text:
Is it normal for a PhD supervisor having no PhD students staying in academia after their graduation?
I am looking for potential PhD opportunites in engineering and I found a potential PhD supervisor. Personally, I plan on entering academia after my graduation. However, it seems that during the past 12 years, the professor had no students staying in academia after their graduation. I also found that some of the PhDs have very good publications in top journals and excellent experience in being a research associate but they all eventually entered the industry or even finance companies.
One reason for this might be that nearly all of these students were sponsored by industry. For me, I wonder if it is normal for a PhD supervisor to have no academic "descendants" in universities or other research institutes and if the professor is suitable for me if I plan to enter academia after finishing my PhD. I would appreciate it very much if you could give me some suggestions on this.

Do you mean that none of their supervisees are now profs, or that they don't stay in academia even for a postdoc?

The former one. As mentioned in my question, some of them have done very good work as a research associate (similar to postdoc) after their graduation.

I actively encourages my students to go into the industry.  Personally, I feel that a student should experience the 'real world' instead of continuing in academia, where one repeats a 'PhD degree' essentially again and again.  I have colleagues who still think and act like are a PhD student, even when they are about to retire!  Also the salary in the industry is much higher.

Engineering is a professional field that is driven by industry.  Most engineers end up not in academia, and most of the time that's the whole point.

What are the salaries in industry (or finance), vs those in academia?  How many openings are there?  And does industry require something equivalent to the slow climb up the tenure ladder?

I think the question is misleading and should be changed slightly.  Also, bear in mind that faculty positions in academic engineering are very, very scarce in comparison to the number of Engineering PhDs which are available.

Here's another reason: I have a colleague who drives his/her students to the ground; some went into depression.  To an outsider, all his/her students are brilliant with way above average number of high impact publications.  However, given their negative experience, these students are no longer interested in research upon graduation; they have their research passion (if any) squeezed out of them.

The first thing to bear in mind is that only 3.5% of those that graduate PhDs will end up in faculty positions. If one takes on a student year year of a 30 year career, that means that on average each supervisor will have one student that eventually becomes permanent faculty. This makes sense, as each supervisor needs to replace themselves with one person to keep the academic population stable. If on average, 1/30 students will go on to be faculty, 0/12 is not particularly worrying. Also bear in mind that 12 years is a very short time to make it from starting a PhD to making faculty in many fields. In biology for example, I believe the average time is more like 15 years.
However, it's not quite as simple as this, as some supervisors do have many students who go on to be faculty, so it stands to reason that there are some supervisors who will have none over their whole career. Some of this will be random chance, but my feeling is that the variance is too high to just be accounted for by pure chance.
Things will also vary from discipline to discipline. In some disciplines, the industry options are very attractive, in others there is not much to do directly related to your PhD other than academia. If you are in a computing or engineering field, it is likely that there are so many options that are more appealing than academia, that an even larger number of students than average will leave academia for industry.
In conclusion: it is not necessarily a red flag that 0/12 students went into academia, when that is what you want, but it is obviously more comforting if they do have students that have taken that path.

Of course this also varies dramatically by school rank.  At a top 5 school this would absolutely be a red flag.

@NoahSnyder, not in every field.

Thank you! Very useful comments!

Your 3.5% number assumes that all faculty members supervise Ph.D. students.  There are many faculty positions at institutions or in departments which do not grant doctoral degrees at all.

@Trunk or they'll just hire more adjuncts while keeping as few permanent faculty as possible

@MichaelSeifert The 3.5% number doesn't depend on all faculty members supervising PhD students, its comes from survey data into the long term destinations of PhD graduates. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf
The fact that this eqautes to one student per academic does rely on most academics supervising students. The data is from the UK, where there are very few academic institutions that grant no PhDs, although there are a cohort of non-research intensive universities that grant far fewer.

@NoahSnyder Thats kind of what I was getting at with "some supervisors do have many students who go on to be faculty,". Its impossible to tell whether this is because of the institution they come from, or that high ranking schools attract high ranking faculty. But there are definately some faculty where a far higher fraction of students go on to jobs in academia. My postdoc supervisor for example: of the 10 of us who were postdocs at the time, 5 of us are now in group leadership positions.

@IanSudbery:  Ah, I see.  My experience is largely in the US, where there are a relatively large number of non-doctoral institutions.  It'd be interesting to see what the statistics are over here.

The idea of academic descendants is common in some fields and for a number of people, and you will find many answers around here that are written around this idea, suggesting e.g. to check the academic descendance, but in many other fields (e.g. in many branches of engineering) and for many people there's no interest for this.
First, beware that there are many more PhD students than academic positions, even more so in certain fields and certain areas of the world. So, most of the graduates, sooner or later will eventually end up in industry. Actually, this is one of the first things that I make clear to my PhD students and prospective ones: not to demoralize them, but because I think that keeping the feet firmly on the ground avoids many delusions in life.
Second, many people don't consider being an academic as a dream job, a goal to be pursued at all costs. For many people, it's a job like another, and if they cannot find a position in the area where they live, they move to industry to stay where they like. For instance, I applied to just one position, and if I couldn't get that one, I wouldn't have looked for another position elsewhere. And this is something I tell to my students too: be practical, don't be obsessed about an academic career.
And finally, there are professors who have many connections with the industry, who find PhD students who are interested in pursuing these kind of projects, and who frequently then get hired by those industries. Isn't this a form of successful advisorship?
Thus, don't take the lack of academic descendance by that professor as a red flag: discuss with them yours and theirs goal, and see whether they align or not, and then decide on the basis of this.

should "descendance" be "descendants" ?

@BenBolker I used "descendance" with the meaning of "descendants considered collectively" (from the OED).

OK, thanks. (Not a word I'm familiar with ...)

@BenBolker It's actually given as obsolete, but I like outdated words ;-) (actually I didn't check before using it).

Great to ask these questions. Many prospective graduate students don't.
I'm not in engineering, but have hopscotched STEM-related fields and between academia<>industry.
As others have answered, only a fraction of awarded Ph.D's stay in academia. So many or even all of someone's descendants leaving is not necessarily a red flag. But it is very appropriate for you to want to make sure your supervisor is a good fit for your desired career path. This is particularly true since, like it or not, connections and network matter in academia -- so an effective "placement engine" through the descendant tree may be quite valuable and make your life more challenging if unavailable. And a small but important number of advisors have quirks that make their students' lives more difficult, for instance pathological disorganization in writing reference letters, or an inability/unwillingness to match the tone of positivity expected of such letters in your field.
With all that in mind, I'd:
a) Look at this factor only in comparison with other advisors in your chosen (sub)field. If your prospective advisor has no academic descendants in 12 years and others have 80%+ of their students with academic jobs, it may mean something. If that field of engineering has had pent up industry demand and anaemic academic hiring demand for a couple of years, it may mean nothing.
b) Use it to focus your conversation with the prospective advisor. "I'm really hoping for a career that looks like this ... Do you see that as feasible?" "Have other of your students gone in such a direction?" "What do you think it will take for me to be successful in going on to ... from your group?"  You're not being challenging and judgmental, but you're asking positive questions. You may be reassured by comments on how their students had academic offers but chose not to take them, etc. Or you may be very appropriately put off by clearly uncaring/uninformed, or even worse, defensive replies.

@Trunk, no need to get terrified, but also no one should be too idealistic. As you say, the Ph.D.'s research output, "communicative ability", and general "research interests" are certainly pre-eminent. But networks do matter; they identify opportunities and do open doors. In particular, for junior academic positions that seek a fit with existing faculty members' interests, that box is checked much more effortlessly if you are part of the same descendant tree. With a "poorly regarded" advisor you aren't doomed by any stretch, but you do have to put more effort into job hunting!

It is perfectly normal, especially at lower-ranked schools. In engineering, there are many good opportunities for PhD graduates in industry. This professor has successfully supervised PhD students to graduation, so there is no reason to believe that you wouldn't obtain a PhD and be qualified for academic jobs.
That being said, I think some professors or programs are more successful than others at placing students. For instance, my advisor has less than 12 years experience, and so far 3 of his PhD students joined academia and 2 joined industry. Academic jobs are competitive and completing a PhD does not guarantee a position. I attribute my own success to my advisor's guidance. Advisors with a track record of placing students in academia may have more experience or better guidance for students who want to enter academia.


text:
Is this paper written in a good manner?
I searched the Internet to find an open-access article about cubic equation solving methods.
I have found this one which has good information I've never met before. Also, the original paper is here by the same author; but it should be reached from University IP.
But the problem is that I think It is not written in the way an article should be.
For example, look at this sentence from the paper:

In addition to their value in curve tracing, I have found that the parameters , ℎ,
 and , greatly clarify the standard method for solving the cubic since unlike
the Cardan approach

Which is written in an active tense rather than passive. We ignore it that there is also a typo here and in other parts of the paper: "Cardan instead of Cardano".
Also, the author of the paper is in fact, an anesthesizer at Nottingham University Hospital; so mathematics isn't his field at al.
I have found an article in anesthesia by him too and the active tense can be again seen there.
Is this article or author really of academic writing?

You should really focus on whether the information is correct.  There may be differences in academic writing across different fields.  Also, an author may not be trained in academic writing.

there is also a typo here and in other parts of the paper: "Cardan instead of Cardano". [...] so mathematics isn't his field at al. --- Surely you did this to see if anyone would notice? Regarding active and passive voice, keep in mind that the journal Mathematical Gazette (in which I've published two articles, by the way) is a journal for mathematical exposition, and often active voice makes for better exposition.

There is no rule that says that papers have to be written in passive voice. In fact, Nature's style guide says

Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.

Most of the papers I have read were not written in passive voice.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to teach a class with huge differences between students' backgrounds?
As there are different students with different educational and economical backgrounds in the classroom, I would like to know how a professor can deal with those differences. For example, undermotivated students or those whose knowledge is very weak on the mathematical courses - what is the best teaching style for such cases?

Maybe a better fit for the mathematics educators stack?

@astronat I think this OK here because it can be easily generalized to several examples of weaknesses (in fact, in the OP, there is "For example").

@astronat Actually, it sounds like this isn't teaching math, but teaching some subject that uses math where some students aren't very strong on the math prereqs.

Every teacher, course, group and situation is different but these are things that worked for me (Europe, teaching unmotivated and diverse group of undergrads):

Keep external teaching material (books, software) to a minimum
Give regular feedback on progress (I usually start every class with a short, very basic quiz about the lass classes (self-corrected by students and with correct answers immediately discussed with class). I tell students that below a certain % of correct answers they need to learn/practice material from previous classes/courses because their background knowledge is a bit lacking.
Provide extra exercises to teach/reinforce the basics (with detailed solutions) for optional individual work.
Encourage or enforce group work where students teach each other. (I taught a class where the final assignment was a group work with the worst student's score defining each group member's final score. It was a huge success but it required a lot of work and constant monitoring of group dynamics.)
Praise any good answer and/or students attempting to answer. Encourage students making mistakes (it gives feedback to both of you and allows to correct misunderstandings before the exam).
Make sure the exercises are relevant both for the subject matter and the students (e.g., if the majority of your students are biologists, give them examples with trees and not light bulbs)

I agree with most of the points. But #4 is a disaster. You are shifting responsibility of teaching and the associated risks (if they fail) to the good students. In some groups the strong members will be tempted to do the job of the rest of the group to get good marks - maybe your monitoring prevents that, but in general, this is bad and outright unfair advice. Why should strong students pay with their marks if they happen to be co-grouped with a weak or lazy student, unless they work multiple times as hard (either doing everything themselves, or spending much of their time tutoring)?

@CaptainEmacs I disagree but I should have mentioned that the task has to be such that each member has to contribute. Students also select their group members in this setting. It might also be a cultural difference but we never had the issues of "lazy" student but yes, weak students had to be helped more (I think this was a valuable lesson to the groups). Moreover, as I mentioned before, constant supervision is necessary (think regular meetings with groups beyond scheduled classes, individual supervision of "weak" students, etc.) - lots of effort from the teacher but worth it, IMO.

Also, funny but grades where generally (much) higher than when we had individual assessment. I think it is because humans are inherently social and put more effort into group tasks than individual ones (they don't want to let down their team).

Ok, if you can choose your group members, that's better. But if people put more work into group tasks than in individual tasks, either you are very good at motivating group work, or you were lucky. I have never seen anything other than split into the doers and the fellow-travelers or capable students being dragged down. The only working group work I have seen is the one one does not want: collusion.

Keeping up students' motivation is part of it but I think clear requirements and the fact that the teacher puts in as much work as they do are more important. In sum, co-operative tasks are awesome but the effort going into such course is enormous. I understand not everyone can or wants to use this method. But it is one that works well for the situation described in the original question.

Having been a student once and multiple times in above situations, I detested obligatory assessed group work with a vengeance. I have less-than-ideal cases even for the "best" cases where I worked with an equally strong student. In certain topics groupwork is unavoidable as per design (as software engineering or larger programming tasks); I have done that successfully as teacher, but the situation described by OP is precisely the one where I would avoid groupwork. I am impressed that you made it work. As student I would have considered being assessed by the worst score as inexcusable.

@CaptainEmacs My group assignments allowed the group to "fire" a group member.  The recommendation of the others had to be unanimous.  The fired member then had to complete and be graded on the assignment individually.  No group member ever got fired in any of my classes.

@BobBrown Ok, that's an incentive, albeit not a very nice one. Again, it shifts the responsibility from the teacher to the students and invites a "bullying" atmosphere, not unlike the ranking systems in some companies (whereby in the latter, of course, the ranking is obligatory and not optional as in your case).

I guess I don't understand your first point. Can you say more about why you think this is true?

@Buffy The question mentioned economical differences, so I thought some students may have difficulty buying expensive textbooks/course materials. Sorry if I was unclear. Also, creating own teaching materials means it can be tailored better to the group's needs.

@Aolon Plus, it has the advantage that students coming from different areas do not have to struggle with finding the suitable literature in addition to understanding the material.

@CaptainEmacs  I disagree.  the professor has very little way to observe the dynamics of a group assignment unless the assignment is so highly structured that the professor can see, and grade, the individual product of each student.  At that point, it's no longer a group assignment.  The approach I used at least usually assures that every student in the group carries some of the weight.

@BobBrown That's precisely why I dislike group assignments unless they are essential for the learning outcome (e.g. software engineering). As I say, your idea of voting somebody out might work as an incentive, but it really can devolve into bullying. It doesn't have to, but it definitely can do so. Maybe you can suppress that somehow as teacher, but then you need to explain how you do that.

What works for me:
Create a set of exercises that cover a wide range of skills, from elementary/introductory ones to challenging ones (some of which may require literature or even own research). The students not only get an entry point into what you wish to teach, but they also can see where it leads, and the strong/experienced ones are not bored.
What's important for students is to learn the methods of thinking, and I usually spend quite some time introducing very thoroughly the method of thinking of the field. Interestingly, even stronger students seem to appreciate that, because they usually are fast in picking up material, but often not very experienced in seeing all the underlying structure. Repetition under different perspectives helps the students to pick up the methods and beginning to see how it works rather than learning by rote.
Focus on fewer, important concepts, treated deeply, rather than a litany of shallow introduction to many different ideas. The students need to learn "how to learn" and "how to approach" a topic, rather than having seen too many different things. The latter, they can do for themselves once they have the tools.

This isn't a complete solution, but only something to think about, depending on how free you are in course design. I think it complements the answer of Captain Emacs to some extent.
I once taught a database (CS) course to a group of very able students at a top university. Almost all were very good, but not all had the same background preparation. There were several projects in the course and (IIRC) they were group/pair based. The course leaned heavily to DB principles and the underlying theory and implementation, not just use of SQL.
One assignment was about search. I made two versions of the same assignment, one easy and one quite difficult. Students could choose to do either one and the grading would be the same, no matter which they chose, based on quality of implementation.
The easy one was to implement a binary search tree and the hard one was to build a b-tree. These are about an order of magnitude different in difficulty (rough estimate). When introducing the assignment I said that if a student had never implemented a binary search tree then I would recommend they choose that one, but if they had done so, that doing it again would bore them silly, and I'd recommend the hard one.
I had a (to me) surprising number of students choose the harder assignment and I judged the experiment successful.
Of course this implies that you are willing to give the same grade for things of different difficulty, but every student learned something of value if they were successful in their implementation and also honest (to themselves) in choosing which to do. This won't work when students are too much grade driven, or otherwise too panicked about grades, but you might consider whether it would work in your environment.
Think about learning more than about grading.

This is a separate idea from my other answer here, and I warn that I haven't tried it in this form, but would consider doing so in the circumstance you describe. But note that I also had great freedom in course design and was always able to justify "odd" pedagogical choices to my department head and dean.
One of my tricks in teaching was to use cumulative grading where students get grades by accumulating points from projects and exams. For me, exams were a relatively small part of the total, but every student knew exactly what grade they earn by adding up the points. So, some students already had nearly enough points accumulated that the final exam was essential irrelevant, so I would excuse them from it, letting them focus on other courses. This idea grows out of that practice.
Suppose you make a deal with your students that they can either take the final exam or, starting after mid term, take on a substantial project requiring some deep learning. Emphasize that the project will be difficult and that the grade for it will substitute for the final exam grade, which they need not take.
In mathematics, a "project" might be the analysis of some paper or the application of course ideas to some specific problem.
I have no evidence, but suspect that the high achievers will be drawn toward the project if you can make it interesting enough. This might also be an opportunity to introduce group or pair work if you don't do that otherwise. You will need some communication channel for these students separate from the entire class since, for the right project, there might be a lot of questions. But the "really good" students probably value a challenge. I hope I'm not too naive about this, but it was my own experience both as a student and later as a professor.
I caution that this might not work above a certain scale. I seldom had to teach as many as 40 students in a class and usually a bit under 30.
If the better students spend a lot of effort on this, then you can focus more on the students who need more help and guidance.

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


text:
Put a forward reference in the introduction
I'm currently writing a paper and in the introduction I have something in this vein :

[...] Algorithms of this type have the following characteristics (we
  discuss this in Section 6). [...] The paper is structured as follows
  [...] In Section 6, we [...]

I was wondering, is it okay to put a forward reference like this, even before describing what Section 6 is about in the outline at the end of the introduction (In Section 6, we [...])? Or is it considered bad practice?

Why not? However, introductions typically have, firstly, the "this is our proud contribution" part (with very clear answer to "why should I care?"), and, secondly, a sort of annotated table of contents, something like "in Section 42 we show that miracles exist". The latter part is often omitted in the recent years. My point: make sure not to mix up those both parts.

I often have forward references in the introduction, especially if I need some terminology whose definition is too long to give in the introduction. Then I'd say something like "Terminology used in this introduction will be defined in Section 2."

While these forward references are not "sexy", they help to understand the structure of our argumentation that follows. As usual, it depends on the reader if he likes it.
Be sure that your flow is a a logical sequence of (short) arguments even in this abstraction.


text:
How long to wait before contacting another arm's length referee?
I am trying to find an external referee to review and evaluate an application package for a postdoctoral fellowship. This assessment, which is a required element of the application, is due August 13. I e-mailed a first potential referee a couple days ago (so certainly not very long at all). I introduced myself, identified why she might be well-placed to serve as a referee, and identified the deadline. Rather than following-up, it is likely that I would reach out to another potential referee if I don't hear back from her. At what point do you think I should reach out to another potential referee?
My initial thoughts are after seven or eight business days. I realize this may not be considered a long time for these sorts of applications, but I fear that the likelihood of a positive response will be severely reduced at that point and I don't want to put anyone who does agree to take on the assessment in a position where they feel rushed.

+1. You are doing this in a very professional and mature way. If your PhD was done at the same standard, I'm sure you'll get this postdoc position :)

The "Community" bot pushed your question to the  top of the stack. So, how did it go?

You are very considerate to your referees, and I hope you get this postdoc position!
There is no exact number of days for these things and you would know the person's emailing habits better than me. Perhaps in another 2 days (4 days total), you can write him something like:

Dear Prof. XXXX,
I am just writing to follow-up on my email below.
Of course there is no rush for your assistance with refereeing my application package, because it is not due until 13 August. I wrote to you this early because I wanted to make sure that you had plenty of time, since I wanted to inconvenience you as little as possible.
If I may, I would just like to ask whether or not you might be able to act as one of my arms-distance referees for this application package: The deadline is not until August 31st, but I would just like to first establish who is going to have enough time to do it and who doesn't, so that if for example you are not able to do it, I don't end up asking someone else with not much time available. The idea is for me to be as considerate as possible to the time and energy spent by my external referees.
Sincerely,
user125706

Please feel free to adjust this letter, or write your own based on it, or copy-paste it. Whatever makes you feel most comfortable.
Good luck on getting this position!


text:
Referee wants me to do more experiments, but I already submitted these results to another journal
I submitted two articles to two journals as corresponding author in short succession. Now, I got back the referees' comments to the first one and I am facing a problem: A referee requested us to do more experiments and claimed that the article lacked experimental evidence in a certain aspect.
Actually, these experiments were already carried out, but were described in the other article that is more focussed on the experimental part of our studies (while the first one is more of a general proof of concept).
Obviously, I am facing a dilemma now: I don't think I can use the experimental results the referee requested in my first article, because I would be committing self-plagiarism. On the other hand, if I do not use those results, I fear the referee might reject the article.
A colleague suggested to tell the referee exactly that and show them the pre-print of the second article. But that does not really change the fact that my article seems to lack experimental evidence?
I could argue that these requested experiments/results are not essential to the submission. But I already kind of evaded the other big remark of the referee, thus almost changing nothing in my article. I feel this might be insulting to the referee, especially because I think they did a good job and really took time to review the article.
What do you guys think is the right course of action here? How do I argue my case best so that the referee is pleased? Could I cite the pre-print of my second article in the first article? Or can I reference in the article that there are experiments to be released in another submission that will handle the topic the referee spoke about?

You may want to distinguish two situations: A) the referee is missing experimental evidence, B) the referee consider your manuscript too short, uncooked or underdeveloped, therefore asking for more work. In case of A citing other paper with the proof is a perfect answer, even if that other manuscript is not accepted yet. In case B.. you can pretend it is case A.

As an aside, the reviewers comment may be an indication of inadvertently falling into the Least Publishable Unit trap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit).  In general, it is better to have one really solid paper, than two, neither of which is sufficient in themselves.  Essentially if the additional results were required to convince the reviewer, that suggests they should have been in the paper already.  The impression LPU publication gives is not a good one.  If papers closely related, submit both to the same journal.

You don't commit self plagiarism if you cite properly. But, I wonder if you have a citation problem here. Cross citation of the two papers might be needed if you split the results in that way. It would also be a solution to the dilemma.

I think the normal thing to do is to forward-reference the experimental results.
That is, you can briefly outline the experimental results as per the current referee's desire for more information, and reference it as "paper submitted to xyz journal, 2/9/2017."  Down the road, if the experimental paper turns out to be accepted before the theory paper, all the better and you can actually reference it as such.
As a caveat, it may also be true that either paper is too thin for separate publication, and the two should be combined into one. This sounds like what the referee is getting at. From your point of view, having one strong paper may be more desirable than two weak ones.
Finally, most often I have seen two papers of this type published back-to-back in the same journal.  But even if this is appropriate here it sounds like it may be a bit late to go this route, unless you were to withdraw one and resubmit the pair. (BTW, If you do this, an explanation to all the editors involved should definitely be included in your correspondence.)

Thank you for your answer! Personally, I think both papers can stand on their own, but there is some minimal overlap, of course. I will think abotu the forward-referencing. Combining the publications is out of question, because it would get too large. I will not mark it as an answer, yet, to see what other people suggest.

Depending on the culture of your field and the journals' policies, it might also be appropriate to post a preprint of the more experimentally-oriented paper. This will give the referee confidence that the experimental aspects will be available in the future, and are not going to go unpublished, leaving the current paper without key support.

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


text:
Should tenured researchers be "encouraged" (forced) to retire at a certain age?
While thinking about this recent question, I was reminded of an issue at two different institutions I've taught at, as well as a third institution I am aware of via my father.
One complication I have seen at each of these universities is a number of professors who are well into their 70s (or even 80s), yet who refuse to retire. Obviously retirement is a personal decision that has no one-size-fits-all answer. However, I saw several instances of these professors causing "log-jams" in terms of resources and departmental turnover. For example, a professor who oversaw a lab next to my father's had "owned" his lab for something like 50 years. He did his research in there, brought in subsistence level funding, and "taught" a class every other semester (meaning his PhD students taught the course). He took up an entire lab and resisted anyone "encroaching" on his space. University administration placed pressure on him over some of these issues and he would usually (with much gnashing of teeth) comply in the minimally sufficient way. He never gave them enough cause to actually fire him. Because he had been with the university so long and was tenured, they could not fire him outright on account of his age alone.
In another instance, this time at one of my own universities, we had three professors who were about 85 years-old. They fulfilled their minimal teaching responsibilities (chosen in order of seniority in the department), but had each last published a paper about 5 years prior (with ~5 papers combined between them in the last decade). They sought next to no funding. They just squatted in their positions. The department could not hire any new professors until a position was vacated. By the time these professors finally retired (or died, in the case of one), there was a seven year gap between recent hires. This meant that there were exactly two professors who were not yet tenured, with one of them currently being evaluated for final tenure decisions. The department is struggling with stagnation now due to almost no turnover in their faculty. In the next five years or so, a number of professors in the department will reach age 65-70 ('retirement age'), meaning that within the next 5-7 years, the department will be comprised of ~65% untenured, assistant professors. As such, the department has been forced to attempt to recruit some established professors away from their current tenured positions at other universities (or have professors stick around well past retirement age, which caused the whole issue in the first place).
I also observed this phenomenon when I was applying to post-docs. Some universities wanted to hire tenure-track faculty, but instead had to hire post-docs in order to cover departmental teaching loads. In many instances, this leads to significant departmental instability in terms of continuity. Departments usually can't make a post-doc the graduate coordinator or even have them sit on committees (thesis/dissertation, curriculum, scheduling). This in turn places a larger burden on the existing faculty.
To be clear, these departments have policies in place that enforce certain productivity levels. These professors adhere to these policies, albeit barely. Yes, the standards could be raised, however, we also are trying to strike a balance between encouraging good research/teaching and enforcing a long list of rules and commandments.
My question is thus as follows: Should universities start including a clause in professors' contracts that mandates a certain retirement age?  Or at the very least, what are some practices a department can adopt that will mitigate issues of professors who work well past standard retirement age?

Why would you want to institute a policy based on age rather than on the actual behaviors you want to avoid (lack of productivity, small amounts of teaching, etc.)?

@RaghuParthasarathy. In the cases I am speaking of, policies do exist to enforce productivity and teaching. It is just that these policies have been stretched to the extremes by faculty who have 50 years of tenure. No one wants to be the person who has to tell a former department-head and university researcher of the year "We are firing you because we need some new blood in the department. Yes, you've obeyed the minimum policies, but you're using up resources."

Universities in the US had mandatory retirement at 70 until 1994 when it was made illegal. Why was it eliminated? Probably worth thinking about when considering reintroducing it.

Obviously retirement is a personal decision. Actually it is not always - at least in Germany it is basically the opposite, see @cebeleites answer.

Some people post-retirement are a great source of wisdom while others are a nuisance - and even the latter opinion may depend on your field/topic. - There is most definitely no single "one size fits all solution". - I suspect there should be a way to "force retire" people who provide no benefit/cause problems, but at the same time the people who do provide a benefit (work/knowledge etc.) should be made welcome to stay if they want. - Generally the largest benefit of older staff members will be their subject knowledge as well as connections.

Here in Germany, professors are public servants and automatically retire when reaching retirement age. This has the equally automatic consequence that they are not paid a wage out of the university budget any more but a pension. And pensions of public servants work the way that any money they earn is subtracted from the pension.
Thus retired professors are typically (as long as they don't mess up the working atmosphere of the department) a net gain: any lecture they hold is essentially for free, any exams they take administer (they keep the ability to act as examiner) save work for someone else in the department. OTOH, they typically have to move into some small office, and can keep lab space only if they have grant/3rd party money to pay for that.

This is the case in Norway, too, more or less. (Though I don't know about laboratory matters.)

The issue is not the age of these faculty members but that they do not carry their share of the workload and expectations of the department: Their sum of research, teaching, and service work does not match what one would expect from someone with the likely salary of someone who has been on the faculty for a long time.
The problem is then one of setting policies. If you don't publish, then you're clearly not matching the expectations for the position. There are then two options a department and faculty member have: initiate the procedure to revoke tenure; or change the workload assignment. We have done the latter in my former department with some old faculty members: They were simply assigned 4, 5, or 6 classes a year instead of the common 3, since they were not doing much research any more and were not overly active in service either. The policy that instituted this did not mention age but was simply based on research productivity. The net effect was two-fold: (i) a number of faculty decided to retire; (ii) the remainder now had a way in which they could actually contribute significantly to the mission of the department, given that their research productivity had waned a long time ago; this also allowed them to, for the first time in a long time, get good annual evaluations because these are based on the workload distribution assigned to them.
In other words, departments that do not address the problem typically do this because they want to "keep the peace" and not "rock the boat" or simply don't want to deal with the problem. But it's not true that there is no recourse -- it's not terribly difficult to design departmental policies that make sure everyone contributes in some way.

It seems to me that in all the examples you have given, the problematic issue is not age per se, but rather, the low level of productivity of the older academics you mention.  It is also notable that the problem stems from the tenure system, where the older tenured academic is effectively immune to labour competition from new applicants.  This is a form of 'closed shop' in labour economics, and it has various economic implications relating to productivity incentives and outcomes.
Since age is not the outcome of interest, it makes little sense to impose a policy that discriminates with respect to age.  (Setting aside legal requirements, which might also prohibit this.)  It seems to me to be more sensible that if a change to policies is made, to try to improve productivity and use of resources, that change ought to be either: (1) abolition of the tenure system, thereby freeing labour competition generally and freeing university resources; or (2) keeping the tenure system but raising the minimum productivity requirements imposed on those with tenure.
In regard to these two choices, there is already a substantial amount of economic literature that analyses labour competition under the tenure system (see e.g., Alchian 1953, Alchian 1968, McPherson and Winston 1983, McKensie 1996, Brown 1997, Winston 1999, McGee and Block 2008, Chen and Lee 2009, Brown 2017), which might be of interest in determining whether tenure is a good idea or not.  In the first of these references, Alchian posits that non-profit tax-subsidised enterprises (such as universities) free administrators from the usual profit-loss constraints of the market, and therefore allow greater shirking, and greater arbitrariness in hiring and firing decisions.  Alchian theorises that tenure acts as a limiting device to offset arbitrariness in hiring/firing decisions by administrators, and thus, there is a trade-off between reduced labour competition, and increased incentives for applicants to seek tenured positions.  Brown (2017) tests this theory empirically using data from the 2006 and 2010 IPEDS surveys.  He finds that tenure is more common in non-profit institutions than for-profit institutions, and that in private non-profit institutions tenure is positively related to endowment level and negatively related to reliance on tuition and fees.

There are places with mandatory retirement ages. There are other places where such practices are illegal. Most professors are subject to annual (or so) review and generally self justify their continued presence at the institution. Many have an annual self review, followed by a meeting with the dean. But in the presence of tenure and the absence of misconduct, such things mostly affect things like salary and teaching schedules. A self funded researcher is less affected by this, of course.
But any university or lab can provide inducements to retirement as long as they are generally available and not directed at specific individuals. For example, a (large) cash settlement in exchange for giving up tenure is fairly common. A cash settlement combined with a timed phase out is also possible. Some institutions have an honorary role for emeritus professors that keeps them connected but with few duties. It also helps keep people mentally active as they age.
Such things as inducements to retire are actually beneficial in general, not just in extreme cases. Some people don't want to retire because of financial considerations even though they no longer really enjoy their work. It is also an advantage to an institution to bring in new "talent". It is nearly impossible to get tenured if the faculty is so full of never-retiring full professors that there are no open permanent positions. Over time, you will get less qualified applicants if the young stars see no possibility of advancement.
Forcing someone out other than for misconduct of some sort is unethical, and often illegal.

Are you referring to the buyouts of a year's pay or so as "large"? Or are some places offering more?

@ASimpleAlgorithm. I have heard of a bit larger, but not often.

In my social science discipline, it is often a written policy that insufficient research output can be cause for an increased teaching load (often going from 1/2 or 2/2 to 4/4 in the semester system). For many, this would be cause to either be more productive or retire. Others, of course, may enjoy keeping the high pay they earned from their early and mid-career research but with newly modified job duties.

A very reasonable question. But/and, when people embark upon an academic career, they're thinking about short-term sacrifices in pay and choice-of-location for longer-term stability and security. That's certainly what I was thinking, decades back. I figured that if I managed to run the gauntlet and get tenure, it meant that I'd won the right to be self-directing. Of_course be a good departmental citizen, service, teaching, etc.
But to have someone tell me decades later that the deal has been unilaterally changed... I'd think it was blatant bait-and-switch.
Yes, I'm certainly aware of "senior" faculty who are not really much of a help... but my own genuine explanation-to-self of why this is not terrible is that it is a (hidden?) cost of the tenure system. Which does not mean that the tenure system is bad, at all! But that there are such costs...
As it is, in the U.S., at my R1 place, in math, we have yearly "reviews"... and apparently have yearly "assessments" passed up the chain-of-command. And we still do have "tenure", except, oops, for "post-tenure review" which was mandated 25 years ago as a "compromise" to avoid having tenure abolished altogether (and be vulnerable to 30-day notice of termination, without cause).
So, ok, yes, there can be some old people who're still getting paid while not doing as much as they once did, or as much as some younger people might... but, as far as I can see, the filter mechanisms to avoid this are all too easily abused by central administration, AND would deter many bright, energetic people from going into academia at all, considering the trade-offs.

The question and other answers focus on what is good for a university, mostly in terms of departmental economics, resources etc. I would like to highlight the ethical aspect in the context of the wider academic community.
As people age, they tend to have less energy, but more authority. Consequently, they become less likely to expend the former, but more likely to abuse the latter.
Although some decision-makers or even departments may benefit from having a well-connected and unscrupulous individual within their ranks, harm will inevitably be done to research and education overall. It is very unlikely that an impartial audit of a professor who has been occupying the same chair for decades can be conducted by his or her colleagues. In the absence of other reliable safeguards, the practice of forced retirements of veteran professors is better than nothing and hence perfectly ethical. A fair comparison would be a limit on the number of presidential terms, which is imposed and upheld in some countries, but disregarded in others.


text:
Former collaborator presenting joint research as his own
Two years ago, I collaborated* (briefly) with a professor (whom I will call Professor Jim) on some research in mathematics. At the time, I was a PhD student and Prof. Jim was on my dissertation committee. I now work full time outside of academia and Professor Jim is looking for a new position. (Prof. Jim was denied tenure last year).
Because Prof. Jim is looking for a new position, he is interviewing for numerous positions around the United States. As part of these interviews, Prof. Jim gives a seminar talk on research. The only issue is that, instead of presenting research he performed himself, he is presenting research from my dissertation as if it was his own. No attribution is given to me on his slides (which are a direct copy of the slides I presented at my dissertation defense).** I feel that this is a clear instance of plagiarism.
My question is as follows:  Should I contact the universities where Prof. Jim presented this research?  Professor Jim has ignored my emails on the matter for three months now.

*I use the term collaborator very loosely here. Prof. Jim provided a data set for the data analysis. This was not a data set he himself had collected. Rather, it was a data set from the National Institute of Health (NIH) that he had been granted access to. Prof. Jim also attended (while nodding off to sleep at times) some of the early meetings where I presented my thoughts. He gave a few points of feedback and wedged his way onto the associated unpublished paper as an author. (Easy to do when you can leverage your authority over graduate students). I would not include him in a million years if I was in my current, unleveraged, position. The only published source of this research is my dissertation. He does not cite my dissertation in his presentation. In at least one seminar, he made no mention of either me or another colleague who actually did substantive work. (This is according to a contact I have at said university).
**Many universities publicly announce seminars on their website. Professor Jim has a rather unique real name and Google finds him relatively easily. I have traced several instances of Professor Jim presenting at seminars. Departments are usually happy to send you materials from old seminars if you just email and ask.

Yes. And you should also contact him and ask that he gives you credit in future talks when appropriate.

@JeffE sure advising is not a sufficient contribution for co-authorship, but he is a co-author so presumably there was a sufficient contribution (or at least Prof Jim believes there was), at which point I don't think the argument that well he shouldn't have been a co-author holds weight anymore.

Short Answer
No, you should contact Prof Jim and request that he properly acknowledge the source of the work that he is presenting as being your dissertation research.
Longer Answer
You state the work is from your dissertation. You state that Prof Jim was a committee member, meaning he was not your primary advisor. Finally, you claim that Prof Jim is presenting your dissertation work as if it was his own. Let's leave aside how you know this.
First to the case of plagiarism. At its core, this will mean that Prof Jim is giving you absolutely no acknowledgement at all for the work AND that he is claiming explicitly that the work is his. This is plagiarism. What does absolutely mean? It means, not only do you not have any written notice on the presentation, you are not given any verbal acknowledgement during the presentation. Are you certain that Prof Jim does not start or end his talk with a verbal statement such as this: "All of the work that I am showing today was done by Vladhagen who was a graduate student at the time"? Alternatively, are you absolutely certain that Prof Jim is saying something such as this: "To explore this problem, I did this type of study". Absent such evidence, you cannot conclusively prove plagiarism. You can only state that Prof Jim is negligent and thereby potentially engaging in plagiarism.
In summary, your feelings aside, this is NOT a clear instance of plagiarism.
Your case is solely that Prof Jim gives no written acknowledgement anywhere in his written slides for your work. This borders on being dishonest to the extent that Prof Jim was not your primary advisor and the work was your dissertation research. But then, Prof Jim is co-author on a publication. So, Prof Jim does have a right during his presentation to demonstrate the work because it was done in collaboration and is already published as such.
Your case is therefore solely that Prof Jim is taking a negligent approach to acknowledge in writing in his slides that the work is your dissertation research.
At this point, your first approach must be to contact Prof Jim for clarification. You are at an equal footing here as a colleague. You need only state two things.

I know that you are presenting the research work that we did in collaboration for my dissertation during your interviews.
I am aware that my contributions to the work are being mis-represented because a written acknowledgment is not given on the slides to state that I was the principal contributor on the work.

You have already contacted Prof Jim by email and he has not responded. What does that mean? You have a responsibility now to contact him by phone or visit him directly. In addition, you might engage your primary dissertation advisor. He or she can apply a counter pressure to Prof Jim to drive the point home further. He or she should also be in the better position to inform the universities as needed when the contacts continue to go unanswered.
You are also within your bounds to ask for an official copy of the written presentation, since it represents work that you did.
Finally, as someone on the other side (responsible to do faculty interviews), I can say that faculty are not oblivious to cases such as this. When we interview, we have a CV that lists publications. We hear an oral presentation. We pay attention to whether the presentation fully acknowledges the records in the CV. When they do not, we ask questions. Specifically, when I hear an oral presentation that does not have a concluding list of students who contributed to the work, my alarm bells immediately start ringing. This is NOT NORMAL! In other words, rather than rushing to contact faculty for what you believe could be true, trust that WE will contact YOU should the case reach that level of seriousness (i.e. indications of plagiarism).

Ask yourself:

Did Prof Jim have a significant role in the design, planning, or
execution of your research?
Did Prof Jim engage in longer discussions with you on how you will
perform the research and/or did he give qualified feedback on your research?
Did he possibly interact with your (main) supervisor about it and made a significant contribution by this way?

If he did then it is most likely OK to talk about your research as long as he gives sufficient credit to you with phrases like "the student X under my co-supervision did ...". Some professors even make a game out of it putting pictures of their students on the respective slides in their presentations.
More senior professors will not have their "own" research at all as they work fully in research management (getting grants and hiring+supervising people to do the research).
Before you take action (plagiarism is a very serious accusation):

Investigate if he gave credit to you for your work or not. If he
presented it really as his own without credit to you this is certainly not
ok. I am just not sure that he would really do this as at his career stage it might even be more beneficial to him to show that a student of his did great work than that he did some work by himself.
Maybe ask your main supervisor for his opinion before taking action
Contact Prof Jim directly and ask for his point of view (in friendly words)

If this does not lead to satisfying results for you then you should contact the universities.
One more note on this: To defuse such problematic situations many fields have introduced the concept of first-author (the student who did the actual work listed first) and senior authors (the professors listed last). At least in a journal publication it is then clear who did what.
UPDATE:
As the question was now edited and it is stated that Prof Jim is co-author on a paper that presents the research in questions the situation changes: Even if he didnt give you enough credit (which he should have done!) it is not plagiarism and you will have little ground to file a complain.

Once he wedged his way into authorship, the battle is essentially lost unless there is a section that makes the individual contributions of authors clear. As an author he has ever right to refer to the work and while he should acknowledge co-authors (and provide a citation) at worst this would be a case of self plagiarism.
On the concept of wedging his way into authorship, students often under estimate the impact that advisors have on their work. It is quite possible that the professor thinks he made substantial contributions to the work. Unless you have had a discussion with him about the relative contributions, going around his back with an accusation of academic dishonesty seems out of place.

It is academically dishonest to mention joint work as if it were work of only one of the authors. Isn't this exactly the situation described in the question?

@AndrésE.Caicedo yes of course it is, but it is not the situation described in the question. The professor presented joint work without an attribution to the joint paper, I don't think of that as the same as claiming you are the sole author. Evening saying I found ... is not really claiming sole authorship, but obviously we found is better.

No, I disagree. We can twist it and say these are different situations,  but they aren't.

@AndrésE.Caicedo it is not twisting anything. You interpret no attribution to mean the presenter is the sole author and I interpret it to mean involved in. I don't see how one can argue that failure to cite yourself (and co-authors) is anything but self-plagiarism, but lets find out... https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/127898/self-plagarism-with-co-authors

If you fail to cite a work of which you are co-author, you are failing to cite the work of one or more other people (your co-author(s)), thus denying them the credit that they also deserve.

@StrongBad This is not just an issue of not citing a paper. The paper is not yet published. The only citable work that Prof Jim could use would be my dissertation (of which he is not an author). He cites nothing. He stripped my name off of my dissertation slides and is presenting them as his own.

@StrongBad As to my underestimating what my "Advisor" contributed to the work, please keep in mind that I am several years removed from my PhD. Yes, I am young in the field. But I am not stupid. It doesn't take 30 years of experience to understand that dozing through two meetings, having your crony colleague add you to a paper being authored by a student, and emailing the student a link to a data set you did not collect or clean is hardly a significant contribution.

I can't tell from your question what you're saying he's actually doing, so I don't know to evaluate whether it's unethical or not.  It would be great if you could be more precise in your description.
If he is mentioning results from one of his papers during a talk and passing it off
as though it's single-authored (i.e. writing only his initial next to the theorems) that's clearly unethical.  If a talk is solely about a particular joint paper, then the collaborators are typically mentioned in the abstract ("this is based on joint work with X,Y,Z") but sometimes people forget to do this and I'm not sure I'd say it's unethical to leave them out of the abstract if they're properly attributed during the talk.  If a talk is based on many papers with many collaborators, then I wouldn't expect all the collaborators to be mentioned in the abstract, just in the talk.

Prof. Jim's talk is directly taken from my dissertation slides, but with his name and not mine on it. He would have had to actually delete my name from the slides on purpose. He has removed the sentence from my defense slides that says "Joint work with <     >, and <     >" and replaced it with "From research I conducted while at ." It sort of seems like he is omitting the fact that there were some authors who did leaps and bound more work than he did.

Yes! I think you should tell the university that he is literally presenting your work as his. It would have been different if you and he worked on a separate paper together while you were still a PhD student, that way, it could be that he saw you as a research assistant and didn’t think your name should go on it.
As it is, he is LITERALLY stealing from you. You should tell this university and then go to your university where you submitted this dissertation and let them know what is happening. Maybe they can help in some way, because even though neither of you is at that university any more, a student of theirs is being exploited by one of their hires.

Nothing is being done "literally".


text:
Present a published paper on a scientific conference?
I submitted a paper to a scientific conference, which was not yet published at that time. In the meantime, my paper has been published in a journal.
But in the last days I received the confirmation that my article was accepted for this conference.
The website for this conference states that authors are invited to submit their article to a number of journals after presentation. I have read in the case of other other conferences that already published articles are not accepted. Unfortunately, the conference website does not provide any further information.
Now my question is: am I allowed to present an already published paper at a conference?

This is very field-dependent. Please specify.

The organizers of the conference would probably be the best source of info on what they will accept.

@user151413 Economics/Finance

@TobKel Edit into the question, please.

This depends on your community and the conference, but I would definitely ask the conference program chairs about this as soon as possible. If the conference is like many Computer Science conferences, where the proceedings count as archived, peer-reviewed publications, you may have already violated academic norms by submitting the same work to a journal while the work was still being reviewed for the conference (a double submission). In this case the conference PC chairs will be able to advise you what to do (most likely either withdraw the conference or the journal submission).
On the other hand, if this conference is a more traditional conference that focuses on presenting research rather than publishing papers, this may not be a problem at all. Still, a conversation with the PC chairs will bring clarity.


text:
Who is the PhD student to their supervisor?
I do not fully understand which interest a supervisor has in their student's work. Is the Ph.D. student somebody who the supervisor should teach, a colleague, an employee, or an independent researcher who is given advice when and how they feel like?

Do you mean "what does supervisor gain from supervising students - why do they do it at all?" or "what is their personal relationship with their slaves erm students?" I believe you can't really understand relationship without the motivation.

@ZizyArcher the easy answer there is "they get paid".

They supervise students because they are paid for it and it's part of the job description.

There is also a huge cultural component to it: very different between France/Germany and the UK. - Heck; in the UK it can be hugely different between just univeristies and departments...
So it may be worth adding a country component.

That depends on the field. Often (but not always) in the sciences the supervisor will have a number of research themes on the go, and a PhD student will slot in to one of those and act as a junior member of a team working on a larger problem, becoming more senior as they gain more experience. In the arts, and mathematics, it is more common for the PhD student to be closer to an independent researcher from the start. There are no hard and fast rules though.

Ideally the PhD student starts as a student and leaves as a colleague. In reality, it depends a huge amount on the individual supervisor and student.

The ideal is for the student/prof relationship to involve a degree of professional trust. They should each be striving to give the other any information that is required to proceed correctly. There is a lot covered by that, and many complex situations arise. But the usual principle should be that everybody should be striving to treat the other person with due respect and consideration. If they don't, it's a problem of some kind.
The exact nature of the relationship will depend on the university, and the specific department in that university. Different schools have different standards and cultures. The way a PhD candidate "fits in" to the school will be very different. Even individual profs will treat their PhD students very differently.
This is especially true when a particularly famous prof has many students so that they can say "trained under" about the famous person.
I recall a story about the Great Man of Science (GMS) and how he ran his group. One of his PhD students gave a talk to the department on the progress of his research. And GMS was in the front row of the audience, asking interesting and useful questions. And everybody was quite happy with the results of the talk. And at the end of the talk the following occurred.
GMS: That was a good talk. Your research is quite interesting. Who is your supervisor?
PhD student: You are, Dr. S.
GMS: Oh! Oh! Well, we should talk tomorrow, this is good work.
As well, to some extent, it will depend on the kind of relationship the PhD student desires and makes possible. If you want a more direct relationship, with more interaction, it may be possible you can arrange this simply by asking for it and showing up in the prof's office more often. If you need financial support you may be able to get this by asking for it. Maybe, if the prof or the department has funding. You might need to do TA work or something. If you prefer a less "hands on" type of relationship, you might be able to arrange that. It would depend on how good you are at working on your own with infrequent meetings and guidance.

As much fun as such anecdotal/exceptional stories are, making one of them the centerpiece of your answer seems unlikely to be helpful.

It's good if the relationship is friendly and respectful but often the relationship between Supervisor and Ph.D. students is essentially a master / slave relationship.
I was lucky enough to have a supervisor who was kind and respectful so in my case it was more similar to the relationship between two employees in a company where a more senior employee shows the junior employee how to do things that he needs to do in order to complete his work but otherwise basically just leaves him alone and lets him work on his own.
Someone I know well had a supervisor who used the Ph.D. students as slaves to write papers for him. He refused to let her graduate, even after she had exceeded all the requirements, because she was producing papers that helped his career. He did that to all his students and they had to lobby the head of department to force the supervisor to let them graduate.
Professors at some universities are under tremendous pressure to publish. When they have Ph.D. students, who are also under pressure to publish, and those students are required to write the supervisor's name as a co-author on their papers, it's like they get papers for free without having to work for them. Of course some Ph.D. students require a lot of support from the supervisor so it's not necessarily "free" but in the case I cited above, the supervisor would just give a suggested research topic and then leave the students on their own to write the papers and do the research. If they spent a year getting no results, or if they failed out of the program because they didn't publish anything, it wasn't the supervisor's problem.
My ideal supervisor (from the student perspective) is someone who has great ideas about what research to investigate. He or she assigns you a topic or gives you a choice of several topics to investigate. He or she then suggests some journals articles to read to get up-to-speed on the topic. Once you've done the reading, the supervisor gives some suggestions about experiments you might try, gives advice about how to conduct the experiments, gives suggestions about the statistical methods to use to analyze the results, and then suggests a journal or conference in which to publish. After submitting, a great advisor would consult with you about the feedback you got from the journal reviewers and advises you about how to proceed (fix your paper to follow the suggestions, try publishing in a different journal, or abandon it and work on something else).
Basically, a good advisor is someone who is more helpful and less selfish. And it's important to get a good one because a really selfish one can make your life very painful. When you join a Ph.D. program, you're committing 5-8 years of your life to it, and if you fail, you probably won't get another chance. So if you're 4 years in and you realize that your supervisor is taking advantage of you in a harmful way, you have a serious problem. You can apply to change to a different supervisor within the same school if you have proof that the supervisor is doing something wrong, but if he or she is just being cruel and selfish but not actually breaking any rules or laws, you might be forced to decide whether to accept a kind of temporary slavery or drop out of school. That's a hard decision and most people I know chose slavery.

"Master/slave", "If you fail you won't get another chance", "cruel and selfish", "temporary slavery". I disagree with your use of these and similar keywords. You are adding an emotional charge that does little to help the asker. If anything, you are frightening them. That's not needed and not helpful.

Unfortunately, academic misconduct and abuse is common in some universities. If you haven’t seen it, be thankful. But when someone who has already exceeded all the publishing requirements for graduation is forced to choose between working an extra two years without pay or being expelled from a program that they already invested four years into, I call that slavery. Perhaps you live in a country where academics are kinder and gentler. But the world is a big place and not everyone has it so good.

The student really has no recourse here; academia is competitive even under the best of circumstances, and no university is going to push back on a professor in a favor of a grad student. That's certainly not to say that every adviser is abusive, but being a grad student means trusting your current well-being and future livelihood to the largesse of someone who has very few restrictions on their authority over you. A less incendiary analogy might be a personal assistant to a movie star. You've got to put up with a lot to get a job in the industry, and there's no recourse if things go badly.

@GiuseppeNegro Fear can be helpful at times. While I agree that this answer contains some strong language, I think it is actually an important message for prospective students to hear. The reality is, at least in my field and country, that PhD students are overworked, underpaid, and not protected by any of the usual labor laws.

@GiuseppeNegro  I have absolutely witnessed multiple instances of PhD-Advisor dynamics that are best described as slave/master, especially where immigration status is concerned.  Even where immigration status doesn't come into play, the dynamics can be quite difficult as the advisor is essentially the CEO of a company with no HR department in a field where it is almost impossible to change companies if you are unhappy.

It completely depends on the advisor.  I've seen treatment range from "colleague who I check in with once every month or so" all the way to  " 'employee' who should do exactly what they are told without 'talking back' ".
Your program likely has certain standards or expectations (either implicit or explicit) around how PhD students are to be treated.  They are often found in the student handbook or formal program requirements if explicit.  It is another matter entirely, however, if your dean or department head will actually take any action when a supervisor violates these standards.

I think the above comments are all correct in terms of the sentiment, and especially the one warning prospective graduate students to choose their advisor wisely is very very good (speaking as a PhD advisor myself).
But PhD students are /students/ first and foremost. The degree to which they take on employee-like characteristics varies by field a lot. In the US at least, in STEM fields there tends to be more of a sense of students being "employees" because very often (most of the time) the advisor is literally winning grants to pay the salary of the student to do some work on a federal grant which will want reports on that work. This can tend to make things more 'contractual' than they would be ideally. A good advisor will try to resist thinking about it this way, as much as they can, to give the student room to explore, make mistakes, and grow. But it's not easy given the pressures faculty are under as well.  In Europe and many non-US settings it is different, as most PhD programs are government-funded (in STEM at least, which is all I can speak to), and because bachelor's programs tend to be focused (not liberal arts), so PhD students abroad will be more likely to be independent and have a more 'traditional' mentor/mentee relationship compared to the US.

I'm not sure how your statement that PhD students in Europe tend to be more student like, than in the US, when many northern European countries (UK excepted), STEM PhD students literally are employees, employed to do a specific job on a specific grant?

Replying to Ian, I do not think the situation of a student being hired on a grant is nearly as common in the EU as in the US. In the US it is basically 99% of PhD students in STEM, outside of a few prestigious fellowships. In the EU there tend to be far more nationally or EU-funded fellowships. These may have involved an application with a project description, but the award is to he student, not the PI. That's the big difference that I see.

I have met professors who think students working on their research are

Cheap labor. But students would work their ass off and graduate in the end.
Assets: each graduate student who works with them will add more to the body of research, and in a certain way make said professors look good. So, both win.
Cheap tools: a certain professor would get students to do not only the work but also as cheap secretaries. As the work was about to be published, and they were about to defend their thesis, professor would then have students start a new project. Then he would complete the last details, and write the paper without putting the student's names in them so he could also hold them hostage (you are not graduating until I decide you are ready to defend your thesis), specially given he only hired foreign grad students. Said professor has been known to call the immigration on the students if they disagreed with the arrangement.

I had a coworker whose Masters was withheld by the professor unless he did a PhD.


text:
My student published a preprint of our published paper without me as an author
One of my former students uploaded a paper we just published in a top physics journal without my name. The fraudulent paper is now appearing on the Google Scholar search results below the original paper we published in the physics journal. If people try to cite the fraudulent paper from Google Scholar, my name does not appear.  The fraudulent paper without my name is appearing in the Google Scholar profile of all the co-authors.
I wrote to Google Scholar to report this. But I am not sure if they will change their search results to add my name. I am a woman of color, and I feel the former student is making my work invisible and not respecting my contribution. I was the adviser and the main driver of the work.
Any thoughts on the actions I should take? The student has graduated.
Responding to questions and comments here:

The student uploaded the paper without my name onto his own repository. He then manually created an entry on Google Scholar with the article that does not have my name. I tried earlier today to create a similar article to what he did so I know the steps. You can add things manually on Google scholar.

The student left my lab because he did the same thing for another paper we had. He submitted the paper without my name. The editors contacted me because they knew I was doing that research and it seemed strange to them that I was not an author. I was also leading that research, proposed the idea, wrote almost the whole paper, and the student simply conducted the experiments with my guidance. Because of this prior incident I do not think it is accidental. I don't feel like asking a bully to please be nice and take down the paper from his repository. I know he is problematic and do not want to engage with him.

I mentioned that I was a woman of color because to me the actions of my student are because he does not value my work or contribution. In his mind I do not deserve to be an author. He is making my work invisible. We black women have historically had our work made invisible. Our contributions are seen as not worthy. Similarly, he likely does not see the value I bring to the work and hence is making my work invisible and removing me. In his mind I do not deserve to be an author.  I think it is helpful to contextualize that I am black because I think this is one of the reasons why he is blind to the value I bring to the research.

Good ideas on promoting the paper on the official site a lot. I will do that. I think that is the best solution and something I can control. Also good points that this is primarily annoying.

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

As far as I know, Google Scholar is entirely automated, and so those results will likely only change if the offending paper is updated or removed.
When you say the student 'uploaded' your paper - where did they do this? On a personal website? In a repository? Regardless, your first step is probably to contact the student and ask them to add your name or take the paper down. Bear Hanlon's Razor in mind: "never assume malice if incompetence would suffice".
If the student refuses, or ignores you, then (if applicable) you might contact whoever runs the website/repository, and ask them to amend/remove the paper. You might find that the editor/publisher of the original journal article is willing to support you here, as the republication may not be compatible with the licensing agreement originally signed.
Finally, since Google results are based on measures of how 'important' a website seems to be: you can cite, reference and advertise your original paper as much as possible, to promote it in search results.

Yes, the student should be contacted, if only for the record. I do not buy the incompetence here, as this is a repeated case. OP should promote her work widely. She is the PI, she has more leverage to get it publicised. Twitter and other media techniques can help if the work is relevant to a larger public.

Since he is stealing your work, would it be possible to press charges? This would force the student himself to do everything to take down said paper

Assuming that this is research conducted under a university, if the student refuses, the next step is to go the university. Since it is university supported research, it is essentially their property, and there's a good chance that they will take legal action if needed to protect it and their employees.

@anjama it is unlikely to the property of the University.  Technically the transfer of copyright agreement means the publisher is the legal owner of the work, unless other arrangements have been made.

+1 Great answer. I would add that it would also be good to upload a preprint (with all authors) to arxiv or similar. A lot of readers (e.g. me) prefer arxiv over navigating a journal website. That further promotes the correct version and may push the incorrect version into third place on google scholar.

@ZeroTheHero Note I said 'research', not 'paper'. Yes, you are correct in terms of the paper; universities will not claim ownership over scholarly publications, but if the underlying research itself was supported by the university, they own it and can protect it from misuse. If they wanted, universities could technically even stop a totally legit publication that's based on research they supported. Not likely, but it does happen (One case is if they think the idea is patentable and worth $$$).

@Thomas: Putting a competing preprint on the Arxiv will be an issue since it requires consent of all authors, which the former student will likely not give.

Readers should note that since this answer was posted, the OP has added details to her post that indicate that the student was probably acting selfishly, not carelessly. I think @avid's answer applies well to the general case but a stronger disciplinary response may be more appropriate in the case at hand.

@ZeroTheHero It should be noted that you do not need to, and should not transfer exclusive copyright of the paper to the publisher. It’s a bullying tactic without any legal basis, and can generally be refused.

@KonradRudolph I should check this because I’ve always thought this was a condition of publication.  Of course the authors does not sign away exclusive right but the point is: it’s really the publisher who should care and they have other things to worry about than something like this.

@ZeroTheHero Publishers like to strongly imply that it’s a condition to publishing, but I’ve heard repeated reports of authors who have refused to sign, and still gotten their articles published; and personally I’ve never signed such a contract. And, note, you obviously always give publishers a non-exclusive copyright, otherwise they couldn’t publish the article at all. But some (depressingly many) publishers like to claim an exclusive copyright, and that shouldn’t be signed over.

Unless I misunderstand the situation, your student seems to primarily shooting himself in the foot. He publicly engaged in some childish retribution scheme that demonstrates utter disrespect for academic authorship as well as for you and is not even effective. There is little he can do to talk himself out of this. He did the same thing three times (first paper, preprint, Google Scholar), so he cannot claim an honest mistake anymore. Depending on the details of the copyright agreement with the journal and similar, this may even be a copyright violation.
You therefore have a considerable leverage against him, which you might use:

to protect yourself, if he ever decides to accuse you of abuse or similar,
to protect others from him by preventing an academic career or similar, e.g., by informing his current employer or having his degree revoked,
to make him undo his actions.

Whether any of this is necessary or appropriate is something you have to decide for yourself. Be aware that while the evidence of this may be public now, it may not be in the future, so it is probably a good idea to create some lasting evidence of this (in particular before you take any other action).
As for what you can do to mitigate the damage done to you:

The journal where you published the paper has some interest, leverage, and expertise to set the record straight. I therefore suggest to contact them. This is also a good way of having an independent paper trail of the event.
Publishing a competing pre-print yourself (e.g., on the Arxiv) is difficult since it would require the consent of all authors and you might commit the same copyright violation as your student.
You may be able to create a competing record on Google Scholar, but I have no expertise here.

+1 for recording evidence.  For your subsequent advice, other parties that might help are: the OP's university, and the ex-student's current institution.

This sounds a lot like copyright infringement. Talk to university legal counsel! And inform the journal. If you have signed over copyright to the journal, they can take legal action against your former student.
I wouldn't think too much about what I can try to solve this issue. If you escalate this, it will get sorted. Your university's lawyers should know what to do to get that illicit version off Google Scholar, Research Gate, et cetera.

Plagiarism ≠ copyright infringement.

(plagiarism ⋂ copyright infringement) ≠ { }

expressed with a Venn diagram: plagiarism ⚭ copyright infringement

:D That is delightful.

Go talk to your department head, your dean and ask your university lawyers.
This behaviour, no matter what chromosomes you bear, no matter what colour of your skin is, no matter your age is, is not acceptable at all.
Demand Google Scholar and any other database to delete those forged records from their databases. Demand re-proofing of all their published work for possible intelectual property infrigements.
This misconduct is not only damaging you but also your department because of missing your affiliation in the paper. Both because your department cannot use such paper in proposals or deliverables and readers cannot track your department to contact you for possible future work. I think your superiors will be interested in this case.

"your department cannot use such paper in proposals" is blatantly false, as there is a journal publication with the correct authorship

@BenVoigt Some use "hit count", or "citation score", name it as you wish, to assess the quality of the researcher and their teams. If the scampaper is not paywalled there is high chance that OP will be mising significant portion of citations, because the references will be linking to the scam paper, not the true original.

So I presume that by “uploaded” you mean to arXiv or some other equivalent website, so the thing to do is to contact the site manager and ask for a correction to be inserted.
I’m not sure why one should worry about not being recognized in such situation.  Everybody considers the published journal version to be the version of record, and I don’t know of anyone who would cite the arXiv version knowing there is a journal version.  On occasions, some manuscripts are abandoned for various reasons, or are superseded by other work, and arXiv versions are not published but still cited.  This is certainly not very frequent.
What the student did is extremely annoying and certainly does not reflect well on this student.  If possible, you should try to clarify with the student what happened.  Whatever the outcomes I would certainly let your colleagues know of this state of affair.  Hopefully this student will not need a reference letter from anyone in your department.
I will add that, at the time of final revisions by the publisher (galley proofs), all publishers that I know of will explicitly query authors to update the bibliography to cite published papers rather than preprint versions.  This increases the likelihood that third party authors wishing to cite this work will in fact cite the published version.

Unfortunately, if the journal is closed access, the arXiv paper will be better known in the important early time of the citation game. Much then depends on the longevity of the result and the long game dynamics. What the student did is not just annoying: it is a major academic offence - basically a type of retroactive plagiarism. If the student intends a future academic career, OP has a lot of leverage to set an example.

This may be true but citation-wise people would still cite the journal version, not the arXiv paper.  ... well I think they would cite the version of record.

I don’t know of anyone who would cite the arXiv version knowing there is a journal version Many academics, including me, frequently do this for a variety of reasons. For example, laziness (e.g., not updating my bibliography), a desire to preserve chronology (e.g., journal version appears after subsequent work), or the journal version is behind a paywall.

I routinely link to arXiv versions because they can be accessed by my readers, unlike the paywalled versions. Having a different set of authors on the arXiv version and journal version is confusing to say the least -- I'd naively interpret it as "the paper was posted as a preprint and some author got added to the journal version afterwards for some reason". Either way, it's confusing, and I find OP is perfectly right to have problems with having copies of the article online which misrepresent the agreed-upon set of authors.

@a3nm yes I also often use the arXiv versions (or other publicly available versions) but I do not cite them.  Agreed having different sets of authors is confusing and what the student did is very distasteful.

@ZeroTheHero: To be precise: I often put the details of the journal/conference version (as it might help people remember where they have seen the work), but I put hyperlinks to open-access versions if the journal/conference version is not open-access.

There is a thing called Retraction Watch.
After acting on other excellent answers here, communicate with then and watch this cheater burn.

Do you have a reason to think they cover preprints?

They track various forms of plagiarism, and in particular, a lot of self plagiarism.

I'm interested in this question as I'm on the receiving end of something similar, but I've read the question several times, even after the edit, and I still can't make out what you are saying has happened. When you write "The student uploaded the paper without my name onto his own repository." do you mean

a) they have posted the as-submitted or OA-published PDF of the paper as-is, but omitted your name from the repository's metadata
or
b) they went back to the source version, removed your name, and re-generated a new PDF which they have distributed

and by "his own repository" do you mean

a) an individual account on an established repository (such as Figshare),
or
b) a web server they have set up themselves?

For 1a, you should still be receiving credit as people should be citing using details from within the paper itself, rather than the hosting website. If 1b, then as others have pointed out here there are issues with plagiarism and copyright involved, and there should be people in your library or Publications Office and at the publisher who will have more experience in dealing with this. In either case you should go through all the metadata associated with both versions, and make sure you understand what was written/modified/uploaded when.
If 2a then you can raise the issue with the repository to either remove the item or add you as the author, though this may be easier if you already have an account with them. For example, "Claim authorship of an item" was already a pre-defined support query in Figshare a couple of years ago (though I wasn't using it in such a hostile situation).
One thing you might consider if you have access to a citation alerting service would be to have it notify you if the bogus version is cited so that you can request a correction/erratum in the citing publication. This may reflect badly on you as well as the perpetrator, though, and I'm also slightly wary of this lest all this Deep Learning AI stuff interprets your interest in the bogus version as encouragement to recommend it to others.

Another option you may consider to get a speedy deletion of the infringing file is a DMCA takedown request, if you are a copyright holder (but double-check that you haven't signed away those rights to the publisher).

This answer is not being updated based on edits to the question.
If the upload does not look like a journal article (e.g. no journal logo or journal formatting) and is not on a journal's website, then you should not worry about it.
People might post a large number of preprints to a large number of places.  There is no reason for them to be careful when they do it.  It's just a preprint and is not expected to be particularly accurate.

If people try to cite the fraudulent paper from Google Scholar my name does not appear.

You still get credit for citations that contain typos.  You also deserve credit for  these citations as well.  The only issue here is the minor inconvenience of counting those citations, which you can probably achieve by manually adding the incorrect document to your Google Scholar profile and combining it with the correct document.

This answer is not based on the additional details added later by the asker.

If the author published same work with one contributor missing it is serious misconduct no matter where it is published. Even local news. If it is in the database people may reference it directly so OP will be still missing their credit.

@Crowley I believe that at the time I answered, the question did not claim anything was "published" by the student.  In any case, a preprint is not a publication.  It's a preprint.

@AnonymousPhysicist Nonsense. Preprints are publications. Claims to the contrary are newspeak by publishing houses trying to protect their monopoly.

"Preprint" means "before print" which means "it is not published yet".  I am opposed to for-profit publishing.  In most of science, if it isn't peer reviewed, it does not count.

"Published" does not mean "printed", "printed" does not mean "published". They are different words and one of them is used instead of the other for a reason.

I stand by my previous statement:    In most of science, if it isn't peer reviewed, it does not count.

Whole name missing is not a typo, It's a misconduct. "If not peer reviewed, it does not count" does not neglect the misconduct either.

@Crowley The information posted after this answer indicates clear deliberate misconduct.  But the question was not "Is this an accident or misconduct?"  It is "What should I do?" and I don't think the answer depends on the intent of the student.

@AnonymousPhysicist Was it either accidental error or misconduct, OP is short on their rights. Ignore it is not a good advice, I think. Was it accidental, it would be a lesson for the student (I suppose comunity be tolerant to newbies errors), was it repeated intention it should be a sighnificant mark in the student's career. In both cases raising the issue is the way to go.

OP specifically stated it was deliberate and the student had already been punished for worse behavior.  @Crowley, can you identify an actual benefit to "raising the issue?"  Revenge is not a benefit.

Delegation of the problem to someone else. 2. Delegation of the problem to someone who has higher chances to enforce correct citations/lists. Revenge has nothing to do with it.

Those are not benefits.

@AnonymousPhysicist “if it isn't peer reviewed, it does not count” — Ah, but peer review ⊃ pre-publication peer review. Preprints, books, even blog posts can very well be reviewed by peers (informally and formally). Of course I agree that if it hasn’t been reviewed it doesn’t count but that’s a somewhat vacuous statement. By contrast, an electronic note in some editor’s publication system to that regard is completely irrelevant for the question of whether research is peer reviewed. I’m surprised to see a physicist, of all people, make this mistake.

@KonradRudolph "“if it isn't peer reviewed, it does not count”  does not imply "“if it is peer reviewed, it does count” and no, informal peer review does not not make something count.  As a result, I do not understand your comment.

@AnonymousPhysicist ”informal peer review does not not make something count” — That’s where you’re categorically wrong. There’s no magical property that makes pre-publication peer review inherently more worthy or valid. The only reason why anyone would think that is because some disciplines have too many conservative, old people. Ironically these old people forget that pre-publication peer review is actually a somewhat recent innovation. Anyway, I take it you never published to arXiv, nor read research only published there?

@KonradRudolph Formal peer review is more useful than informal peer review because a third party editor enforces standards.  This makes is easy to see if the publication meets the standard.  Of course the reader will often disagree with the standard applied by the editor.  My comments are about the customs of academia, not my personal opinion.  Personally, I take a dim view of all peer review and think ArXiv is great.  I post a fraction of my work on ArXiv and read ArXiv papers very frequently.  I just do not see ArXiv as a substitute for formal peer review.  That's not the purpose of ArXiv.


text:
After making revisions, why can I only select the initially submitted manuscript in the system?
After revising the submission version for Springer, the generated file (pdf) still appears to be the original initial draft.
Recently, I have completed revisions for my article (Bulletin of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society（Springer) and I'm prepared to submit the revised version. However, after making revisions,  I encountered the issue shown in the screenshot below.

The system is requiring me to select this option (Include in Revision); otherwise, I cannot proceed to approve the final modifications.
However, when I do select it, the system generates a pdf file that is still the original manuscript rather than the revised version. In this system, other newly uploaded files cannot be choosed as the manuscript.

I can only submit the revised version as supplementary material and not as the new main manuscript.

Is this issue due to the system's functionality? I'm unsure whether the editors and reviewers can see my revised materials.

I know the reason now; only the LaTeX file (not pdf) can be selected as the new manuscript.