some leters in country A has different writing style in country B. I already has determined my both surnames on my all academic platforms.
Is it possible to publish papers sometimes with surname A and sometimes with surname B according to the situation?
Thanks

I don't understand why you would want to publish under two different names, but in any case, an ORCID indentifier helps you to tie both names together.

I'm curious, is this a case of something like Górski/Gorski or Brishnapervanandry/Smith, or something else completely? (No, I'm not asking you to actually identify yourself?)

Or it could be something like Chebyshev / Чебышёв .  The OP said "different writing style".

Your dual nationality and how your name is written in your passports is entirely irrelevant. There is no obligation to use your precise legal name when publishing research.

Actually it is something like (Jalal/ Celaloglu ) both names have the same meaning but the writing style is different. (J) is equivalent to (C). @CGCampbell

I am currently working in country A registered with surname A . When I want to work in country B I will be registered with a passport with the surname B, then I should publish papers with country B's surname. This is the issue. @Sursula

What does working in a country have to do with the name you publish under? You publish under whatever name you publish under. I'm not sure I understand. Are they going to deport you for using the wrong spelling?

As a librarian; if you do this then please get an ORCID ID https://orcid.org

There isn't really anything that would force you to pick the same name anytime you publish something. In some cases, this may require you to have separate accounts with the journal/publisher to keep the meta data separate. Other than that, you just enter whatever name suits you right now in the name field, and that's it.
However, this seems like a very ill-advised plan to me. Even if you use OrcID or so to link your identities back together, you'd still lose out on the name recognition. Much of the process of building an academic career is tied to us developing a personal brand, which pretty means using the same academic name for all of our endeavours.

The joys of English spelling and homophones (or near homophones)...

In this case, you have to record or list your publications under your researcher ID, such as in Orcid. Hence, you can synchronize them with other scientific websites, such as Scopus, etc.
In addition, you have to add your papers to Google Scholar.
In this case, you will not lose your index from your publications due to the name differences.
Best Regards

In general the association between individuals and their work is a lot less formal than ORCID. Sure, if you're in one of the places that counts papers and quartiles/impact factors for hiring/promotion (terrible policy, seems to be the encouraging feature behind a lot of research fraud and paper mill-type situations) and you need to document your "score", it's fine, but for your actual reputation among academics, that comes from people reading your work or seeing you talk at a conference and eventually putting your name together with a conceptual idea of your work. Orcid doesn't help there.


text:
Possibility of rejection in Polish (Poland) PhD programme after finding possible advisor
This is my first question here so if this has been asked again I am sorry for the duplicate
Backround
Recently I contacted a faculty member of a Polish university in order to apply for a PhD position in mathematics. After he asked for my grades, CV, Master Thesis and an opinion letter from my thesis advisor, he told me that he could be my PhD advisor. He also sent me stuff to read and some of his papers to get a grip on the subject. Also I planned a visit in the city and we arranged a meeting there next week.
My grades were not super good, although in most of the subjects that I was interested in I did pretty well. He asked me why my grades were like that and I explained to him that I was working full time while studying in order to make it financially viable (true, working since my BSc years)
Admission procedure
A candidate has to send his application in May, I have secured two references from my professors in my home country, and he accepted to take me as a PhD student. A person who makes an application is evaluated in a 20-30 minute interview.
Question
My question is, what are the chances of not getting accepted in the PhD programme? Also if someone has an experience from Polish universities, can he/she tell my how strict the process is and what I should expect to confront in the interview?

I don't think anyone other than said professor will be able to actually answer the question posed here.

I have not voted to close your question because I think that the specifics regarding Poland are interesting and because most (approximately) similar questions are about the US. However, I suggest that you edit your question, bringing the important part of the question (about Poland and Polish academia) to the fore and moving most of the material about yourself to a section labelled "Background" later.

Thank you for the remarks, I will do that!


text:
How to evaluate faculty position offers at differently ranked departments
I am currently a postdoc in an engineering field who is trying to evaluate faculty offers and balance professional and personal (i.e. spousal desires) priorities. One offer is for a top-10 department in a location that neither my spouse nor I am particularly excited about living in while the other is a top-50 department (with aspirations to grow/climb that seem viable to me) in a much more appealing location that we would both prefer to live in. It seems like both departments have the lab equipment resources I would need — albeit the top-10 department has it more readily available — and the salary and start up packages are essentially equivalent between the two.
I am trying to understand just what exactly one 'gives up' by going to a lower ranked department (fully cognizant of how arbitrary these rankings often are), particularly from a research perspective.
Is the main difference that of grad students (number and quality) and institutional support (teaching load, extra pools of money, collaborators on campus). Is there 'something in the air' at top departments? Or is it just prestige seeking that makes us think so?
I would really appreciate any faculty perspectives about what they see as the differences between these types of departments in the context of what one can accomplish in their career. I know that ultimately the answer is I have to decide what my priorities are and act accordingly, but it would be helpful to better understand what the practical differences in career trajectory might be.
I am also waiting to hear back from a top-25 department that is similarly in a more appealing location than the top-10 department. That seems like an easier call, but any perspectives on the difference between top-10 and top-25 departments would also be appreciated.
Final comment: I understand how incredibly privileged this question is. I am ludicrously fortunate to be in this position and feel embarrassed just asking.

What are those rankings you are referring to?

Don't think this question can be answered as you are asking us to predict the future and there are too many variables to consider.   Your question is similar to one often posed by PhD students:  should I follow a top/experienced researcher or an upcoming researcher?

We don't have enough information to give you advice (and you've been careful not to ask for advice). That said, in your position, given the that the jobs seem essentially equivalent other than the questionably precise "rankings" and
that one

is  ... in a much more appealing location that we would both
prefer to live in.

I would clearly choose that one.
Yes you are fortunate. You've earned it, but so have others perhaps not so lucky. Come back in a few months and let us know what happens.