text:
Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

A journal article I submitted to a highly reputable journal has been returned with a number of revisions requested, most of which are useful and helpful and will improve the quality of the article. However, two of the three reviewers have also suggested articles that should be added as references to my paper. These articles are not appropriate to reference in the paper; I have tried at length to find relevance but cannot. I assume that the reviewers are authors of these papers and wish to increase their citations.
The email from the (unnamed) journal editor asking for revisions is pro forma and includes a line asking for any inappropriate requests for citations to be referred to the editor.
Analysis of the authorship of the requested articles suggests that the two reviewers in question are affiliated with the same institution. Two members of the editorial board of the journal are at the same institution, so it is at least possible and perhaps likely that the editor shares an affiliation with the 2 reviewers.

My supervisor (and co-author) suggests I try and find the suggested paper that is least inappropriate and reference it in our article ‒ "throw them a bone."
I feel that we should address the other revision requests comprehensively but decline to reference the articles, giving our reasons.
Ethics vs Pragmatism, yes, but I also want to get the article published and this may not be the hill to die on. Will my approach mean rejection? Do I have any recourse if it does? Should I call this out to the Editor in Chief?
I'm interested in other people's experiences.

You could ask the editor to ask the reviewers to clarify the relevance of the suggested references.

Closely related (especially F'x's answer): https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11923/can-a-reviewer-suggest-references

Even more closely related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99745/how-to-deal-with-an-unreasonable-reviewer-asking-to-cite-irrelevant-articles?

I have voted to close as "strongly depends on individual factors" since you seem to already understand the underlying principles and it really comes down to: what is your personal choice?

Thanks for those links - interesting, but a different question, in my view, due to the possibility that the editor and 2 reviewers are from the institution.

If you think you see this often, imagine how much more often journal editors see it.
So sticking to ethics is fine. Journal editors see this often enough to know when to reject a review because of it. You are not generally under threat of rejection if you decline to cite a reference. The worst that can happen is that the reviewer rejects your article, but since they've already recommended revision the first time, the editor is more equipped to discern if the rejection is unfair. Remember that if the reviewer says "reject because they didn't cite XYZ", the editor (who is able to see the reviewer's identity) is very much able to see if XYZ is also written by the reviewer. In your case you even have an editor who said to refer any inappropriate citation requests to them.
A word of caution: there's no guarantee that the requested citations are articles by the reviewers. There's a lot of diversity in what reviews look like, and it's possible the reviewer did not write those articles. Don't leap to conclusions. Stick to the facts ("we do not think these articles are relevant") and don't allege collusion (such as how the reviewers & editors are from the same institution - you simply don't know).

As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out.

Agreed that I "simply don't know". But when the facts are unclear, as in this case,  is it not prudent to consider all possibilities before decing on a course of action? Collusion is at least possible and may impact on how the editor would deal with my rejection of the suggestions. Also, as stated in the question, the request to refer the citation is from a pro-forma Journal email, not directly from the editor in question.

@doctorer Perhaps, but I think you're reading too much into the situation, and thinking it's much more likely than it actually is. For comparison: if you write an email to your supervisor but he doesn't respond after a day, it is technically possible that he's been kidnapped and you should alert the police at once - but if you actually do that, you're likely overreacting. The same applies here; you are inferring that the reviewers & editors are from the same institution based on extremely weak evidence.

I strongly suspect that citation cartels are significantly more frequent than academic kidnappings, and would be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

@Allure - I also realise I misconstrued your last paragraph, thinking you were saying I shouldn't suggest on this forum that there may be collusion. But clearly you meant that I shouldn't make an accusation to the Editor, which I 100% agree with.

Does it matter if the reviewers and editors are from the same institution?  If the citations being forced and the editor are from the same institution, there's potential for conflict of interest -- and the authors know the identity and affiliation of the editor.

@doctorer no, I'm saying that you should not speculate about the identity of the reviewers at all. You simply have no way of knowing how likely your guess is. In fact based on my experience as an editor, I would hazard that there's a >50% chance that your guess is incorrect (of course this number might also be incorrect, since it can vary by field). Besides, what is the point of speculating? As Wolfgang Bangerth wrote, nothing good can come out of it. Just don't do it. Googling for the affiliations of your hypothetical reviewers is already problematic; you now know things that don't help you.

@BenVoigt it's certainly conceivable but is it likely? There'd need to be a lot of coincidences: the reviewer needs to recommend his own irrelevant papers (consider that the reviewer knows the editor personally: would you do that to one of your friends?); the editor needs to not disregard the review; the editor needs to think that it's important that a colleague gets more citations (which doesn't provide the editor any direct benefit); the editor-in-chief needs to not intervene ... Absent evidence to the contrary, one should assume that the editor is a person of integrity.

@allure I'm not disputing those odds. I'm not particularly interested in the identity of the reviewer and I don't doubt that most reviewers act with integrity. However, I think it is a strange coincidence that 2 of the reviewers recommended similar articles by authors from the same institution, none of which had any discernible relevance to the article under review. It's a strange coincidence that throws up possibilities, and I would be foolish to ignore those possibilities.

@doctorer I think you're foolish to pay attention to those possibilities, which as you say, are just possibilities. That's all.

@allure Strangely, I've always considered an interest in possibilities to be an asset in academia. ;-)

@doctorer you might want to look into the possibility that, right now, your house is burning down then. Yes, the example is silly, but it's just to illustrate that an interest in possibilities isn't necessarily an asset.

Yup @allure, silly. But if my best advice was "I'd hazard a guess that there's a > 50% chance your house is not burning down", I'd probably want to investigate the possibility.

@doctorer well, what you're doing isn't investigating the possibility. You're speculating. If investigating is what you want to do, you're not going to find answers here, because the only people who know the identity of the reviewers are the staff of the journal. You'll have to ask them.

@allure I'm simply trying to determine the best course of action, given a range of possibilities, and asking others how they have acted in similar circumstances and what the consequences were. I don't quite understand why you object so strongly to to this. I should ignore all possible outcomes unless they are certain?

@doctorer because 1) you're likely to be wrong and 2) you have nothing to gain. Again, as Wolfgang Bangerth said in the first comment: "As a matter of fact, it's generally not helping your professionally or mentally to try and figure out who reviewers are. Nothing good can come of having this knowledge. So try and avoid the thought of wanting to figure out."

This paper claims a roughly 10% accuracy rate in authors properly identifying their reviewers (although my library doesn't have access so I can't read the whole thing) https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201711-2257LE?journalCode=ajrccm

Agreed - As I've said, I wouldn't try to identify my reviewers.

(1) Your co-authors are correct in that you should strive to minimise friction in the review process. (2) Commenters here are correct that you should stick to the facts of the situation and not risk attempting to attribute speculative motivations, or identities, to the reviewers. (3) You are correct that you shouldn't reference papers that have no apparent relevance to your work.
So consequences that arise from the points above are:
(1) Don't even consider referring the issue to the editor. Firstly, you can deal with this solely within the bounds of the normal response to the reviews. Secondly, is it remotely possible that there is actually some relevance to the papers that the reviewers see but you don't? Imagine the small possibility that they are right and you are wrong, and the damage to your reputation and theirs by escalating this.
(2) Make no statements and take no actions other than to respond to the issue that you believe that the papers aren't relevant. Don't get clouded by things that you can't absolutely know, like intentions and identities.
(3) In your response, simply state that you haven't added the references, and DO NOT add any other claims about the reviewers' motivations. You just want this to be as friction-free as possible. To avoid conflict in a subsequent round of review, you can gently put the ball back in the reviewers' court. e.g. state something like this:

We thank the reviewer for the suggested reference. Unfortunately, on close reading we could not determine exactly which part of our argument it supported. Therefore, we have not added it to the manuscript at this stage, but would welcome any specific guidance as to how it could be incorporated.

This avoids you being confrontational, yet without "giving them a bone". If they want to push things, then they now have to jump through a hoop to make the link for you. I suspect the issue will just get dropped. But it also leaves the door open for you in the small chance that the reviewers have actually made an insight or connection that you have failed to see.
Finally, as there are major revisions requested, deal with those fully and constructively and in detail. The couple of sentences devoted to this issue will not seem important to the editor in that context.

+1 for We thank the reviewer ... --- That's an especially nice and diplomatic way of handling this!

Opinions differ - to me, "We thank the reviewer for suggestion X" sounds sarcastic, especially if the authors did not follow suggestion X.

Unfortunately, I also made the experience that reviewers often try to recommend their articles for citation. Often this allows me actually to identify who the reviewers are based on the suggestions for reviewers I made when submitting the manuscript. Therefore, I think this is no good practice at all, as it undermines the actual review process (but also promotes citation cartels).
The question is then rather to me, would a non-citation of their articles be a reason for a major revision. To my experience, suggested editing of the references is normally not more than a minor revision, so the reviewers are not asked anymore for their agreement and it is up to the editor to publish your article based on the minor revisions you made. If you explain to him/her the suggested references are not related to your article, after checking it thoroughly and you don't know where to cite and how to explain them in the manuscript, it is up to him/her to leave them out.
Ethics vs. pragmatism, well, throw a coin or think about how much harm citing their articles implicates (if you don't have to highlight them with another sentence in the manuscript and can add them to a group citation [1,...,4]) for your article and the scientific community. If they are not linked by any interdiscplinary, theoretical or experimental distant context, then the reviewers will also have a difficult argument to explain, why they should be cited. But don't start to poker with all of them in the review process.

Thank you. Although the addition of references is only a minor revision, we have been asked to make major revisions, so it is at least possible that the revised paper will be returned to teh reviewers. Moreover, my concern is that the editor is also part of the "citation cartel"....

There is no true motivations to insert inappropriate references in the paper, moreover being the reference system the only mechanism able to make the better works emerge.
Do not do that.
If you have a lot of time before the deadline, write to the reviewers cited asking some help in order to have evidence of the relevance, because you are not able to find it. You should write this in some plain manner, nothing alarmed or worried or whatever. And watch what answer returns to you.
If the deadline is too close, simply omit the references not truly relevant, writing to the reviewer something about that, argumenting that properly and having the organizer in CC.
Do not abandon ethics, because without it the Academia is something unuseful and very similar to mafia or similar organizations.


text:
Part-time and remote research in the UK
The general question:
If someone has commitments and constraints which make working full-time on site in a University impractical, is it possible for them to have a research career?
If it is possible, are there practical limitations which will make the possibility infeasible in the majority of cases, and therefore, sadly, they shouldn't bother heading into academia?
I understand that, depending on field and supervisor, part-time and hybrid-remote PhDs are available in the UK, but I am interested in postdoc possibilities/limitations too.
Specifics to my circumstances:
I am coming to the end of my computing (software) Bachelor's with the Open University. I am a mature, married student in my early 30s. I have been studying part-time and working remotely as a software dev part-time. I am very interested in computing research (AI/ML and programming language interests) and I am weighing up options about my future.
Here are the constraints on my options:

My wife is disabled and I have care responsibilities. Meaning that it would be best for me to work 3-4 days a week, rather than full-time. I am able to occasionally increase the intensity of my work to more hours, but not for extended periods.

My wife and I are very settled where we live, in Lincolnshire, UK. We have lived here for 10 years and have a house with a mortgage. We have good friends locally and are close to family, including aging parents. This means that it is extremely unlikely that we would relocate for my work, preferring for me to commute if required.

On the plus side we live 1 to 1.5 hours from 6-7 good universities.

Is someone in a position like mine simply not suited to an academic career?

I would say that (1) the UK/European system without classes would help, and (2) CS would seem more ideal than experimental physics. That helps on the getting-the-degree side. Then having a 'research career' is the next problem.

I am quite sure there are special agreements for people caring for family member with disabilities.

@JonCuster the local HPC infrastructure of a small department may be a huge workstation that requires a physical push to a button to restart it, while the CERN works pretty well without most of the people touching it ... just saying :D !

Could you please clarify, as it's not clear from your question. You say you're finishing your undergrad in computing, and are interested in computing research, but are inquiring about postdocs. Are you asking about a possibility of getting a postdoc now, or are you asking as part of your potential career path?

@penelope I'm asking as part of my career path. I'm interested in a research career path, if it is plausible in my situation. In which case, I would start with the PhD and follow the usual route (on to postdocs etc.). But if research is not viable for me then I would likely not do the PhD and instead specialise in industry

The key point really is, I don't think I'm interested in investing in a PhD without long term career prospects in academia.

This depends what you mean by 'long term prospects'.  You can probably get short term contracts as research staff easily enough, but a faculty job might be more challenging.

@GeorgeSavva, I recognise that faculty positions are very competitive, so there are no guarantees here. I don't mind taking on short term postdocs in succession assuming I can get by in the interim, so I would be probably be OK with "easily enough", in the hopes of eventually reaching a faculty position

Only do a PhD if it has utility to you even in the absence of a subsequent academic career. That is because it is overwhelmingly unlikely that a given PhD student will have an academic career regardless of circumstances.

I am an academic at one of those 6-7 Universities close to your current location (most probably, the closest one -- and we have some great PhD programmes in AI just starting ;) ).
While we were only trialling some of the practices you ask about a few years back, I can confirm that especially now after COVID, a lot of flexible arrangements have become standard which might be what you're looking for:

Remote working:
Most academics work from home at least 1 day a week (many do it more often, I personally like the home-office separation, and it's just a 20 minute walk, so I come in on most days). Most students and PDRAs (postdocs), likewise, don't come in every single day (and some have taken to working at various places around the campus).
I know of at least two academics and one PDRA who live objectively far (think 2h+ on a train), and work mostly remotely, coming in anywhere between once a week and once a month. As far as I'm aware, that PDRA and his advisor are very happy (working) together. I asked my own remote PhD student to come in at least once a week, and most weeks he opts to come in thrice instead.

Part-time work:
For PhDs, I've seen a few arrangements where the students either take a small "side-job" (usually a tech-type position within the Uni) for 10-20% of their time (so, effectively, 1 day a week), and we have encouraged some PhD students to explore 50% positions on research projects in the school (so, they work 50% on their PhD and 50% on a separate project). I personally don't know of any PhD students who started at 50-80%, but it's not that big of a stretch to imagine it.
For PDRA positions, this becomes a bit trickier: usually the funding for such a position is part of a time-bound (2-3 years) project, which has budgeted for a whole person and is counting on that person to deliver within a timeframe. This means that hiring you at less than 100% would require getting another person to cover the rest, which could be tricky.
I can imagine a way around that for PDRA: if you are on very good terms with your PhD advisor, you may try to engage in some grant proposal writing with them well before the end of your PhD (say, 2/3 thru). This will not only help your future academic career, but also will allow them to tailor the project proposal to you, specifically budgeting for a person at e.g. 70% FTE. (Having a named researcher in a project proposal is actually seen favourably, so this has mutual benefits).

Staying on at the same institution:
In my opinion, we have always kept our postdocs here too long. Some excellent advice I got before my first postdoc was to leave after 2-3 years: you don't have that much to gain from your host institution after that time (but you continue to benefit them). And I can absolutely understand that many people chose otherwise, due to many valid reasons, but if most of the postdocs in the lab have been around for 4+ years, something is off. Doing your postdoc elsewhere has the benefit of showing you can collaborate with different people and switch research focus; and generally makes your profile stronger. It can be overcome with stellar work anywhere, but I think you will need to compensate somehow.
This was particularly a problem as we didn't tend to hire internally into our academic ranks -- it was unheard of here when I started as a postdoc 7 years ago. However, there has been quite a bit of a change over the last few years -- after all, I am now here as an academic, and I can point to at least half a dozen of internal hires in the last few years.

Mature students:
I think the "typical" 20-something year old PhD student is no longer as typical (I read some stats about it a few years back, but don't have them at hand). I've worked with students older than myself, and with students essentially going through a similar life stage to myself, and returnees to academia. Personally, I've had amazing experiences: usually, they have a much clearer idea of what they want, and a better work ethic.

With all this said, I will reiterate what some of the other answers touched on: landing a (permanent) academic position is difficult. Every little bit of advantage helps: mobility, collaborations, involvement in funding (plus a great publication record, and good presentation skills), and frankly just timing and luck (a lot of UK Universities recently announced financial setbacks/challenges, including mine; and there is currently a hiring freeze in effect for academic posts). I have personally seen people successfully complete the steps which may be a part of your (desired) career path -- it is possible.
However, for everything to work out for you, you'll need some 'stars to align', and likely more effort than if you had less restrictions. I think I personally still kept the 'chasing the stars' attitude, and I think it's what got me here -- so I would always encourage you to try. But, it might be a good idea to look at what options (other than staying in academia) might be your alternatives if some of the steps don't pan out. Keep in mind -- obtaining a PhD is more than just a fun excursion into research land, even if you don't stay in academia -- many tech companies nowadays have research (or R&D) positions which offer interesting, challenging (and often better-paid) work.

Thank you for sharing your experience! It is good to know that hybrid and remote work is not unusual. The info about PDRA positions is very useful. It seems that being proactive about creating opportunities will be necessary in my situation.
I checked your profile and it looks like you (like me) prefer anonymity on Stack Exchange, so I can neither confirm nor deny that your institution is the closest , but I have seen PhDs advertised on local university websites, so I'm sure yours are listed there also! Maybe we will meet when I start contacting academics directly.

I'll add another voice, as I am also probably at one of those 5-6 universities within 1-1.5 hours drive.
Part time PDRA positions are far from uncommon. I am on at least 3 research projects where the PDRA is 4 days or less. 4 days is generally fine - a 3 year grant generally has 3 FTE of PDRA on it, and you need to demonstrate that you have hired someone for 2.7 FTE at the end of the grant. As 4 days a week is 2.4 FTE this isn't a problem, and might mean that money is available for a no cost extension at the end of the grant.
Remote working is less common for us, but that is because it is a lab based discipline.

I am quite sure there are local and national agreements for people caring for family member with disabilities, but for this you need to inform yourself.
Unless you are physically bound to performing experiments in a specific lab infrastructure, a career in research done working remotely is possible.
As a postdoc, ideally you have to care about your own fundings and therefore you have to arrange your working schedule to meet deadlines/reports/deliverables.
Regarding the postdoc position openings already funded, the scarcity of postdoc positions does not imply that the most flexible person will get easily the position, quite on the contrary, the potential employer is ready to make some compromise to accept the best candidate that can start working on the position as soon as possible (usually).
Doing a bit of speculation, if there are two equal candidates applying for a 1-2 years postdoc position at University of Manchester, working remotely for University of Manchester from Linconlshire it may be preferrable to a candidate from Australia that will move to live in Manchester for the position.
Yes, the candidate from Australia has more options available since they can apply in the whole world.
Of course there is always the looming Damocle's sword "What will you do after your postdoc".
Nonetheless, having 6-7 universities around you in a 2 hours range seems to indicate you are in a thriving academic environment and therefore there should be plenty of research institutions and research-oriented positions (plenty = more than 0, but not that many per year :D ).

Thanks for you answer, this is along the lines of what I was thinking. CS does often lend itself to remote/hybrid work. I have no problem commuting once (or twice) a week to the university for meetings and in person arrangements. But it would be very preferable for me to work from my garden office the rest of the week and connect via video conference as required.

I understand that, by their nature, constraints do tends to constrain my options though

It's good to know up front some statistics about the academic job market. One estimate is that less than 1% of PhD graduates will become a professor - see this answer for more info.
Another issue for you will be that once you are specialized, there will be a limited number of postdoc jobs that match your skills and expertise. For most PhD holders, getting a postdoc means moving.
About full-time / part-time: many professors expect PhD students to be working long hours, so if there is a choice between someone who is younger who will work full-time plus some evenings / weekends, versus someone who will work 4 days a week, I expect that they will choose the person who works more. If you were to bring your own funding, however, then they would not have to choose. I know of two people who did part-time PhDs in the UK, and they both started as full-time and moved to part-time after at least a year. They also had to fight to get it.
If you really want to go for it, I would suggest you look up academics at the 6-7 universities you mention. Find people whose work interests you, read some papers, and ask for a chat with them.

"so if there is a choice between someone who is younger who will work full-time plus some evenings / weekends, versus someone who will work 4 days a week."
Although many professors think they are the top of the top of the smartness, they never heard or even worse understood the concepts of "diminishing returns" or "productivity" and they are stuck in a Taylorian world of "efficency". How bad.

Thanks for your answer. I don't expect special treatment just because of my circumstances, so if a professor really wants more than I can give, I have no problem shaking their hand and wishing them all the best in their search. I would hope (and search) for a professor who appreciates the benefits of a strong, experienced remote worker who is used to meeting deadlines and delivering results without micromanagement. I believe these, as well as interpersonal and public speaking skills, developed outside of formal education, can be real assets that research groups may well be looking for.

I appreciate the point about bringing your own funding in a postdoc scenario, that is a good point.

I think I will contact local academics, as you suggested. I also believe that my university offers careers advice meetings, so I may arrange a meeting with the OU too.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to avoid supervisors with prejudiced views?
There seem to be professors who hold beliefs such as:

Women students pose a special risk to male supervisors
Certain ethnic groups are smarter/lazier/harder-working than others
Older students are worse investments than younger students
Students with disabilities are less capable/more trouble than nondisabled students

No student should be saddled with negative prejudices from their supervisor. But how can this be prevented?
The big problem is that bigots are often hard to identify early on. They think of themselves as just being honest and realistic. Asking their current students might not help, because if they don't belong to a marginalized group, they will often only notice other characteristics, such as that the supervisor is nice and explains things well. Unfortunately, it's possible to be a very nice guy and also a horrible bigot.
There's also a corrosive secondary bigotry where the bigot insists that they themselves aren't bigots, but other people are, so good opportunities would be wasted on the marginalized student.
How can a prospective student identify these people and avoid them?
Note: There are very strange answers and comments here. I just want to know how a student can find out if supervisor might hurt a student because of hidden bigoted beliefs. Especially if the student does not have a lot of time to get to know the supervisor, for example when choosing a graduate program. I hope this is clearer.

I don't get the close-votes so far. How is this question "primarily opinion-based" or "too broad"? The OP is asking for specific advice about a specific situation.

@ElizabethHenning I disagree about "specific advice". The question has nothing to do with academia IMO. Effectively it is just "how can I identify people don't share my view of the way things ought to be?" which is way to broad for any SE stack. And it doesn't even make sense - if a student is in a group that a supervisor thinks is smarter/a better investment/less trouble than others, why would that student want to avoid that supervisor - unless the student cares more about moral principles than about actually getting educated?

@alephzero What an terrible comment. The OP asked about avoiding people that hold prejudicial views (not people that have casual disagreements about university politics or whatever), probably because they don't want to be victimized by them. Why do you assume the OP "is in a group a supervisor thinks is smarter"? || I would hope anyone would refuse to work with someone who openly thinks of some races as lazy.

Answers in comments and the discussion about whether one should avoid bigoted supervisors in the first place have been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

I recently heard that a good question to ask is “What do you think that others [perhaps other scientists] think about ...” The idea is that most bigots think their bigotry is pretty normal and their beliefs are widely held in secret. So they might tell you that “other people” think X and you can update your beliefs accordingly, unless they follow this up with a convincing argument about why they think most people are wrong. This method is certainly not conclusive, but it can provide a way to start a conversation or a give a bit of extra evidence one way or the other.

I think this is a good suggestion, but I'd be a bit wary of interpreting it on its own. For example, the first draft of the OP said many professors have bigoted beliefs. By the method you suggest, that might suggest OP is bigoted because they seem to think bigotry is common. I do think this is a good way to start a conversation, though, and from that conversation hopefully something can be learned about their leanings.

You are right @BryanKrause, I will tone this down.

I will sound snarky with this answer, but have you tried talking to them?
Your question may ask well be asked as "How do I determine the values of another human being before I meet them?" And I would say that is not something you can truly learn and understand until you talk with them.
You may respond with, 'What if they lie?' And that's a very valid point. But I would tell you that all of human social interaction is this very problem, and that you will not gain the wisdom of how to interact with humans without interacting with them!

Talk with them and say what? "Are you a bigot?"

Maybe not that directly :-). You could ask about their value system. Maybe how they feel about certain social issues in academia. And finally, understand that we're not robots - humans can be very hard to get along with; and I say this as a happily married individual.

@user106152 It's not a perfect solution, but you should consider the very real possibility that your question does not have a perfect solution.

From a scientific point of view, you gather the data ("talk to them") then draw a conclusion based on the data.  The OP is trying to skip the data gathering, which won't work well, as you correctly point out.

@StephenG Not at all. The question is exactly about how to gather the data.

How can a prospective student identify these people and avoid them?

You are playing a very dangerous game here. Are you going to make your little test public? If yes, won't the bigots quickly learn how to game it and intentionally avoid detection (as they apparently are doing now according to the premise of your question)? But I am actually more concerned about the opposite option, that you will apply a secret purity test and brand people as bigots or not according to your own private criteria. This can lead to two sorts of problems:

False negatives. Some people (maybe the more clever or sophisticated among the bigots) will still figure out what your game is and manage to avoid being detected. You're back to where you are now, except with more of an (incorrect) expectation that you know who's a bigot and who's not. Not so good.

... and then there's the much worse:

False positives: your private test (that I assume you intend to share with a select group of people who will be the "users" of the test's results) will invariably "flag" some people as bigots who are just... normal people.* Of course, those people will not know that they have been flagged or why, and will have no means to defend themselves. You will damage their careers, probably their reputations, and at the end of the day, what will you achieve? You have denied someone who is likely a perfectly good advisor and mentor to the students who need one, who are exactly the people you are trying to benefit.

* I personally know two well-respected male academics who were recently accused of sexist behavior by women at their universities, leading to both men suffering a great amount of anxiety and fear of career damage before having their name cleared after pointless (and very stupidly handled) investigations by their university administrations. I have heard first-hand descriptions of both incidents (which occurred independently to two people who don't even know each other) and am 99% confident that they were blown completely out of proportion. So if you think these sorts of mistakes don't happen, think again.
To summarize: the idea that you can somehow figure out a way to look deep into people's hearts and decide if they are good or bad according to some value system is appealing in its simplicity. But we've been there before. For your own and others' sake, my suggestion is: don't.

None of which has anything to do with the question I asked. But your answer is nonetheless very instructive in ways that you probably didn't intend.

@user106152 this answer is a word of warning, trying to make you aware of the possibility that your whole approach toward this issue might be flawed. Refusing to even consider theses points and instead responding with juvenile spite seems very unwise to me.

@user159517 This answer and comments are responses to what you would like to believe I meant and not at all to what I said.

-1 What on earth makes you think the OP's question is about ideological purity tests and university investigations? And how is your story about the "suffering" of men accused of sexism remotely relevant? The Wikipedia link to McCarthyism is especially rich. You obviously to have an axe to grind and are using this question as an opportunity to grind it.

I wouldn’t care to speculate on what the Asker is talking about, but one thing that stood out to me in this answer was the “much much worse” comment. How I interpret this is that one student gaining a supervisor who is bigoted toward them and may sabotage their entire career is a very minor concern compared to a well-established professor losing out on one potential student. If that was the intended meaning then I feel you need to re-evaluate which of those situations is more damaging. A student not asking someone to be their supervisor is not the same as that student publicly accusing them.

@ElizabethHenning according to my reading of it, this answer is about the dangers of the idea that you can divide the world into "good" and "bad" people, and OP is asking for advice on how to do that (clearly, for OP the bad people are "bigots"). The McCarthy era is especially relevant here because back then, the discrimination was based on ideology, and to me it seems that discriminating for ideological reasons is precisely what the OP will end up doing if she pursues this idea.

I think that in all but the most blatant cases it is very hard to do. But there are a few suggestions that might get you started.
First, note that some of the offenders don't leave tracks that can be followed. A person could, for example, be anti-Semitic and not advertise it, but just find subtle ways to disadvantage Jewish students. There is probably much more of that sort of under the radar sort of bigotry than the more open kind in academia, since it is generally sanctioned when found out.
But, students know, or suspect, at least, that they aren't being treated fairly, even if they have no effective way to complain about it or correct it. So, talking to other students in an informal setting is a good way to learn the scuttlebutt. "What do you think about Prof Buffy? Is he just goofy or a real problem?" If you have a specific concern talk to students who might share that concern.
But, there may also be some record of past misbehavior, either official or otherwise. Disciplinary action may be in the public record (or not). Even a web site like RateMyProfessor is a source of (not well vetted) information that might make you think again about an individual.
It is very difficult, of course, to expel bigots from the profession. Often the actions don't rise to the level that permits a tenured person to be fired. While the difficulty of forcing expulsion is intended, it has some bad side effects. The blatant cases, such as Robert Moore and William Shockley are well known and instructive. Brilliant in their fields, castigated for their social views, but never expelled from their professions. These are the easy cases, since  they are very public. But most bigotry thrives in darkness.

I just came across a book on implicit bias that might give background: Uncovering Hidden Prejudice

See if you have good rapport with them
I suggest talking -- especially about the field's subject matter -- and seeing how the discussions go.  If you come out of the discussion feeling like you can work with the person, it's probably OK.  If you don't, you may not know why, but you will suspect that this person isn't a good fit for you.  And one discussion isn't enough -- this is a big decisions and it's appropriate to spend some time makeing it.  If you can, take a class that the professor teaches and make use of office hours.
(I was in my graduate department for well over a year before I chose my advisor.  I understand that in some fields, and some departments, students are expected to choose earlier.  So this may not apply.)
For example, with one professor I remember talking to, I always came out of our discussions feeling stupid.  It wasn't, as far as I'm aware, any form of prejudice.  I think it was just a matter of his style of explaining and my response to it.  He would have been a poor fit for me.

This is sensible, but what if you have a specific field in mind and you are trying to decide among grad programs? How can you avoid ending up with a supervisor who shortchanges you because of their biases?

Your advice sounds a little like you are trivializing discrimination as being a matter of style and fit. It's a pragmatic approach, but I think a distinction needs to be made.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  --- Aristotle.

There seem to be professors who hold beliefs such as [...list of beliefs I don't like].  No student should be saddled with negative prejudices from their supervisor. But how can this be prevented?

One of the things you should be very careful of, especially when you are beginning your tertiary education, is to avoid coming into that educational environment with views that are so rigid that they leave no room for consideration of theories and evidence pertaining to those ideas.  In your question you set out a list of beliefs you don't like (many of which are empirical claims, and some of which are almost certainly true) and you then blithely declare that all these claims are mere "negative prejudices" held by "bigots".  At a holistic level, your question is essentially asking how you can go through your higher-education without having to encounter beliefs that you don't like (on the purported basis that people holding those beliefs might harm you or others in some way).
This is going to cause problems for you in terms of seeking an education to train you to think more clearly, and to be able to entertain ideas with which you disagree.  In each of the cases you list, there is a claim made, which can be analysed by applicable theory and empirical evidence.  Unfortunately, you don't seem to be at all interested in doing that, and you are instead seeking advice on how to prevent these ideas being believed at all.  At best, this attitude is likely to hinder your ability to learn how to analyse a claim for something you disagree with, and you will need to work hard to be able to approach these claims with an analytical mindset.  At worst, it will make you uneducable --- you will attend an institution of higher learning, but your rigid attitude will prevent you from engaging with contrary ideas in an analytical way.

Women students pose a special risk to male supervisors

Whether or not this claim is true really depends on what you mean by a "special risk".  It is unlikely that there is a distinct category of risk that applies only in this particular case, but it is at least arguable that there are some risks that are magnified when a male supervisor supervises a female student.  As you are no doubt aware, most people in society are heterosexual, and male heterosexuals are empirically more likely than female heterosexuals to engage in sexual harassment of subordinates, and their behaviours are probably also more likely to be perceived as harassment under similar circumstances.  (I could be wrong about this, but it is at least arguable on good faith.)  Thus, it is certainly arguable that, ceteris paribus, the risk of sexual harassment increases when a male supervisor supervises a female student, as does the corresponding risk of a false claim.  Ultimately, a claim of higher/special risk needs to be assessed against empirical evidence of outcomes in different supervisory relationships.  It is foolish to rule this out as a mere "prejudice" in the absence of some attempt to engage the claim.

Older students are worse investments than younger students

There is a very strong argument that this claim is true.  If students are to be considered as an "investment" at all, then that must presumably mean that they will generate some future benefits (e.g., for society) and their "value" as an "investment" depends on the frequency and magnitude of those future benefits.  In economic theory, the value of an investment is determined by some calculation of the "expected net present-value" of the stream of future benefits from the investment.  Ceteris paribus, a student with more remaining life is likely to give a longer stream of future benefits, and is thus a higher-value "investment" than a student who has less remaining life.  It follows that, ceteris paribus, a younger student is a more valuable "investment" than an older student operating at the same level.
I'm sure there are probably some reasonable arguments against this view, but the point is that you would need to actually listen to these competing arguments and evaluate their merits to decide on the truth of the claim.  In view of the strength of the supporting argument for this claim (it is virtually a logical consequence of the economic definition of expected present-value, plus the fact that younger people have higher remaining life-expectancy), it is hard to see how this claim can reasonably be characterised as a "prejudice" held only by "bigots".

Certain ethnic groups are smarter/lazier/harder-working than others

This is an empirical claim, and the only way to resolve it in a robust way would be to look at data on those characteristics (measured somehow) for a range of people in different ethnic groups.  There is a mountain of empirical literature on IQ, etc., and this literature consistently shows differences among race/ethnic groups.  Studies on levels of leisure-time and physical inactivity give more mixed evidence, but there are usually differences among race groups found in individual studies.  Whether or not those various differences are "nature or nurture", and whether or not they are likely to remain over time, etc., are controversial topics on which much academic literature has been written.
There are probably all sorts of nuanced and reasonable scientific views one could hold on this topic.  Many academics argue either that the measures of intelligence, etc., are flawed, or that the empirical results of difference groups are likely to converge over time, or make other claims.  Others do indeed hold that there are differences in these characteristics rooted in genetic causes.  The particular claim you mention is a pure empirical claim (i.e., a descriptive non-causal claim) and can be assessed directly by data on the present population.  In view of the fact that this is an empirical claim, beliefs about the claim by academics are likely to be influenced by empirical data, or at least anecdotal observation, and it is thus unlikely that the claim would mere be a "prejudice".  If you have a look at the academic literature on race/ethnic differences in various positive characteristics like intelligence, diligence, etc., you will see that there are a range of views and a lot of study and data that can be used to elucidate the topic.

Students with disabilities are less capable/more trouble than nondisabled students

A dis-ability is literally an incapacity --- i.e., something that makes someone less capable of doing something.  Thus, the claim that a person with a disability is less capable (somehow) is a tautology, taking the concept of "disability" and replacing it with its synonym "incapacity".  Now, obviously any given disability gives a particular set of incapacities, and those limited incapacities do not necessarily imply any broader lack of capability beyond the specifics of the disability.  As to what particular incapacities or "trouble" that would imply, it would depend on the nature of the disability.
It should go without saying that a university should try its best to accommodate student disabilities, and supervisors should be willing to go to some "trouble" to assist people with disabilities to the extent that this is reasonably required.  Nevertheless, with respect, treating the above claim as a "prejudice" held only by "bigots" is really quite idiotic.  It is a claim that is virtually a tautology, and any denial of the claim would render the concept of "disability" meaningless.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I'm an old white man, non-neurotypical, raised in a poverty that is unimaginable to the average person.  I have worked since I was 16, and I have had many different kinds of jobs.  I might be reasonably qualified to answer this question.
The question should be defined.  I've been on the receiving end of .. badness.  The world is full of it.  I think it could be said that there is no person alive such that if they were made absolute rule of planet earthy, they would not turn into a tyrant and make hell of earth.  This means that I'm not going to answer "how to detect and avoid only anti-woman bigotry".  I would call it abuse, not bigotry.  I don't think perfectly hidden bigotry is the problem, if they keep their demons 100% in check then who cares? I think when that bigotry works its way out into words and actions, at which point it isn't a statement about the kind of person they are on the inside, but what they act on the outside.  Every court of law says something to the effect "you can't measure the inner workings of the mind".  It is an imperfect information problem.  You can't know everything.  There is always risk, you can't set it to zero, but you can find the lowest place it can go and set it there.  The question that I am going to answer, the one I think is "the question behind your question" is what are the indicators of mistreatment, and how can I minimize my risk of being mistreated.
This has already been answered, and many people know the answer: the best indicator of future performance is past performance.
As I tell my daughters:
A boy can lie to you and pretend to be anything for about 3 months; and you can give your heart away but you can't take it back.  Do not trust his words alone.  Instead look at his words, and actions, over time.  Make it at least 6 months of time, and more like 15 months before you put yourself in a place where your heart will start to give itself away.  Watch carefully how he treats those that he has no onus to take care of, those who are worth nearly nothing to him.  If he treats them poorly, then he is a tyrant, petty at best, but not one worthy of your you.
One reprobate of a (male) professor that I once knew, created a fake online profile of a woman, with whom he "pursued" a competitor, and won the other guys heart, then broke it.  That was the work of a pile of crap, not an honorable man competing fairly on the basis of competence.  Anyone who ever wants to know that professors integrity just has to look into his past to find this.  It shows how petty, back-stabbing, and unprofessional that person is willing to be.
While I was considering who to have as an advisor in college, I asked those who were under the various professors what it was like.  I asked the secretaries and admins, folks who had been there for years, who "knew the dirt" if it was a bad match for me to work under professor x.  I didn't say "find me an advisor" which would be stupid, and I didn't ask about everyone.  I pre-selected perhaps five, and asked them what they thought of "x as an advisor for my graduate program, should I try knocking on that door".  One guy wouldn't let his overseas national students out of work-hours to go to their own fathers funeral.  One guy didn't really do any work, and the other faculty knew it so they wouldn't support him - he was on his way out.
There are places like "rate your professor".  There are current grad students who can tell you what their experience was like.  The rule is "if someone is known as being bad to some of their students and you become their student, they are more likely to be bad to you".
Contact their former students, ones that have moved on into other greater pastures.  They tend to tell it like it is and not put theory over reality.
These are places and methods you can use, to reduce (but not to zero) the risk of having a bad personality match, or getting yourself of being under someone who treats people badly.
I think that you need to use this and only this.  I think people might look scary, but if this method says they are great then be open to it.  Don't judge a book by its cover.  I know some folks who are scared of professors who belong to a religion, but 80% of engineers are religious.  If they take 80% of people off the table because of a label, without taking a little time to evaluate the merit of their deeds, and their consistent treatment of others, then perhaps they might miss out on having a very great, very valuable experience.

Every court of law says something to the effect "you can't measure the inner workings of the mind". This point really needs to be highlighted and is similar to the point I was going make as well. The whole point of research into things like implicit bais is that everyone has some sort of default bias (usually culturally informed). So you really can't avoid working with someone that has prejudiced views. However, if they keep those views in check and are equitable in their treatment of other's its also kind of a non-issue.

@anonymous I don't think a bigot is just if you have biases. It's also if you think the biases are justified and rational and you make decisions on the biases.

"rate your professor" sites are pretty much rubbish, because they have no significant moderation. They're about the level of YouTube comments: there's some signal there, but it's usually buried in noise from individuals with grievances or agendas.

@user106152 Then perhaps is your question is "How do I avoid bigots?" as opposed "How to avoid supervisors with prejudiced views?" Everyone holds prejudiced views of some degree of severity and it's more or less intrinsic to how we think about the world. You have to process a lot of information each day all the time so biases, prejudices, etc. are just part of how you process that information. Basically, trying to avoid people on the basis of how they think is futile, trying to avoid people on the basis of how they act is significantly easier.

@jakebeal - some data is better than no data.  I find the particular comments to be more informative than general ratings.  Getting insight out of data is not always straightforward.  Talking with several of their grad students directly however is much more information rich.

In addition to interpersonal interactions, for an established person you can also make a reasonable guess based on looking up their prior advisees.

Are the advisees at least as diverse (or more) than the field as a whole? Professors with explicit or implicit prejudice are likely to embrace either majority/privileged students or students who belong to the same groups as themselves.
Do the post-graduation careers of some classes of advisees show significant disadvantage compared to others? A professor who is prejudices towards some of their students may still effectively graduate them, but nonetheless still damage their careers.

This type of analysis won't necessarily find people with specific prejudices, since the sample size will often be too low, but it can give a good hint as to whether you're dealing with somebody who is able to be respectful of diverse backgrounds and needs ... or not.

@Servaes Not for gender or disability or age or pretty much anything except for nationality and ethnicity --- and even then, there's decent mixing at the Ph.D. level.

One thing you can do is talk to their current or former students and look at their record with former students.  If someone has a strong track record successfully advising students from underrepresented groups that's a very important piece of information.

This criterion will give many false positives. Maybe someone has never successfuly advised a student from underrepresented group X, simply because, well, group X is underrepresented.

You're right, it's far from perfect, but I also think it's simple and useful.

This is a good answer because it addresses the question succinctly and without judging the OP's preferences when selecting a supervisor. Furthermore, this is just good advice in general. Talking to previous students is something that all students should do when vetting a potential supervisor.

All the other answers offer good advice, I only have one little contribution. Currently, many departments and grants, require PI's to make or sign statements on inclusivity, or even have a plan for how to ensure equal opportunities. This might be posted on departmental or lab websites, and either way, when approaching a PI, framing it as "how do you ensure equal opportunities for X, Y & Z" should be a familiar question to the PI, so they know how to answer. You can then gauge their answer to determine how you feel about working in their lab. For example, they might reply that they never needed it, which good be either good or bad (depends on the field, their own background and who you see in their lab).

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


text:
How to identify a research question as artificial
I recently go through an interview on the basis of my research proposal and the person evaluating me said my research questions are artificial. I want to ask which characteristics make the research question not artificial?

What does this mean? I'm having a hard time understanding your question?

I don't think this is answerable in general. An expert in the field will be able to recognize dead-ends and blind attempts in that field. It might be better (in some places) to mention an area that you would like to explore rather than anything too specific.

He was not the expert in my area but even than he said after the interview (there was panel of people with different expertise). How can I justify that the research question is an artificial one or not?

I found the clarification sufficient to answer, and have done so. I have thus also voted to reopen.

While it's hard to know without knowing all of the specifics, it seems likely to me that this criticism is similar to saying that the questions are poorly motivated.
There are an unlimited number of research questions that might be asked. Why are these the ones that are interesting?  Consider that in many cases, a specific research question may be seen as a "natural" consequence of the underlying motivation.
For example, if one was studying cancer and noticed that a particular group of people got cancer much less than expected, the "natural" research questions might include whether they have different genetics or different habits or whether this is related to other known modulators of cancer frequency, or whether other groups of people with related characteristics can be predicted to have different cancer rates.  All of these might have obvious interesting consequences for the understanding and management of cancer.
An "artificial" question, by contrast, would be any question for which no such clear narrative is available.  It will be at least partially a matter of perspective, but rather than debating whether a question is artificial, it would be good to examine whether it is really well motivated. If so, explain the motivation better.  If not, get a more interesting question.


text:
General Advice on choosing Mathematics as career path
My Background :
I am Bachelors of Arts graduate, 27, I work as a Clerk currently. I have interest in Mathematics so I started studying it. I have studied "How to Prove It ". After getting basics I am doing Real Analysis and starting onto Abstract Algebra. I have covered Calculus 1,2,3 already from Adrian Banner'S Calculus Lifesaver videos.
I have been given advice that since I am 27, so it's too late to graduate in Mathematics and do P.H.d because that will can take 7-8 years which means that i will be around 35-36 years of age. I have been told that i should pursue mathematics as interest only (hobby).
I wish to know advice and opinions of experienced people before this question getting closed. If it gets closed, I have email I.d in my profile description, you can send me responses there. But I want to reach out to mathematicians before it gets closed.
Thanks

Mathematics isn't exactly a career path. What is the profession you want? Math teacher? Actuary? Statistician? Though it likely won't affect the answer. Which is that 27 is young enough to start most anything.

So you know it is off-topic but ask anyway - providing your email is not so smart either.

Not sure what the goal of this question is. If you're only asking about the age component, it's a duplicate of the linked question. If you're asking for "general advice on becoming a mathematician" -- that is far too broad to be answerable. In any case, I suggest you start by learning a bit more about higher mathematics (e.g., proofs) and applied mathematics (incldg. writing code) before you worry about planning out your whole future. Taking classes toward a B.S. in math might be a good way to do this while keeping your options open, though I recognize that may have financial implications.

Maybe you should revise your title in order to reflect the question you have more properly ...

There are several perspectives on this (and the linked answer does not fully cover them):

Most academics will give you the answer that if you are really
excellent and commited in what you do you can achieve everything at
any age. This is in principle true but the problem is that the
"excellent" and "committed" part will not apply to most people even if
they think so. Sounds harsh but this is the reality.
Academia is very competitive - up to hypercompetitive and
unsustainable. At an older age you start with a slight disadvantage which might just be the little bit that is missing in order to be competitive:
It will be more difficult to do a PhD at an older age as the
cohort you will be in is most likely younger and many things are just
set up for students that are younger. That does not mean that it will
not work but it means that it will be harder at an older age.
Your field is math: Many mathematicians (not all) have their most productive years before 30.
Also if you decide to continue after the PhD in academia you will be missing the years as people will count your publications, citations etc and many hiring panels will not even look down to the part where you explain that you started later.
If you have not become an independent researcher by the age of 40 this step will become even harder.
The pay will be very low for many years (does most likely not work with a familiy)
The working hours will be very long for many years (vs familiy again)
Personally I have seen few older PhD students but those that I have seen are usually extremely good and/or have done something related before in industry.

In summary: It is possible (at any age) but it is certainly not becoming easier (and it is not even easy if you come right out of an excellent undergrad degree).

When considering the number of publications we generally look at the date someone earned the phd to gauge productivity, not the age. I do agree there is going to be discrimination however, and also that it can be a "young person's game" in the sense that older people more likely have wised up to the fact that the rewards of an academic career may not be worth the price anymore.


text:
Will it affect my Reputation to leave my MSc without finishing the Thesis?
I am currently doing my MSc thesis (in an area of science).  I have completed the exams but I am having real difficulties with the research project.  Both my supervisors are based remotely and when I ask them for help with the coding I am doing one of them says she is too busy going to conferences to Skype me and tells me to go back to previous 'training' we did: this training consisted of  two Skype calls which were made 6 months ago and I did not really follow due to having problems understanding her English at times (made worse by poor sound quality and microphones).  The second supervisor just keeps describing the task which I need to do, but is not explaining how to do it or how it works, even though I have said that I need some more guidance as I have limited programming experience.  If I ask for guidance, he just describes what I need to do again: 'you need to do this and get some results' without explaining how to do it.  I have tried for months but they are just not helping me, and the stuff is too specialized to get much help from anyone else.
I know, suck it up and stop whining, that is what I am trying to do, but theoretically, would it come back to bite me if I terminate and leave with a PGDip (or whatever you get for completing the exam component), as I feel like I could use the summer to get back in touch with my previous supervisor to continue with the project we were working on together.  The offer I have for a PhD is unconditional and based on undergraduate results so I could theoretically leave the MSc now and then start the PhD regardless.  The PhD is in a completely different area, not related to the MSc, and it is the only PhD offer I have received so I feel like this is all a pointless exercise and feel like my motivation to do this thesis is draining away from me every day, as it is mostly 'training' for a particular area which I know I am not going into now as I have not received offers in this area.

I would advise you to go on with your MSc degree, maybe right now the thesis doesn't seem relevant but the topic it covers may turn out to be essential in future (getting a job for example). Moreover by completing it you will learn how to code (to some degree at least) which is exceptionally valuable these days in every field.
having said that, what i would advise you to do is either asking somebody for help (or paying them to help you) by help i mean sitting with you by the same desk (or using TeamViewer) and writing code with you. learning on your own by referring to books materials etc is the most effort and time consuming way if you are a beginner (later on it is the best way to learn coding). Another thing i would advise you to do is online courses, programming on beginner level is probably the best covered skill you can learn in the internet. The courses are cheap and truly amazing for beginners.
you can try Coursera, but remember that courses where you don't have to submit your code to autofrader are not very good in teaching real coding skills.
Udemy courses are mostly video based and assignments are presented and then solved through video. there are interactive code assignments in more recent courses only.
you can try datacamp if the topics they cover are relevant to you. I find datacamp to be too easy - everything is interactive (you type code in your browser) and most of the code is provided, the user many times is asked only to fill it with some methods. datacamp removes all the stretches of programming and presents you with methods of doing stuff, but without going through the typos etc you will nkt learn too much IMHO.
there is also edx and LinkedIn learning and probably dozens more but i didn't try them out.
i would advise you to try udemy first and pay somebody to teach abd most importantly learn coding (by finishing your thesis), its the most important skill on a job market and in academia in 21st century. (sorry for formatting of text)

Hi pezet, time has passed now but if you are interested I did something along the lines of what you advised: I went to a PhD student who had done similar work to get the ball rolling with the code and then went on to finish the MSc thesis.

that's cool, didn't notice the date though :p


text:
Academia and privacy
I am an academic at a large university. I have been asked to produce some videos to be used in an online component of a departmental service course. This is a course I am currently teaching, and the videos are meant to be used in future iterations of the course (which I will probably not be teaching) to reduce the number of weekly lecture hours.
I don't have a strong opinion either way about whether this plan is good for the course, but I do not want to appear in the videos for reasons of personal privacy. I am a very private person, and I have always tried to keep a light online footprint with minimal social media activity. The idea of hundreds or thousands of students whom I don't know watching videos of me for years to come makes me very uncomfortable.
It has been pointed out to me that the university already records lectures, and that the videos that I'm now being asked to make are if anything better since they will help me produce them in a recording studio and I can do multiple takes. This is a fair point, though I am also not so happy with the current lecture recordings (it may be technically possible to opt out but is not practically possible since students would complain). But I still think the videos I'm now being asked to record are more invasive of my privacy. The lecture recordings only capture audio and the projector/document camera, and are only accessible by the students in the course I teach. The videos I'm being asked to produce will show my face and be uploaded to the university youtube channel, and remain as a central component of a large course for years.
I realize that it's always been the case that certain careers require being recorded (politician, actor, professional athlete, news anchor, journalist), but I didn't think of academia as being one of them. To what extent are academics public figures / performers that should be required to make recordings of themselves?
Am I being unreasonable by refusing to appear in these videos?

This seems like an opinion based question and might be closed on those grounds. In the meantime: As it stands, I don't believe academics should be required to make recordings of themselves, but I accept that this may change in the medium term, and I don't consider you being unreasonable by refusing to participate.

Not sure why they want to record the lecturer. It will obviously most effectively mimick a live lecture, but perhaps you can arrange recording of nice draw material on the black (white) board with your voice and pointer calmy teaching. As a learner I would even prefer it, as for the face of the teacher does not give me anything because I can't stop him/her nor ask. Emotion is conveyed by the flux of the teaching and pitch, not much by facial expression.

Sorry.  I read your comment just after posting mine.

I've done recorded lectures in which I introduce myself with a still picture of me on the screen.  It was done by a professional photographer, and in front of a window that looks out over the quadrangle.  After that, it's slides and narration.

Note that uploading these videos to Youtube is another major concern. Youtube is a for-profit third-party site, with questionable privacy and copyright policies, aggressive ads whose content cannot be controlled, mildly moderated comments which can become toxic pretty fast, and is owned by a company which has ties with the US military and secret services.

@FedericoPoloni Yes the youtube factor is actually a serious concern for me as well. I was told that they would likely be uploaded to the department's youtube channel and put in a section which is not publicly searchable but can be accessed with a private link, which would only be sent to students in the course. But thousands of students will take this course over the next few years, and of course the link could easily be posted anywhere. I would have also have no rights if they decide later to make it fully public, since the university would own the copyright, not me.

The answer to this question is extremely simple and clear-cut. No, you are not being unreasonable. You don’t want to appear on YouTube, so don’t - this is not a job requirement for a professor (or for a graduate student) anywhere. You don’t owe anyone any explanations. Do not let yourself be guilt-tripped or manipulated into giving up more of your privacy than you feel comfortable doing. And do not get drawn into a debate about the nuances of precisely which careers require agreeing to be a public figure and which don’t - this just opens the door for other people to try to manipulate you with irrelevant sophistry.
Just say no.

This answer will be complex and may take more than one edit.
First, you have a moral right to refuse. Whether you also have a contractural right or not you haven't said.
Second, if you make these recordings for future use, you first need to work out the compensation for doing them. Ideally you should receive a royalty for each showing and it might also involve the size of the audience. If they offer nothing, they you are just being exploited. I assume that you will hold no copyrights on the produced materials, so you need to protect yourself with a contract. If the content is at least partly yours and not created entirely by other people, then I would insist on royalties, not just a one time payment. The contract might even have an expiration date after which it needs to be renegotiated.
Third, examine why you don't want to do this. If it is just that you are "uncomfortable" then I recommend that you find a way to become more comfortable. But if you have a principled objection then be sure that you can express it so that others can understand. I would, personally, support such an objection, but my opinion on the matter might be overridden.
Note that by overcoming it, I don't necessarily mean that you should force yourself to do it. But if it is fear or over-shyness that makes you reticent to do this, your career would probably be enhanced by coming to a more neutral stance. Otherwise you can be driven by feelings that aren't necessarily in your best interest. If you can take-it-or-leave-it then you can examine the reasons more explicitly.
Such videos can, in principle be very valuable. But since they are being monetized, you have a right to share in that system. You could, of course, choose to donate your efforts, as anyone could, but I don't believe that it should be required of you.
(I may want to update this as I think a bit more about the issue.)

I think the "royalities" path is really only feasible if OP is an adjunct or in some other way a temporary lecturer. For a tenure-track or tenured professor, asking for additional money to teach in a specific way seems unlikely to go over well.

@xLeitix, but not if they intend to keep "using" you to avoid paying you to teach the course.

First of all, I think it's a terrible idea to make people participate in recorded lectures against their will - it won't come out as good, and you may well not have them.
The answer to your question really depends on the kind of relationship you have with your colleagues, and the kind of relationship you want to have in the future.
Do you have any clout in the department? If you say no, what repercussions will you face? Are you willing to face them?
If you refuse you may be perceived as not being a team player, which may or may not hurt your prospects in the department. If yours is a teaching position, it may well be argued to be part of your responsibilities. If you are a research faculty, then perhaps you have more of a case. If this is a key to you getting a promotion/being the face of the school for some initiative, it may be a good idea to forgo your privacy policy in favor of a career boost.
If you really don't want to do it, you can purposefully do a terrible job during the recording. After one day of awful takes (and the subsequent waste of money paid to the studio), I'm sure that no one would consider taking you on for this role! Plus, I can't really see how anyone would fault you for this, you had already said that you didn't want to do it, perhaps pushing you to do it made you do it really terribly...

Sorry. Sabotage is a bad career move.

This “team player” nonsense is just a code word for manipulation, intimidation and guilt-tripping. See here and here. As I said, @Anoncademic, if you don’t want to be in the videos, it’s a bad idea to even open the door to this sort of debate. Say no, and refuse to discuss it further no matter what emotionally loaded phrases your colleague starts throwing at you.


text:
What is necessary for mathematics graduate school?
I am an undergrad junior at a top 60 institution (big state school in the United States) majoring in Pure Math. Course selection for Spring 2020 is coming around, and I want to know which courses to take for the strongest graduate school applications.
I'm currently planning on going into either combinatorics, graph theory, or theoretical CS. I have done internships in Software Engineering and Data Science (Machine Learning). My GPA is a 3.75 and the courses I have taken/am planning on taken are the following:

Calculus I - III
Linear Algebra I and II
Differential Equations
Advanced Calculus I (Real Analysis)
Mathematical Statistics
Discrete Math I and II (II is graph theory)
Numerical Analysis I and II
Abstract Algebra I and II
Programming I, II, Data Structures, Computer Architecture,Theory of Computation, Analysis of Algorithms
Topology I
Complex Analysis

Classes I might take if they look better for graduate school:

Advanced Calc II
Number Theory
Mathematical Logic

Along with these courses, I have some interdisciplinary research in neuroscience under my belt, but I plan on doing research with a math professor next semester.
Will my chances of getting into a good graduate school (top 60) be affected heavily if I don't have a full year of Real Analysis? Also, would I be well suited for a PhD in computer science (TCS)?

This is not really an appropriate question for academia.stackexchange, since it depends so much on the particular details of your transcript and your interests.

You might want to mention the country in question.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/45476/101

In which country do you want to study?

And can you tell what the difference between Calculus and Real Anal. is?

"Advanced calculus" usually means something different from a standard undergraduate real analysis course.

So, what does it mean, exactly?

It's hard to say.  Your background sounds strong.  Your interests are more to the applied side of pure or the pure side of applied.  Really, a bit more towards applied than pure from my impression (e.g. CS interest).
I don't think you could go wrong taking another stats class (applied or theoretical, time series, whatever) or an operations research class.  (Not on your list, but a guess.)
If you restrict to choosing from the list, consider number theory.  Kind of useless but a lot of fun. Don't grind something you don't like just to look good.  I would pass on the second semester of theoretical calculus.

Thanks for the reply! Yeah I dont think I would enjoy taking analysis 2. Regarding my interests, I enjoy doing the applied stuff in industry (since I gotta make that money lol), but I love learning about pure in school.

I think you're in a good spot.  There's demand for the pure side of applied, which seems like what interests you.  Hotelling or Hamming type of stuff.  And you'll find MORE academic options (than pure pure), and you preserve flexibility to go into industry also.


text:
Problem with a cheater supervisor
I am a third-year PhD student in Germany, and I have some issues with my supervisor.
To make a long story short, he does not read my research drafts but instead, he asks us to review papers he takes from conferences as a reviewer, and then he submits them with his name to make a reputation.
He also bans me from writing my thesis. Other students in the past including master students have had similar problems regarding their master thesis. And recently a PhD student quit after 3 years of working in his group and a few other cases in the past.
Anyways, the main reason I am writing this is that about two years ago he asked me to work on a remote project (with another group remotely) to have a joint research paper. After doing all the things that he and the remote professor ask me to do, my so-called supervisor now does not allow me to write my paper based on the result of this research, and I found that he (and the remote guy) are replacing me with another student on this project and are ignoring all of my works. I have been working on a private repository in GitHub, but I do not have a master user.
What are the possible solutions in this case? How can I defend my rights? Is there any way to collect evidence from the repository or emails? Can I bring these people to court?
I have tried to talk to my supervisor many times, and it doesn't work. Also, the head of our department does not want to involve himself in these jobs.
This is an update to the answers and comments below:
Thank you guys! I need to write this long response to Buffy and other people comments:
 Indeed I am looking for a proper advisor. However, for now, I want to get my paper published (the remote project). Even though I must change my supervisor, still I devoted 2 years of my life on this work. So, I think it's my right to have this paper in my CV even if they write the paper separately.
It was a kind of deal between my so-called supervisor and me and his friend (the remote professor) to have a paper in the end.

How can I collect proofs regarding all the ideas and technical works I have been putting in this project? (for example, has Github any option in these situations? )
Can I write an abstract about this project with some details and upload it somewhere like Arxiv or Researchgate. Does it force them to put my name at least as a co-author for the paper?
Having some screenshots or recorded screen from the history of the repository can be helpful? (in case they kick me out of the git repository )
Is there any international, Europian or American student association or similar things to help people like me?

It seems that you have been working with this professor for a long time, even if you know he's abusive. Are you ready to fight with him, or is it a priority for you to continue the relationship?

Does your university have someone you can talk to confidentially? A student office, de-escalation office, dean of research or dean of student affairs,...

This sounds truly awful. I'm sorry you are experiencing this. No one should. It's completely unacceptable.

Have you tried to find another supervisor- even in another institution? And "bans me from writing my thesis" - who would do this?

Thank you all, yes I have a bunch of emails as pieces of evidence and I am trying to inform all people in the department and university because these people are harmful to academia.

We are only getting one side of the story here. What does he say as the reason for not reading your drafts and taking you off the project? Lack of productivity? poor writing? Do you have evidence the reasons are untrue? Also asking you to do reviews for him is kind of lame but not really unusual.

Thanks Monika! you fully understand the situation! @ASimpleAlgorithm: he had similar behaviour with some of his former students, basically, he does not care about you and your work and never give me an exact reason, yes a few times he said there are many punctuations in my draft but that's all! not real hint no real insight and just passing deadlines!

@Monkia you seem to be confusing who needs the advice - your comment above is addressed to AsimpleAlgorithm while it is more relevant to the OP. You did the same to me. Check who you think you should address.

What is the meaning of OP?

I'm surprised that you have found any reasons to stay. I don't predict that you can have any happy future if you stay in this situation. There is clearly a lack of respect, maybe both ways.
I can't think of any path to success whatever if you stay. Even if you can force better behavior, the resentment will come back to hurt you when you are ready to move on. I wouldn't expect any decent letters of recommendation.
None of what you describe is proper. I hope it is uncommon.
Find a better situation, even if you need to change universities. The head's lack of interest may make staying also impossible.
Unfortunately, this advice comes with a heavy cost since moving will be difficult and you may not be able to take your research with you. The less developed it is, probably the easier it is to carry it away and continue. But you need a supportive advisor.

Thank you @Monika, I am looking out for a proper advisor now.

This is unfortunate. In your third year, it is even harder to make up your mind to leave because you have put this much time in your research. However, if you want to fight, you do have the right to defend your rights.
In addition to @Buffy's suggestions, if you do decide to fight, then find out who is your institution's ombudsman. They are a common entity in the US universities, and maybe in Germany they have a different title. They are supposed to investigate these kinds of matter independently. But be prepared to show them everything they ask. Then it is up to them to decide who is guilty. Be prepared to accept the outcome in any direction.
That being said, if you do win this fight, you might get your name in the papers and also might get to stay in your current lab to finish your PhD. But don't expect any words of appreciation from your supervisor when it is time to get letters of recommendation. That bridge will be burned for sure. I have a second hand familiarity of similar situation as one of my close friends was involved in this kind of situation. He ended up changing the supervisor and transferred to another campus of the same university. Good luck with any of your decision.

Thank you, I am considering this option too, I think I am not going to continue with this professor anymore, I should mention that I have one accepted paper now in a decent journal (related to this work, but it was an independent work)


text:
Should I continue my work on my paper if I found similar kind of paper but with different findings from already published articl?
So recently I just came across a similar study that has published on a same topic on which I have been working from past couple of months.
The only difference is that I also include content analysis (qualitative one) in my study?
Feeling worried.
(It's my very first experience to dive in the ocean of research)

What does your advisor think? What sort of research? Are the data from a different source, like data you've collected?

It's a review paper and data source is same.

What does your advisor think?

I asked him but he didn't reply it yet. There's only 1 year difference in the time period though

This site is more about answering generalizable problems; for specific research advice we can't really help. Your paper could still be useful to the field or it could be considered completely redundant. Wait for your advisor's response.

You can probably write a paper, but it won't be the paper you originally envisioned. You will need to take account of the new published literature and cite it. To be published, though, your paper will need to show some significant (novel) extension or advance over what has already appeared. You can submit, but publish-ability will be the judgement of editors and reviewers.
You might need to be explicit about what the advance over the earlier work is.
You might also, as you work, think about how to extend further what you and they have already done. You may be well placed to do this having come as far as you have. That would increase the likelihood of getting published.
As Bryan Krause implies in a comment, your advisor will probably have useful things to say.

Note that parallel research and getting "scooped" is pretty common, especially in "hot" fields.

Now's a good time to stop and talk to your advisor. He/she will have a much better idea of what to do than anyone else, since 1) they are intimately familiar with your research + topic, and 2) they have the experience necessary to say what to do.
If you ask me, based on your brief description, I'd say stop work on your paper and instead focus on reproducing their results. It's unlikely they did exactly the same thing as you. Even if they were investigating the same topic, it's unlikely they used the exactly the same methods. If there's any difference, then you can see if your methods also reach the same results, and comment on any differences. But I'm not your advisor, you should ask them.


text:
Should I mention dropping out of M2 course in my statement of purpose for PhD application?
I completed my masters in 2020 and I applied for an M2 course in a European nation and was selected. But due to visa issues and some health issues I failed this degree. This degree was in English.
I worked on my health and successfully applied again for an M2 course. I told the person in charge( M2 incharge) that I will apply only if the language of instruction is English (the location is a non-english speaking country in mainland Europe). They told me that all  professors speak English and it won't be a problem.
But on orientation day they refused to give lectures in English. I tried my best to study from different textbooks and translating things, but it became so stressful and owerwhelming that I dropped out of the course and went back to my home country.
Now, I am applying to some PhD programs. I am mentioning that I failed my first M2 in my CV and SOP. Should I also mention that I dropped out of other M2 due to language issues and false promises or it will form  a very negative impression of me that I was consecutively unsucessful in 2 masters? ie I am thinking of writing in my SOP only about 1 st masters and not writing about 2nd masters at all!
I am confused because I failed my 1 st M2 in  April 2023( I joined in September 2022), then I waited in that country till September 2023 to join 2nd M2 and then I had to drop out in December 2023.( If the M2 incharge had told me even once that they can't give lecture in English Or It's better that I learn their language upto a higher level,I would have easily done that, during this time I actually studied this language  but I had no idea of the future and didn't studied for this higher level). There is a gap in my CV. So, I  am confused!

What's an "M2 course"? Do you mean that you applied for another Master's programme?

@AdamPřenosil M2 means 1 year research masters ( year 2 of masters degree).

Why do you think that you need to mention your second M2? Do you have educational gap? It seems that its failure wasn't because of your fault, so, by mentioning it I think you may add unreasonable negative point to your CV. If you think that you must mention it to ensure that it not happen again, you can shortly talk about separately, e.g., just before formally accepting the offer and going to that university.

From my point of view you have two objectives:

Making the strongest possible case for why you are a great fit for their program

Covering your bases in terms of disclosure

While I don't know the plan for your SOP, I would focus more on highlighting the positives (your motivation/interest, your past experience, your skills, past successes) and showing how those set you up to thrive in the program you're applying to. If you need to disclose all past degrees, or if you'd have a CV gap by omitting them, I'd list the truncated degrees in your CV with a brief description for context. Your SOP is your first chance to present yourself to potential supervisors (or program directors); don't waste top billing on something that isn't going to help convince them to admit/hire you.
[That being said- I'm far from the most senior person here, and Europe varies widely. My answer is partially based on the assumption that your applications are a multi-step process, where you're screened based on some brief initial documents and then have some form of interview.]


text:
PhD supervisor gave me topics to study before joining PhD but I am studying for TOEFL and GRE Mathematics Test

It was a genuine question( I think) and I have acted on the advice given by the community. I think I got downvotes because people thought I shouldn't have asked this question as I want to go for PhD at the institute at which I am offered fellowship rather than apply for USA but I still asked this question here! Actually, I was looking for 2nd opinion by people who already are doing PhD or even seniors and I was for many days confused earlier!  Is there anything that can be done to change so many downvotes?

I am an upcoming PhD student in Mathematics in Central Europe and my 1st semester started on 19 September 2024. As I was contacting my PhD supervisor earlier by mail on 16 August 2024 , she told me that I should read some topics related to my research area. I still am in my home country (3 rd world) as I am still collecting visa documents and I have not given visa interview but I have applied for Visa interview appointment date.
I was preparing for GRE general test till 17 August as I was also thinking of applying to USA before I got the decision for this university in Central Europe. But it is now clear to me that I will go to this university in Central Europe only.
So, after my gre general exam on 17th August, I took some rest and my mother was telling me to wait till I get the official offer letter by post mail which I have to deposit ( hard copy) at embassy. If my mother hadn't stopped me earlier, I would have started preparing documents earlier.
I started to prepare documents for visa on 5 September and many different documents are needed for long term residence permit.
I used to collect documents and ask information in morning and use to have a lot of free time in evenings on some days but I didn't studied any of the topics my PhD supervisor gave me.
I instead on  monday of last week, paid the fees of TOEFL and Gre mathematics subject test and started preparing for them despite the fact that I surely want to go to Central Europe for my PhD. My TOEFL test is scheduled at 13 October, 2024 and GRE mathematics subject test at 25 October, 2024.I did this as I used to have a lot of free time since past week and I thought of utilizing it.
There are no classes in my university for PhD's but the 4 courses are to be self studied and exam given to professors after confirming exam dates with them.

Should I stop preparing for TOEFL and GRE mathematics subject test and should only focus on what topics my supervisor gave to me to study?

I am quite confused and would appreciate some guidance!

I'm a bit confused - it sounds like you will not use the GRE subject test or TOEFL, and you're asking whether you should prepare for them anyways instead of preparing for the PhD program you are already admitted to and planning to attend?

@BryanKrause yes you are right

Given that you will not use the GRE subject test or TOEFL and are already accepted to a PhD program you plan to attend, why would you study for the GRE subject test or TOEFL?

This makes no sense at all. You say you “surely” want to study in Central Europe and you’ve found an advisor, but now in your “free time” you’ve decided to study for the US admissions exams? Despite the fact that your advisor told you to study something else? You’ve been trying to get an opportunity like this for years now, it’s time to stop this nonsense and start spending every hour doing what it takes to be successful in the program you are actually attending, not studying for random exams for programs on other continents.

This is complete nonsense, you got into a program, but you are trying to renege on it by preparing for applications to North America. In doing so you are not taking your upcoming advisor seriously and not studying what they asked you to. Do you want a bit of a reality check? If you are having trouble juggling some reading and preparing for basic entrance exams at the same time, you are not some superstar that can afford to play sides as you ladder climb to a better degree.

"I didn't studied any of the topics my PhD supervisor gave me." "I used to have a lot of free time since past week and I thought of utilizing it." These don’t go together. It looks like you don’t actually have free time, you are procrastinating - using the time you should spend on your PhD for other things.

Should I stop preparing for TOEFL and GRE mathematics subject test and should only focus on what topics my supervisor gave to me to study?

Yes. You don't need the TOEFL or GRE Math anymore. The GRE Math is by and large only required for graduate admissions to US PhD programs. Since you're not studying there, it's irrelevant.
TOEFL could be relevant for stuff like citizenship applications, or perhaps before you get admitted if you're studying in an English-language country. But since you're already admitted, it's again irrelevant; if your university needs you to improve your English skills, they'll have ways arranged, e.g. the University of Hamburg has a "University Language Center" that teaches English.
Since the TOEFL and GRE Math are irrelevant to you, you should focus on the topics your supervisor gave you.

Assuming that you still want/need to take the exams, it is likely that you need to do both. It would be a mistake to ignore the supervisor.
Time management is the key. Set aside some hours per day/week for each task and take notes on everything as you go. In fact, switching between topics can actually be advantageous based on how the brain works. After looking at something extensively for a while, switching gives the brain the opportunity to integrate things. Making notes as you go, rather than just trying to memorize things also helps.
However, if you don't need to take either or both of the exams, you can just skip that and focus on the papers. Having paid for the exams doesn't require you to sit them.