text:
Must I share my transcripts with my supervisor?
I am in the data analysis phase of my Phd Dissertation. My supervisor has demanded that I share my transcripts with them so they can "help me" analyze my data. I do not want their help analyzing my data. Must I take this help, and must I share the transcripts with them? I fear they are going to try to use the data in their own research, which is not unheard of for them.

Transcripts of what? Interviews?

Your phrasing of the question seems to imply that you have a larger problem that can't be addressed with a direct answer. Why are you continuing with an advisor you don't think you can trust to deal fairly with you? Are you just trapped?

I think there are two questions here: 1) if you need to share your data with your supervisor and 2) what happens if they use it in their own research.
To question #1: The answer to this is yes as they are in a supervisory role and part of their job is to help guide you in your development as a scientist. This is also not an unusual request in my experience. Keeping data secret from your PhD supervisor would also complicated possible publication of said data in a peer reviewed journal. The usual standard around publication ethics hold that all authors are responsible for the entirety of the manuscript and in order for them to bear that responsibility they have access to whatever part they want to see: https://www.etikkom.no/en/library/topics/authorship-and-co-authorship/authorship-and-co-authorship-in-medical-and-health-research/
That said if your supervisor is absolutely not involved in your project and would not be a co-author on any publication or you don't trust your supervisor to act in a fair way then I think that there is a larger issue that is beyond the ability of strangers on the internet to give you advice on. My recommendation would be to go talk to your supervisor about this situation and if you are uncomfortable doing that then I would recommend you seek out someone who you can trust in your department/at your university and try to explore your options.
2) It is not uncommon for data to be reused in different publications. In the extreme example the entire concept of a meta-analysis is reanalyzing existing publications. So having your supervisor use your data for a different analysis/research project is normal. That being said they need to cite your publication as the source for the data and if you significantly contribute to their research then they should add you as a coauthor. If they fail to cite your publication/thesis as the source of the data then they are engaging in misconduct.

Or, cite you as the source, if the data hasn't been published yet.

"The answer to this is yes as they are in a supervisory role and part of their job is to help guide you in your development as a scientist." This entirely depends on what the poster means by "transcripts". If these are transcripts of interviews and the particular ethical approval that the poster has for conducting their research precludes sharing interview transcripts with other researchers, no they cannot share them with their supervisor. This is the case in a lot of research. I have PhD students who cannot share their transcripts with me.

I also cannot share my transcripts with anyone else, even when I've replaced all names with pseudonyms due to the possible risks to my interviewees.

This was a possibility I had frankly not been aware of because even in the sensitive medical work I'm familiar with the IRB applications include everyone on the team so that data can be shared within research teams. Otherwise how do you expect someone to be a coauthor on a manuscript if they have no ability to see the underlying data?
That said I doubt this is the case for the particular poster as she didn't raise said concern but rather concerns about her supervisors behavior with said data if he got it (i.e., the supervisor using it)

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


text:
What can I do when anxiety causes me to perform poorly in oral exams and class discussions?
I have this class where we have oral exams once in two weeks. I am honestly trying my best. I am preparing for the class and I think I understand all the material. I can do all the assignments (albeit not as good as I want to but still). But I am really nervous during oral exams and class discussions. I don't understand and can't focus on the questions that are asked (when someone's saying something my mind just goes blank and I can't hear(?) what they are saying; like I hear the words and I know each word but I can't make the connection between words at all). I stopped participating in class discussions because I was so anxious during them that I needed to take a rest for a few hours after them.
I always feel confident before exams start, but during the actual exam, I get so lost, and sometimes I can't understand the questions that are asked. I don't think I can email prof about it because I honestly don't know what he can do or what I should say. Everyone is in the same situation but they seem to do way better (he said that everyone is getting 9.5/10 all the time but I only got 9.8/10 once and the rest of the grades are not good).
The worst part is that it is an open book exam and I am writing little notes for each question that I think can be asked, I always put myself in my prof's shoes and trying to figure out what he can ask but I never get it right. I am so tired of this and I really want to drop this class but it's too late right now AND I have a project with another guy that's taking the class. This is my final year, and the low grade for this class would look so bad in my application especially since I don't really have any other experience
UPDATE: I talked to my prof even tho I felt that it wasn't their problem (burden). If you have a similar issue, please talk to your prof/teacher. In the worst-case scenario, they will say that they can't help you but at least they will know that you have a problem. Just want to thank everyone who commented here!

Have you considered a mental health professional? Both therapy and medication can be helpful for anxiety. Who knows whether either will work for you, but it's their job to help you figure it out!

I’m voting to close this question because it needs to be answered by a mental health professional who has personally examined the asker.

@BryanKrause I considered but I thought it wasn't a big problem

@allana Doesn't need to be a big problem. If it's big enough to affect parts of your life, it's worth a shot to see if it might help!

Toastmasters helps with public speaking - check if there is a chapter in your area.

Is the oral presentation itself integral to the subject matter of the class?  Also, what country are you in?  I noticed when I spent time in central Europe that they really, really like oral exams, for example, so it could be that where you're located will matter to what options you have.

I'm not a mental health professional, but it sounds like your anxiety is interfering with your performance in this class.
You may be eligible for some accommodation to immediately triage your grade. If your university has a center for students with disabilities, talk to them and see if there's a process to get you started to talk to a doctor and get a diagnosis about whether your anxiety is serious enough for accommodation. They may have some kind of form you need to bring to the appointment, and can otherwise help you with bureaucracy.
I would also talk to your professor. While you are likely meant to get better at public speaking in this class, many profs will work with you to meet you where you're at and find additional ways to assess your comprehension of the material independently of testing your public speaking.
Also I agree practice will help in the long run, but that doesn't mean you need to fail the class in the short run! Ask for some help and see if people will work with you. No university class should feel this hopeless. You should be able to get better in the timescale of the class if you put in work. Ask for help if the conditions seem insurmountable.

I agree with this; the wrong answer would be to not tell anyone and just struggle alone.  Start exploring resources right away.

thank you! I talked to my prof and they helped me a bit with this. They told me to go to the center for students with disabilities but unfortunately, the procedure takes a whole month (tho I will still go because I have another term!). Thank you again:)

I'm so glad to hear it! It's probably a good idea to tell the prof about the month-long wait and ask if there's anything that can be done in the meantime to help you succeed in the class given your struggle with public speaking (maybe giving you a written exam for example). Best of luck!

This answer won't seem very satisfactory, I'm afraid, but the way to improve in such things is just practice (and more practice).
There are some other things you can do to make speaking more comfortable. Once very important computer scientist who is also very (very) introverted, learned to become an excellent public speaker by (among other things) joining a theatre group. He plays a role when he speaks so doesn't get emotionally involved it the stress of it. But, again, the theatre group gave him the means to practice.
One key to making this a long term goal is to seek out ways to practice, not to avoid them.
In the short term, however, it might help with some professors to just tell them of your discomfort and unease in oral exams. They might find ways to reassure you, though you will still be expected to give adequate answers.

Note that I once suffered from the same "affliction" and it cost me a couple of years in my education. But I eventually learned to overcome it.

Thank you for your answer! The thing is I am surprisingly good at public speaking; I had a few projects that I had to present and all of my profs said I am really good at talking to the audience and in general I seem very confident. I don't know what is that with oral exams that's different since I still present my answer to the audience (prof) and I am pretty confident about my preparation for the exam (if anyone just casually asks me to explain something, I can answer with no problem).

Scare quotes around "affliction" is unfair to people with diagnosed anxiety disorders.

Any answer which does not refer the asker to a mental health professional is inappropriate.  https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4700/how-can-we-better-react-to-askers-who-are-having-a-mental-health-crisis

@AzorAhai--hehim, what the OP describes is entirely normal, There are others with actual disorders, of course.

@AnonymousPhysicist, I think you are  over-reacting in this case.

I made no call on the OP, but by doing so, you did

Here's why I think you are wrong: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/209073

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are page references required when citing the same quote multiple times?
In an MLA format humanities essay, if you've quoted a long chunk of text at the beginning, do you need to provide page references when citing phrases from it later on?

How much later would you be citing phrases from it (eg next paragraph or 10 pages later)?

The essay is primarily a close reading of a 300 word piece of text (which I include in its entirety at the beginning due to its obscurity), so I'm quoting phrases throughout the whole 9000 word essay. I would say that it's mostly explicit when I refer back to this primary source.

Isn't your citation tool handling this for you?

The guiding principle for citation is always clarity and unambiguity of communication. Thus, for example, if you have a direct reference nearby, no citation is needed:

From the above quote, we see the phrase "like bananas for monkeys" is a clear reference to Shakespeare.

but if there is an intervening gap or other citations, then you should cite it as originally.  In the particular case for this question, where the entire essay is focused on a single fairly short piece of text, it seems that the reference is likely to continue to be quite clear, as long as the prose continues to make the link clear, as in my example, and thus no explicit repeated citations would likely be necessary.

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


text:
How much do letters of recommendation help in a statistics PhD program application?
I am an undergraduate mathematics student who is looking to apply to a Statistics PhD program. I asked a few professors how much letter of recommendation help a student get in to a PhD program and I was told the following.

Not much. Often professors don't want to insult a student, so they write good letters. Lots of people get good letter, yours won't make a difference.

and

Letters of recommendation are everything. They practically are your  application.

and

They help some, but it depends on who it is from. If it is from a stat professor that is good. A math professor is OK too, but stat would be preferred. If they are not stat or math, they won't care at all.

As you can imagine, I am now even less clear of how much a good letter helps.
Is it true letters of practically make or break your application? Or are they simply a formality?

You should say which country you are talking about. The perception of LoRs is highly country-specific. The first statement sounds pretty european (maybe asian), the second and the third sound more US-centric.

@Enthusastic the 'statistics' tag isn't supposed to be about statistics as a field of study; it's about the use of statistics in academia/statistics about academia. (We don't really have discipline-specific tags for subdisciplines.) When it is used about statistics as a discipline, it's an incorrect usage. (Actually, the tag as currently defined is ambiguous and needs some cleanup)

I have no direct experience with statistics programs, but I know of no reason to think they differ from math programs in this respect.  Assuming that's the case, letters of recommendation are absolutely critical, at least in U.S. universities.  I agree with the person who told you they practically are your application, and I'm mystified by how someone could tell you they make no difference.  (I wonder whether it's someone who has never served on an admissions committee or was educated in a very different system.)
It's true that just about everyone gets what might appear to be good letters.  The issue isn't whether they say bad things about you, but rather how strong they are and how compelling a case they make.  I've certainly seen many cases of letters written by the same person that differ enormously in their effect, even though they are all nominally positive.
The third piece of advice you received in no way contradicts the second.  It's not enough for a letter just to include flattering comments about you.  It needs to make a compelling case for why you will be successful in statistics, written by someone who knows exactly what it takes to succeed in this field, has seen other strong students to whom you can be compared, and has a reputation to protect that will keep them from exaggerating or trying to manipulate the admissions committee.  A senior statistician is the best case, but a junior statistician or a mathematician may also be able to do a fine job.  A letter from a chemist will not be helpful, and a letter from a professor of literature, no matter how enthusiastic it is, will hurt your case (by demonstrating that you have no idea how the application process works or that you couldn't find anyone more relevant who thinks highly of you).
Exactly what is required depends on where you are applying.  At the top departments, you need letters that make a very strong case indeed.  Even outstanding students will be rejected, and you need letters that set you apart from the others.  At much lower ranked departments, it might be possible to make a favorable impression based largely on grades and test scores, but even then you'll still need good enough letters.  (The bar will just be lower.)

I would disagree that a letter from someone outside math or stats would make a difference. A letter from someone with whom you worked on a research project would be valuable in commenting on general research skills, habits, and temperament. These shouldn't change when one changes topics.

@aeismail: My impression is that they could change a lot.  Having done wonderful research in history or experimental biology would carry little weight in math admissions (the skill set, temperament, etc. sound really different - perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I'd bet it would be a commonly held belief among mathematicians).  It could help establish that you are smart and hard working, but the application isn't likely to go well if there isn't already plenty of other evidence for that, and a letter from another field seems much less likely to be the deciding factor in favor of a candidate.

This is a piece of my personal experience: when I was admitted to a top 15-ish department of statistics in the U.S., I was told (a bit later, when I came and chatted with the graduate studies director) that a valuable weight in support of my application came from (1) a professor in Econ department who was not related to stat department but who knew (2) the author of the reference letter, another econometrician from Europe, (3) whose book I was then translating into Russian (so I kept bugging person 2 with typo clarifications, suggested examples, etc.). Person (1) was a better statistician than many, with several cool computational methods under his belt, a couple of very rigorous books, and known for teaching measure-theory-based probability to his econ students (if my memory serves me right, undergraduate students).
So I would say that Opinion 3 is probably misplaced. A quantitative biologist may be able to say more about you as a statistician (i.e., a person who has to combine data, a bit of substantive expertise, computing, and statistical methods) than your abstract algebra teacher.
Generally, as others suggested, this depends on the culture of a particular institution. Some do look at the letters, some don't. Since you don't know which side a particular school falls into, treat them as if they are your application.

How letters are viewed definitely depends upon the country, but within the US does it depend "on the culture of a particular institution"?  In particular (unless I misunderstood?) you seem to suggest that there are some US statistics departments who don't look at recommendation letters.  Really??

Others may have different views but for me, if you are about to admit someone you know nothing about for a long term commitment, you can only rely on some objective and subjective sources:

Academic record.
Recommendation letters.
Interview.

All are important. Letters tend to be standard in the sense that everyone writes about how good the candidate is (even some supervisors make the future candidate write their own letters and then they will just sign it!). However, letters give you the opportunity to directly contact the person recommending the candidate, and ask them about specific aspects you may be worried about. For example any character flaws that can be hidden in the interview and do not show in the academic record (and most likely where not included in the recommendation letter). Or some remarkable skill that was not highlighted enough in the recommendation letter but you consider very important. In summary, it is important to have the opinion of a third person that knows the candidate. Recommendation letters may be an important source of information when accepting a Ph.D. candidate in particular and when hiring someone in general.

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


text:
How to evaluate students? Resources on educational assessment for higher education
Most academics are involved to some level in teaching classes and evaluating students. I never got a proper education in teaching, unlike what we had for research, and neither did any of the lecturers and professors in my community: we learnt on the job, and for the most part reproduce what we have seen others do.
There is one area where I feel this is not enough, and I could be better: evaluations. We mostly do two sorts of evaluations: written exams (exercises with series of questions) and short bibliographic or research projects (ending with a short oral defense). In addition, many high school teacher friends tell me that research on the evaluation of knowledge acquisition (or student assessment) has made huge progresses in the last 20 or 30 years, that have completely changed the way they teach and evaluate students. Yet, I don't think things has changed so much in higher education, and I don't find around me any tools (lectures, seminars, tutorials, what-ever) to learn of this topic.
So: How can one learn to better evaluate student’s skills and knowledge acquisition? What are good (and modern) resources out there on educational assessment as applied to higher education?

I'm still not sure what you're asking. Are you looking for resources to evaluate students or teaching methods?

@eykanal I am looking for resources on students evaluation. I have modified my final question to hopefully make that clearer…

A good place to start to fill gaps due to lack of teacher training is with a general book or two on the topic. I was surprised when I read these at how different current attitudes and approaches are compared to when I was a student.  Consider:

John Biggs and Catherine Tangs' Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student does
Paul Ramsden's Learning to Teach in Higher Education.

One of the key issues these books talk about regarding assessment is the notion of constructive alignment, which is ensuring that the assessment aligns appropriately with the learning outcomes of the course. In these books (and others) plenty of advice is given to help you better align your assessment.
Another important issue is that assessment guides the approach to learning. If students know that they only need to learn a whole bunch of facts, perhaps based on their examination of past exams, then they will adopt a shallow approach to learning and not really understand the material. Trying to encourage students to adopt a deep approach to learning is extremely important and is strongly influenced by the approach taken to assessment. These books also focus on this issue.
After reading those,
I recommend the following books, which both focus on assessment. They have given me plenty of ideas:

Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches edited by Sally Brown and Angela Glasner, Open University Press, 1999.
Developing Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide
Sue Bloxham (Author), Pete Boyd, Open University Press, 2007.

They both written in the context of British universities, but I'm sure the ideas are fairly universally applicable.
There are also plenty of journals of higher education, if you want to get access to cutting edge research in higher education. Some are devoted to assessment, and others are more general:

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation
The Journal of Higher Education
The Review of Higher Education
The Journal of General Education
The Journal of Excellence in College Teaching

I'm pretty sure that this only scrapes the surface.
Finally, the Google returned some resources, which lead to more detailed resources:

https://www.aacu.org/
http://assessmentcommons.org/view-all-resources/

Depending on country, your university may provide training. In the UK all teaching staff must obtain a Post Graduate Certificate in Higher Education. While I still do not fully understand the process, it seems that this is nearly a Masters in Education. I would check with your office of professional development to see what courses they offer. You may also want to look at auditing a course in the Department of Education. Although in my experience Departments of Education are often rated as having poor teaching (this may obviously be due to student bias).

There's a Grad Cert; Grad Dip; Masters in Higher Education pathway in Australia available in distance modes, for example.

In case people care, I would down-grade the statement 'all teaching staff must obtain...'. For one thing, there are some variants on this course. Also, those who already have enough teaching experience are not necessarily required (or even allowed) to take the course. I think becoming a fellow of the HEA is the primary expectation.

(continuing) The course is not a Masters as such. It is a post-graduate diploma. It is a level 7 qualification, which means it is considered to be at the same standard as the first year of post-graduate study, comparable to a 4-year science undergrad degree, a PGCE, or some other professional qualification. I would not expect it to be treated as being like a research MSc.


text:
As an editor, what measures can I implement to prevent image/photo manipulation?
There's been a case of alleged data manipulation in a recent Nano Letters paper (initial report here; now-retracted paper):

You can surely make your own opinion on whether the images have been digitally modified, given the above snapshots (look for gray rectangles around the rods); I was careful to write “alleged” because the paper’s PI threatened legal action against the blogger who reported the issue.

Now, this case lead to a large number of comments here and there about whose responsibility it was to catch this issue (reviewers or editor). I tend to agree that the reviewer should probably have caught it, but this lead me to wonder:
As editor of a scholarly journal, what measures can I implement to prevent image/photo manipulation? And what about data manipulation? Organic Letters has made the news two months ago when they hired a in-house data analyst. Is that the way to go? Are there other measures one could take to reduce the threat of image and data manipulation?

I guess the answer is "None whose benefits will outweigh the costs on the long run". The photoshop gets better every day and the phrase "you can surely make your own opinion on whether the images have been digitally modified" certainly does not apply to me. I would just be cautious of authors with no or bad established reputation and stop there. It is the same issue as with plagiarism, etc. We may run a couple of obvious checks but it is just not our job to ascertain everything beyond any doubt or to defend our statements in the court.

Related for statistical data manipulation, What should raise red flags to detect fabricated data.

If you are not already doing this, I would insist that all images be submitted and be made easily available online at an extremely high resolution. The size and resolution of images in print will usually not be sufficient for readers to find the manipulations.

Well, I was going to comment that the aberrations could simply be artifacts of the image compression algorithm, most likely jpeg. This particular compression algorithm is notorious for leaving artifacts after the compression.
However, after looking at the images, I have to agree with the conclusion that they appear edited. And poorly so, I might add.

@JonathanLandrum: I've never seen jpeg rectangular artifacts that were rotated against the pixel x or y directions (unless of course the image was rotated and subsequently stored without further loss). And in the pictures above I'd have expected similar rectangular artifacts along those curved edges.

@cbeleites, that is why I wrote at the end of my comment, "However, after looking at the images, I have to agree with the conclusion that they appear edited. And poorly so, I might add." I suppose I might not have been clear enough. The artifacts I saw in the images do not appear to be the result of a compression algorithm of any kind. They appear to be the result of sloppy editing.

I think a search term for this type of manipulation detection is image forensics.  Matthias Kirchner: Notes on Digital Image Forensics and
Counter-Forensics may be a starting point.
What can you do?
I think a first step is to communicate clearly what image manipulations* are acceptable and which are not:

is it acceptable to adjust brightness and contrast?
correct unequal illumination?
whitelight correction based not on a whitelight measurement but on parts of the image?
digital sharpening or other enhancement filters?
where's the border between an inset picture and a fraudulent manipulation?

and so on.
Who should detect this?
I agree that the reviewer should have commented and asked about the pictures above, however my experience as reviewer is that I often get pictures in ridiculously low resolution (I comment on that). I'm not sure, but I think that the publishers may ask for high resolution pictures when they spot such problems in the production process. However, that would mean that the reviewers may not have seen the actual picture that is used for printing.

* manipulation in the data analysis sense: calculations that change the information content (e.g. enhance contrast), and cannot be easily undone (as opposed to a transformation where the back transformation is easily possible, e.g. rotation), not in the sense of fraud.

There exist softwares dedicated to this. Journal of Cell Biology seems to have been a precursor in this in 2002.
A first simple check suggested in this paper is to open images in a image manipulation software and change "controls" (I guess: contrast, luminance, etc.) The problematic regions can then appear clearly.
I would say that, like plagiarism, this is the publisher to check or provide software to the editorial board, as this is technical and not scientific assessment.

The link works for me...

It seems to me the only possibility is to subject all or particularly important images to an analysis detecting variation in noise levels (see examples here; service unfortunately closed). I personally do not know if such an analysis could be automated in an electronic submission system or be used as a tool by the editors. How much effort should be spent looking for fraud will obviously depend on assessments of, for example,  how critical images are for the publication(s), the likelihood for fraud (random tests?) and the cost in terms of time and money for doing the testing.
It seems to me there would be much use to have a tool to do such an analysis for all submissions. The problem is of course that the noise level detection also identifies all kinds of manipulation and so it would seem reasonable to ask authors to provide a very detailed account of what has been done to each image so that the analysis can be set in a perspective.

"Kill the chicken, and make the monkey watch"
Institute an editorial policy by which all convicted offenders are banned for life from the publication in question. Convince other publications to share such info, and act in the same way after definitive proof is presented. No second chances.
Publicize these events far and wide.
That will probably take care of 60-70% of the problem, at least the blatant cases such as the one above.
Unfortunately few publishers have the conviction to do that.
EDIT:
To answer your question: "Who do you ban among N coauthors?" To first approximation, all of them as co-authorship implies shared responsibility. However, that can be more accurately determined on a per-case basis as the result of detailed investigation.
Detecting instances fraud is trivial if crowdsourced. Blatant image manipulation as the one shown above would eventually have been noticed by a reader of that paper. Same applies to other similar kinds of fraud. Relying on a single overburdened editor and a couple of bored referees for that task makes it much more difficult. Hiring staff to essentially redo part of the research reported in manuscripts submitted to the journal is just laughable.
The point is to demand ethical standards as a publisher, and raise the stakes so high that the penalty of getting caught, guaranteed loss of professional reputation and possibly employment, offsets any gain from publishing a single or a series of papers.
Relying on automatic detection schemes is inherently unreliable. Smart people will always find creative ways to cheat more effectively. To illustrate my point, consider the unending arms race between virus writers and antivirus software companies.
To conclude, and since you seem to be quite green, I suggest you give this a thorough reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schon_scandal
It won't take many Schönen to drive the point home...

Life is complicated, shades of gray rather than black and white. There are questions with any black-and-white policy such as the one your propose, such as: “You have a paper with N coauthors, who do you ban?” I'm not convinced anything this would be enforceable, let alone give positive results.

Well, you did ask how you can PREVENT image/photo manipulation, rather than asking about how to detect it and confront authors about it. :) Emphasizing that manipulating photos like this is WRONG is one way to draw attention to the subject.


text:
Why retract a paper for intellectual property protection?
A recent entry on the Retraction Watch blog (“Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process”) highlights the retraction of an article in the Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology. The retraction notice has the following wording:

We regret to inform that the published paper included a few parts that disclosed confidential information which should have been protected under patent law. We admit that the request for retraction is due to the indiscretion of the authors, and confirmed that editorial committee of KJPP have not conducted any fault in publishing the paper.

However, as with all retracted papers, the paper is still available online; even if it weren't, it was available for some time.
So, given those facts, what purpose(s) does the retraction serve? The confidential information was published, and you can't get the cat back into the bag once it's out. This indicates an ethical failure of the authors, but in that particular case isn't that something they should sort out with their employer and the financial sponsor?
It beats me.

I guess it is just to make sure that the patent holders are not going to sue the journal...

@Zenon Why? the full content of the paper is still only, hosted by the publisher… and it was made available, in any case. Additionally, the retraction was made at the authors’ request.

then I can guess the company put pressure on the authors. Since we don't know which part was patented (at least I was not able to find it) the reasons might be hard to know for sure. If it is a tool, maybe the paper gives information about its error rate and they don't want competitors to quote those numbers (since the retraction invalidates all the paper). If it is part of the Compound, other studies will need to recreate this one first before continuing research, and then the company can stop them directly. I all cases'truth' might be hard to know without more info (mail the authors?)

@Zenon I use this particular case as an example, but I am not especially interested in it. The question is more general: it seems to me that retraction does nothing to protect IP, because the information that should have been protected has been published (and is still available online) anyway. This is what the question is about. Retraction doesn't remove information from public view, and thus, I don't see how it protects IP.

I hope someone with experience in that type of situation will really answer, but I guess what I was pointing at was simply 'the procedure to follow in case of breach of IP by their legal team'.

I have no inside information here, but my guess is that the retraction is basically a way for whoever owns the intellectual property to punish the authors (by ensuring that they don't get credit or citations for the paper).

My answer is based on an understanding of UK patent law. The UK Patents Act 1977 is based on a "first-to-file" patent system. This means, in part, that an application for a patent may only be validly made if that invention was not part of the state-of-the-art at the time of filing. State-of-the-art includes any information made available to the public as of the priority date of the application, which is usually the date of filing.
If confidential information regarding an invention is made available to the public without the consent of the inventor, before a patent for the application is filed for it, then under UK law the inventor may still make an application for a patent without the prior disclosure - the unauthorised release of confidential information - rendering the application invalid for lack of novelty.
In this case, if the journal published the confidential information before the inventors/authors authorised the release of the information - presumably before a patent was filed for the subject matter of the paper - then the retraction of the paper may indicate that the journal is acknowledging that they released the information inproperly, i.e. before an agreed embargo date set by the authors. This may add weight to the inventors' argument that the prior release of the confidential information was made without the consent of the authors and that the authors, as inventors, may still validly apply for a patent.
I am not a patent lawyer. This is not patent advice. My comment is written from a UK patent law perspective.

Thanks for this very nicely made point. I hadn't considered that!

I'd also add that the comment from the journal: "[w]e admit that the request for retraction is due to the indiscretion of the authors, and confirmed that editorial committee of KJPP have not conducted any fault in publishing the paper" suggests that the authors themselves authorised the release of the information, possibly before patent protection could be sought for it. The journal is making it clear that the journal was authorised - by the authors - to publish the information and that any consequent loss of rights regarding patent protection is therefore the fault of the authors.


text:
Can I get a university teaching job with only a bachelors degree?
I have a B.Tech (Bachelors of Technology) from IIT Madras (class of 2000) and looking to change tracks from my current job in the software industry. In university, I specialized in computer science and engineering.
I want to know if I can get paid as a faculty for teaching at university level either in private or public universities. I’m also interested to learn what possible salary ranges I should expect.

It seem to me that this should be a conversation between you and the universities you are applying to teach at. I also do not know what a b.tech is.

You can easily get teaching job in any of the private engineering colleges and NITs in India. They will be more than happy to hire you.

I have edited the question to make the question more clear and direct and to clarify the acronyms. I'm pretty sure I got it right but further edits or comments are welcome.

(U.S. answer follows)
It is virtually impossible to get a teaching job at the college or university level without an advanced degree at the Master's or PhD (or terminal professional degree) level.  Most faculty have a terminal degree.  The opportunities for teaching with a Master's are limited, especially because competition is high and even collegiate level positions that are open to Master's holders still attract PhDs.  Master's degree holders are normally limited to non-tenure track teaching positions and adjunct teaching positions.
If you really do want to be a teacher without an advanced degree, there are opportunities at secondary schools, although most public schools will expect you to start working toward your Master's degree in either Education or your specific field within a few years after you begin.  Private secondary schools are less strict in this regard, but these days you'll find that most teachers will work towards their Master's even in private schools.  With a computer science / engineering degree, you should be competitive for teaching positions in mathematics, physics, computer science/technology, and possibly other sciences.  When I started teaching high school physics, my undergraduate degree was in electrical engineering (but I also finished a Master's in education).
There are obviously exceptions to the above -- Bill Gates could get a job teaching at virtually any school in the country, and he doesn't even have a bachelor's degree.  But, unless you are in a unique category like that, you should be prepared to get an advanced degree of some sort if you want to teach at the college or university level.

Bill Gates could get a job teaching at virtually any school in the country — [citation needed]

@JeffE I should have expected that comment! :)  Curious if you disagree. (and I don't believe he would be hired in a CS department; rather, the business school).

Abdul Kalam (Once was President of India), was denied professorship at IITs, because he was not a Ph.D.

B.Tech is equivalent to the USA's B.S. I am mostly looking for India jobs

Additionally, 2-year schools may be willing to hire a BS for a teaching position, but most would have a MS and many PhD. It will depend on the school. These institutions have many names in the US, like Junior College or Community College. I am unsure of their counterpart in India.

Field norms can dictate what makes someone an exception.  Business schools would most likely not have a problem with the lack of a graduate degree for high profile business people.  Art schools have an MFA as a terminal degree, but rarely reject a famous artist based on lack of graduate degrees.

@JeffE He probably has honorary degrees.

@Geremia: Those usually don't count.  Jobs that require a PhD usually specify "earned doctorate".

You may be able to get classes as an adjunct instructor at a community college.  I currently have a bachelor's degree in computer science, with no graduate degrees.  I have taught courses as an adjunct instructor in computer science and in developmental mathematics at community colleges in different states.

My Japanese teacher needed to go back to college for a Masters degree, or be forced to leave Santa Barbara community college. Being from Japan gave no leeway in teaching Japanese to beginners. Hence the strictness in the US for a Masters degree to teach at any college level.

You will need a masters degree (at least) to teach university courses. With a bachelor degree however, you might be able to score a position at a highschool considering you've already worked in the industry.Though, if you're really dead-set on giving lectures at university, your best shot would be to pursue a master degree. There are possibilities to study a masters whilst working. You might even be able to teach a bit in highschool whilst studying for your master degree, see what that is like.
Though you might be able to become an assistant instructor, like Herkenham said. Which (here) means that you get to correct students work, give practical lectures (practical coding instead of theory based courses). Once again, having worked in the industry might play to your advantage.
I honestly think having worked in the industry increases your odds, but they are still against you.

Yes, it's sometimes possible to teach at a community college, for example, without a master's degree. I know of one community college that prefers to hire those with a master's degree, but they also accept those with bachelor's degrees + 20 hours of grad-level coursework.

I go to a decently ranked university and some of the lecturers for the first year computer science classes only have bachelor degrees.

Thanks for weighing in, but I think your answer (like many others) is overly broad; a lot depends on the kind of university, its ranking, its country, etc. In many cases, too, the people with bachelor degrees may currently be pursuing a higher degree while teaching.

very bad info here.  ive been teaching for years with no pressure to get a masters.  there's a nationwide shortage for teachers, so why would a masters be necessary?  also you can teach at the college level if the courses are considered prerequisite or remedial/college prep classes.  HS teachers are preferred for these classes as they are acclimated to the type of clientele you can expect in those type's of classes.

What do you refer to by “very bad info here”? Also consider that your posts are read by sufficiently many people to make your efforts in adhering to the spelling rules worth it.

Welcome to AC.SE. The question, and our site, is focused at the university level. I am not sure but I do not think there is a nationwide shortage, no matter the nation, of university teachers. In fact, if the competitiveness of the university job market is representative, there is in fact a glut.


text:
Unconventional fonts
Most articles and books are written in the conventional fonts like Computer Modern Roman, Times New Roman, etc. which are similar to each others. Why aren't more fonts used?
I wrote my course this year in a cursive font and it didn't cause any problem to any students. I'm afraid however that if I do the same in an article, the article will be ignored. Would you take an article written in such a font seriously? Would you even read it?
A sample of unconventional fonts:

Why would you ever pick a hard to read font (like most of these)?

You know that journals reformat articles to follow their house style, so they will change the font of your article anyway when it gets published, right?

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

I think the best reference on use of fonts and related issues is this book:
The Non-Designer's Design Book (4th Edition) by Robin Williams.
ISBN-13: 978-0133966152

Personally, I would need a really good reason to even try to read it. My eyesight isn't the best anymore and all of the examples you give here are very difficult for me.
Even in a course situation, you may have students with reading difficulties, either eyesight or dyslexia. So this seems ill advised.
I think you want the clearest font you can find so that the ideas stand out, not the typography. There are exceptions, I'll admit, for very specialized work.

@inéquation if you have to ask, the answer is likely yes.

@inéquation, yes. It is hard to read for more than one or two sentences. But then I can seldom read my own script handwriting anymore either. It goes beyond fonts, of course, though you may not have control. A fairly high contrast between the print and the page is also essential.

@inéquation I personally find this unnecessarily difficult to get a message across (yes, it's hard to read). And if you are a teacher or educator, that mainly is your job. Unless that font makes the message more clear (which in this case I can't see why it would), why would you want to make it difficult for people to obtain information?

As a sidenote: When I went to university, we had a course written in yellow font on blue-screen blue background. It was horrible for everyone - the whole lecture was, but anyways - nobody dared to complain.

No, neither I nor anyone I know would take your article seriously. It would most likely be rejected before anyone even read its contents.
We use these standard fonts because they have been proven to be easy to read, and when you are writing a article you don't want your reader being distracted by the ridiculousness of your font.
Also, take into consideration that not everyone can see very well. Picking a font that someone with a disability can read is vitally important as well. More here.
My recommendation is also to change your fonts for your course. You may not notice it, but I would posit that it is slowing down their ability to comprehend the material twofold.

Since they write in cursive why won't they be able to read in cursive?

Writing uses a different brain mechanism than reading. In fact some blind people who have lost their eyesight can write just fine. Reading on the other hand can be very difficult with disabilities such as dyslexia like Buffy said below.

I do not see a general problem in using different fonts, but your examples are rather extreme.
It is ok if your prefer sans serif fonts, or if you dislike them. It is also ok if you choose from the palette of different fonts that used in contemporary English books.
But I would refrain from using overly styled, old fashioned, or handwritten fonts because most of the readers are not used to them. It will slow down their reading and may give them the feeling that you do not know the standards (you could also print your whole text in blue, or use landscape paper, or number your sections in hexadecimals, but do not expect that people like it).

We choose conventional fonts in academic writing because they are most legible to the majority of people. In the comments you said:

Maybe the problem is that you're not used to cursive.

Why is this relevant?  The people that are "not used to cursive" are in the majority so it doesn't make sense to use cursive. Anyone can be trained to learn another script but that is extra, unnecessary work. The point of academic writing is to convey knowledge and the contents of a paper in the most succinct possible way. The font should not get in the way of communicating information. Therefore, we go with a font that the majority of people can read with the least amount of extra effort. The fonts you posted do not fall into this category.
See for example, this journal article: The optimal viewing position effect in printed versus cursive words: Evidence of a reading cost for the cursive font.
The authors conclude:

The results, obtained in both adults and children, indicated that
  participants were less efficient in word recognition with the cursive
  font than with the printed font. This is likely due to the fact that
  the processing of the cursive font involves a large number of
  perceptual difficulties. Prior research has demonstrated the important
  role of inter-letter spaces in saccade computation (Ducrot & Pynte,
  2002). It has been hypothesized that initial landing positions are
  determined by an eye-guiding mechanism based on low-level perceptual
  processing that detects the presence of spaces between characters.
  When the stimulus is discrete, the reader takes the direction of
  visual exploration into account and attempts to land left of center
  (for a left-to-right language), in preparation for subsequent
  left-to-right attentional scanning. When the stimulus turns out to be
  continuous, no attentional scanning is implemented. In the case of the
  cursive font, with the absence of physical delimitation between
  letters, participants were unable to use between-character spacing to
  guide eye movements and the within-word eye behavior was disrupted by
  the continuousness of cursive stimuli (even though the stimuli used
  were character-based strings). This interpretation is also in line
  with the hypothesis proposed by Lorette (1999) claiming that the
  processing of a cursive font involves strong segmentation
  difficulties. Moreover, this is also in agreement with several studies
  that have shown that the OVP effect gradually strengthens as
  inter-letter spacing, and hence letter eccentricity increase (Nazir et
  al., 1992; Nazir et al., 1998).

Note that this effect was seen even in children who exclusively use handwritten cursive!

My response might result quite personal, but had a very negative feeling when focusing on the sample texts provided.
I felt like I have to force my eyes to focus on the characters and I got some trouble to understand the text.
When you're not familiar with the text, you already need to concentrate to absorb the concepts. If you add the stress to figure out what the symbols stand for, it results exhausting.

Tl;Dr
Books are typeset using boring fonts because they are to be read, not looked at.
Long:
Fonts were and are designed through ages on a purpose. Really old fonts were engraved in stones, old fonts were handwritten using ink and they look accordingly to it.
Since Guttenberg's invention of press and hot typesetting the reasoning changed through time from easy-to-write to easy-to-read. In "recent" times the fonts started to carry the design feature as well.
Conventional fonts, like Computer Modern, Times, Palatino, Book Antiqua, are derived from roman engraved fonts - serifs make the line end look smooth - and improved to be easy to read and not to disturb the screen when in large paragraphs.
Fonts like Arial, Helvetica were designed to be easy-to-read on screen and compared to serif fonts there may be problems to distiguish vertical line| from majuscule I and minuscule l. (I'll be Ill trying to decoce this sentence.)
Fonts in your example are on the other hand focused on appereance of each glyph or each word, not the whole text. Their field is logotype, short fancy signs etc.
Try to generate 5 paragraphs of lorem-ipsum and set different font styles to them. You will see how much easier is to read the boring fonts compared to the fancy ones.

In addition to the reasons given in the other answers, many fields have specific symbols and terminology that are easiest to read in the context of a conventional font.
I don't believe you specified your field, but in mathematics for example a cursive R, a bold R and a roman R can all have different meanings and are purposefully easy to distinguish from the surrounding text. When placed in a typed longhand article these symbols do become harder to read and understand. Many other subjects also involve very specific notation that should ideally be unambiguous and obviously separate from the surrounding text, and using an unnecessarily fancy font is distracting at best.

If you ask me to define these fonts with a word I might say: funny, joyfull, merry, playful, childlish
So if you consider them for an academic article, don't use them!
It could be nice for a party invitation. But not so good for formal reading material.
A very special example comes to my mind. It's from the book The Little Prince: a Turkish astronomer discovers the little prince's asteroid in 1909 but the International Astronomical Congress does not believe him because he is dressed in Turkish costume.
Eventually, the Turkish dictator makes a law that everyone, under pain of death, must wear only English costume. After that, the astronomer presents his findings again. This second time his was wearing a suit, and the Congress believes and applauds him.
Prejudice is stupid, I know, but if you have only one chance to get your article reviewed, you should not discredit or risk it by the use of non-academic presentation parameters.


text:
Why are US PhDs different from European PhDs?
So apparently I heard from here, here and here about the differences in PhDs in the US and in Europe.
To sum up, it takes longer, on average, in the US than in Europe to finish a PhD since US PhD programs require less and have more coursework compared to Eur PhD programs.
Why is that so?
I tried looking it up but seemed to be getting the stuff above, nothing really explaining why that is so.

Like everything else: history, habits, 'culture', etc.

In the US at least, Ph.D.s in the humanities tend to take much longer than Ph.D.s in the sciences.  So maybe for comparisons this should be taken into account.

@GEdgar I think this is the same in Europe, partly because it appears that in the humanities a "part-time" PhD next to another job is much more common.

Can you clarify what you mean by "require less and have more coursework"?

It's actually amazing that something as complex as "a PhD" exists around the world and is similar enough everywhere that it makes sense to use one term for all the varieties.

@ruakh: I presume he means "require less prior training" (in that U.S. PhD can often be started after a Bachelor degree, whereas in various European places, a Master degree is a prerequisite for starting a PhD), and "have more coursework" (as in some European countries, PhDs consist exclusively of doing research and similar activities, not taking any courses or exams).

Why does milk in Canada come in bags but in USA it comes in jugs?

@Superbest: if you believe that it's for the same reason as the difference in PhDs between US and Europe, you should expand it into an answer ;-)

PhD instead of Master's or PhD after Master's.

The way people are paid during their phd probably plays a role as well.

@Superbest: Wait, what... bags?!

@CapeCode "Like everything else: history, habits, 'culture', etc." Yeah, there are reasons for those. I want to know the reason for this.

@RemcoGerlich Totally. I expected it to be different for each school rather than for each major land mass in the world like why a US PhD application is a thing. I expected applications and stuff would differ between schools in the US or that if they didn't they would be the same almost everywhere else.

@MarcGlisse Interesting. Care to explain further please?

@CodesInChaos What do you mean?

The question makes not much sense. Why would they be same / similar? Different countries, different education system, different academic system - the only reason for any similarities are actual conscious efforts of policymakers to harmonize the degree requirements.

@Greg what specifically? why are there only two main types of applications? Why is it the same almost everywhere in the US? Why doesn't Texas differ from Arizona? Why doesn't Germany differ from France? What about other places? Do Hong Kong and Singapore follow European? Why don't they have their own?

@JackBauer Texas and Arizona are in the same country. They have a government, what is your question? HKG, Singapore were territories/colonies of UK, so many things were mimic from there. Yet, their have their own peculiarities recently as they got independent. Learn some basic geography and history, please. Germany, France, UK etc used to had their own education system (elementary, higher and post-grad were all different), which were harmonized in most part in the EU Bologna Process and at similar meetings. So your question is mostly based on inaccurate assumptions.

@Greg "EU Bologna Process" Which was stated in some answers below. So my question makes sense after all. :D

There are actually big differences among European countries in terms of average PhD length, and program content. It can range from a formal seminar based education with some research to a no education at all with a "you have do solve ALL work related problems" attitude, and in such cases it is not an education at all, "just" a degree. The later one is appreciated due to the perseverance it requires. There are also huge differences among disciplines even in the same country and big differences from doctoral schools to doctoral schools.

@HorrorVacui thanks for sharing!

First, let me start off with a counter-question:
Why would you expect them to be exactly the same?
Different regions have historically different educational systems on all levels, starting from Kindergarten. Why would you expect specifically the PhD degree to have a completely uniform definition everywhere in the world? Of course there are nowadays activities to make degrees (incl. PhDs) more comparable worldwide, but these things take time. As politicians in Europe have learned as part of the so-called Bologna process, you can't just top-down decide that from now on, we are using the US system.
Of course, there are sometimes reasonable arguments for differences in system. For instance, you concluded:

it takes longer, on average, in the US than in Europe to finish a PhD since US PhD programs require less and have more coursework compared to Eur PhD programs.

In the US, a bachelor's degree is required for starting a PhD. In Europe, almost universally, you need a master or one of the older five-year diploma studies. So we in Europe expect students to hit the ground running basically from day 1 in their PhD. On the other hand, we don't require them to do much, or any, course work because they did all of that as part of the previous studies. Of course, if you then look only at the pure time spend in what is called the PhD studies, you end up with a shorter time in Europe.
Now you can of course go deeper down the rabbit hole and ask why European universities expect PhD students to have a master's degree first. The reason for that is mostly historical - around here, we often didn't even have Bachelor's degrees until the above-mentioned Bolognia process. What happened as part of this process was that decision makers ended up deciding that pretty much the first three years of the old diploma studies became "the bachelor" while the remaining two years became "the master". Of course, this reasoning led to the public opinion of somebody with "only" a bachelor's degree as a glorified college dropout. The universities implicitly also shared this notion, as there were never substantial motions to admit bachelor degree holders to PhD programmes in most universities. Slowly, the bachelor programmes are getting more profile as something better than just the first 3/5 of an actual degree programme, and consequently their public image also improves. Universities are nowadays also taking first tender steps towards making it easier for bachelor degree holders to start a PhD - however, so far, this is mostly targeted at making it easier for international students to enroll.
Important concluding remark: I am aware that a lot of the above contained pretty sweeping generalizations, which do not hold true everywhere. Specifically, Great Britain and Ireland already historically used a different system. However, I wanted to answer with something a bit more substantial than "systems are different everywhere".

around here, we often didn't even have Bachelor's degrees until the above-mentioned Bolognia process very true. Also, PhD itself is 'new' in many European countries, it used to be called a doctorate.

@CapeCode Yup. Still the case in Austria, as far as I know. Funnily, just a car drive away in Italy, "Dottore" means something entirely different.

@Cape PhD is the thing everyone knows, because, well, US and TV and stuff. But in essence, often you get a ScD, but that distinction is purely superficial (well, the distinction is probably meaningful within the same academic context of one (group of universities)), and essentially a "doctorate" is what you're getting, at least in Europe.

@xLeitix: in fact in Italy, the title Dottore refers to one who has a bachelor degree, but also to a physician. The title for one who has a master degree is Dottore magistrale. The PhD was born in Italy just thirty years ago and the corresponding title is Dottore di ricerca. So, almost anybody who has some kind of degree can be called doctor (no one actually uses the qualifiers).

As an interesting contrast, while one can do a 5-year PhD directly following a bachelors degree at for example Aarhus University, as far as I know it is practically impossible to do this unless you are a local (the advantages for the university are more to do with some funding issues than with international recruitment).

Americans routinely refer to a PhD as a "doctorate". "PhD" stands for "DOCTOR of philosophy", after all.

Yes, people often comment that it is odd that we say someone has a doctor of "philosophy" degree when his degree has nothing to do with philosophy, at least not in the traditional sense. You can get a "doctor of philosophy in physics", a "doctor of philosophy in history", etc. Almost all doctoral degrees in the U.S. are called "PhD"s. The few exceptions are medicine, where it's MD (Medical Doctor); law -- LLD (Doctor of Laws); sometimes theology degrees are called DD (Doctor of Divinity) but I think that's going out of style; maybe one or two others that I'm not thinking of.

The answer to your counter-question is pretty simple: because they're both called PhDs.

@Mehrdad They are not. The name "PhD" is not officially used in many European countries, and if it is, it is often only used since Bolognia.

@xLeitix: "In the US, a bachelor's degree is required for starting a PhD. In Europe, almost universally, you need a master..."  Do you have a source for that? Everybody I know with a US PhD, did a masters first.

Side note: The philosophical doctor historically was used for all kinds of subjects at least in Germany as well: my grandfather got his Dr. phil. in agriculture...

The traditional European university had four faculties: law, theology, medicine, and philosophy/arts. Essentially, philosophy (or arts, depending on the university) covered everything that was not law, theology, or medicine. MA and PhD were originally just different names for the same degree, and there were also other names. For example, in the Finnish system, most MA and MSc degrees are actually masters of philosophy.

"you can't just top-down decide that from now on, we are using the US system" Or vice versa.

Thanks xLeitix. To answer the question, I did not think they were EXACTLY the same. I was just surprised when I was told by a certain education office ( http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42916/what-kind-of-phd-proposals-should-i-read ) that I have to make a proposal and contact a professor before applying to a school. I mean, do master's in Europe require bachelors or near-bachelors to speak to professors before applying to schools? Also, I was merely asking why there was such a difference (eg Some people shake hands, and some people bow. Why is that?).

@Jack "Do master's in Europe require bachelors or near-bachelors to speak to professors before applying to schools" mostly no, but most European master's programmes are course-based, with a small thesis at the end. You don't need an advisor until right the end. PhDs are basically entirely thesis, you need an advisor right from the start. Also, masters are pretty much always unfunded, PhDs pretty much always funded with substantial stipends or full salaries.

@Jack "Also, I was merely asking why there was such a difference" I was trying to give an idea about this, but at the end I think it is hard to give a really satisfying answer to such questions. It will always (even in the example you gave) boil down to "different history" and/or "different culture".

@xLeitix Your question to me is asking why I would think US and Eur PhD program(me)s would be similar. So there you go. Bachelor's and master's are no different in US or Europe. I did not think it would be different for PhD level. Oh another thing, I attended a graduate school tour some time ago. One booth was for a school in the US. I was not told about having to talk to professors first. Another booth was for a school in the UK. Same thing. So did the guy leave out an important detail?

@xLeitix I'll assume yes.

I can talk about PhDs in the UK, I have less knowledge of the rest of Europe, but I know that it is not similar to the US.
In the UK, you specialize early in a subject, and your education is therefore narrow and deep. In the US, you specialize later, and your education is therefore wide and not so deep. It's changed a little (but only a little) since I was in school, but at age 13, I dropped all but 5 subjects plus math(s) and English.  I chose the three sciences (chemistry, biology, physics), geometrical and engineering drawing, and French. If you chose not to take any science at age 13, you were not going to be studying any science at university (I think this is changed, so you are required to take at least some sciene). Hence I have studied no humanities since I was 13. At age 16, you reduced again to three subjects - you are interested in science, people typically studied physics, chemistry, biology, or perhaps swapped the biology for maths. When I teach psychology undergraduates, health science undergraduates, or health professionals who are taking postgraduate courses, they will typically have done no math(s) since the age of 16. (This is a challenge, as I teach them statistics. If they knew anything about algebra, they've forgotten most of it. They will deny ever having been taught calculus [and that's true, they probably have never studied it]).
At 16, I chose biology, psychology and environmental science. (Env Sci is, or was, essentially applied chemistry and biology, with a bit of geography).
In the UK, you go to university to study a subject, and that is what you study. There is no concept of picking a major. If you want to change your major, you usually start again. (In my first year, I studied two subsidiary subjects for 50% of the time, after the first year, I did nothing except psychology courses.
When I graduated at age 21, I had a degree in psychology, and I'd been studying psychology for 5 years (and psychology had made up almost 2/3rds of what I'd studied from age 16).
The PhD has also changed, but in the UK at the time, the purpose of the PhD was to write a dissertation. That was the only requirement. In the US, there is the idea of PhD-ABD - all but dissertation. In the UK, this would make no sense, there is no requirement for a PhD except for the dissertation. You start, and on day 1 you work on your dissertaion. On day N (where N is quite a large number) you submit your dissertation, and you're finished. This is changing, or has changed so that there is a coursework requirement for a PhD; but in the US people talk about taking courses in departments outside their PhD subject. This is very rare in the UK - you take courses offered by your department, and you take the courses you have to take, no more.  British PhD dissertations are considerably longer and more substantial than American PhD dissertations.
In comparison to an American student, a UK graduate in (say) psychology seems to know more psychology. But they know a lot less other stuff. In the US, it seems (to me) to be common to do a master's degree (or even a PhD) in a subject that you did not major in at undergraduate. For example, I've known people with a degree in economics or sociology who take a master's degree in statistics. This would be very rare in the UK, you would simply be too far behind everyone else on the course. (Many years ago, I applied for a master's course in applied statistics (an early online course) - I'd published papers on statistical methods in psychology, and had a PhD on statistical methods in psychology; I was rejected because my background was unsuitable.)

But why exactly? "In the UK, you specialize early in a subject, and your education is therefore narrow and deep. In the US, you specialize later, and your education is therefore wide and not so deep."

Hmmm... I've never heard of a reason. I guess if you're designing a system you can choose narrow and deep or wide and shallow. I'm not sure why one country went one way, and the other went the other.

@xLeitix actually answered :P

Why do you think its not similar in other parts of Europe? Here in Germany, for example, it is pretty much the same...

@Adrian - same as in the US or the same as UK? I've edited my answer to clarify.

I think the goal is to get people to do the work of (approximately) 4 years undergrad, plus 2 years Master's work, plus 3-5 years of doctoral-level research. You can either lump that into 3 explicit degrees, or you can lump the latter two into one degree and just do a Bachelor's and a PhD. The overall amount of work is not that different. Not all people will get this equivalent level of training, but lots more programs have this level of required work than the simple US/EU divide would suggest.
Some folks (many? most?) in the US that enter a PhD program directly after their Bachelor's degree are eligible to pick up a Master's degree along the way based on completing the required coursework for the PhD. Some just don't bother to fill out the paperwork. I didn't. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Additionally, if you enter a US PhD program with an appropriate Master's degree, you can almost always short-circuit the initial coursework requirements and go straight to research. I think it's probably less common to do this because it requires 3 college applications and maybe more moving around than does staying at your first graduate institution, but some people do it.

Except in the UK it is often 3 years of undergrad follow directly by a 3 year PhD. I think it is probably better to describe it as  foundational coursework followed by 1-2 years of advance coursework.

@StrongBad, yeah, though I gather the UK is a bit of an outlier in this regard.

Typo, or what : Some just don't bother to fill out the paperwork because. I didn't ?? Funnily, seems to suggest - they don't, because you didn't. #Trendsetter (otherwise, +1)

@TheDarkSide, sorry I was going to give a reason, but then I couldn't remember why I didn't bother. So I've removed the extra word.

@StrongBad yes, and the UK pattern (in the sciences) has now become 3 years to a bachelor's or 4 to an MSci (which isn't the same as a (postgraduate) MSc), and that has now become the usual PhD-entry degree. ...Except in Scotland, where the university-entry exams can be completed at 17, and the degree is generally 4 years, or now 5 for an MSci. Thus the differences go all the way back to school exams. (This also means that it's unusual, but not freakishly so, for someone to be at university in Scotland at age 16).

Europeans beat Americans? >:P https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/study-at-different-places/

The idea that European PhDs are uniform is misleading. Similar, there is no single US PhD. The differences in PhD programs, stem from differences that develop during primary and secondary education. For example, in the UK students begin specialising during their "A levels" and the undergraduate degree is a highly specialized 3 year degree. In the US, secondary education and the undergraduate degree include more breadth.
The teaching responsibilities in the US and UK are also different, with there being less off topic advanced level teaching in the UK. This means that post graduate course work, is to an extent less important, since you will not likely be teaching that material. For example, a CS researcher teaching in a small US EECS department might be required to teach undergraduate signal processing, but this would almost never happen in the UK. Having taken a graduate level class is really helpful for teaching undergraduate level classes.
Finally, there are cultural differences. In the UK, there is more pressure to get a job. In the UK, many people opt to skip a research intensive post doc and instead go directly into teaching intensive positions with the hope of switching tracks later. The funding models are different also
TL;DR They are different, because they are different.

Thanks StrongBad. "Having taken a graduate level class is really helpful for teaching undergraduate level classes." Why?

@JackBauer this might be better as a new question, but graduate level classes cover the material in so much more depth that they usually prepare you for any questions undergraduates might ask and give you options about how to steer the class.

I'm sorry. I have no idea why I asked that. No one out of undergraduate studies can just teach junior or senior undergraduate classes without taking a master's degree, in general.

There is a lot of diversity in American universities and a lot more in Europe. I have studied in four European countries and all of them had different PhD award requirement and average PhD duration, course work requirements, etc. A sweeping generalization would be that European universities require a master's degree, and PhD on average takes three years and in the US you require a certain number of credits and a bachelor's degree.
In reality, there is a lot of variability. Some American universities do require a master's degree before a PhD - e.g. doctoral programmes in engineering at UIUC. But many others admit you to begin a PhD and then expect you to either get a master's degree along the way fulfilling course credits or allow you to transfer those credits to PhD directly.
Interesting fun fact - several American and European universities have admitted anyone who passes the entrance exam to a doctoral programme - even if they didn't have a bachelor's degree. What they expect, to award a PhD, is just contribution to the field and proof of competence as a researcher. But now we have institutions that enforce credit systems, quality control and so on, so there are these hard requirements at some level subject to many things imposed by institutions based on country, credit system, university, discipline, department, PhD award committee and even perhaps professors.
These limitations now exist because there are way too many institutions and universities now, and I won't be surprised if there is someone out there who is doing a PhD in this very subject. If you find them, let me know. :D

But why exactly? "A sweeping generalization would be that European universities require a master's degree, and PhD on average takes three years and in the US you require a certain number of credits and a bachelor's degree."

Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process

@xLeitix actually answered that :P

European countries agreed a few years ago on having all similar official durations for PhDs (3-4 years). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process.
In all european countries starting a PhD requires having completed 5 years of study (european master degree), while in US it is in theory possible to start a PhD after 3-4 years of study.
TAship is less common and far less stringent in most european countries than in US.

"Habilitation"
In Germany and many other European countries, historically, a PhD was not enough to get a professorship (whereas in the US a PhD is required for associate-professor positions, I think).
In many fields, PhDs had to apply to the tenure committe, and then were allowed to write and submit a "Habilitation" paper or internal report. After acceptance, then you could apply for a professorship, and be tenured.
So, historically, often:
(Professorship qualification phase duration in Europe) = PhD phase + Habilitation phase
This requirement has been "reformed away" since the 2000s, and often been replaced by "junior professorships" (multiyear fixed-term contracts).
Local traditions and requirements with respect to "Habilitation" strongly differ. in some fields this still exists; and at some universities, it has been "reformed away" even earlier.
For "University of Applied Sciences" (Fachhochschulen - less prestigious but still pretty good universities), there was no such requirement.

So, the fact that before getting a PhD wasn't enough to get a professorship meant that PhDs did not take that long, and it remains similar to this day?

Over the decades, PhDs durations have become longer. Professors in the drastic-reform periods (after WW2, and 1970s) needed less time, e.g. Bachelor directly to PhD was more common. Since the 1990s, a PhD in STEM Fields is scheduled to take 3 years (in most cases, funding is provided for 3 years), but can take longer. In Law planned duration  is less, in medical schools it is less (6 Months - several years). Teaching load is less.


text:
With a background in mathematical finance and desire to apply for a mathematics PhD in another field, do I need a second master's?
Pardon the dumb question if ever. I notice similar questions all sound like "can I get a second master's?" but mine is "do I need?"
I am nearly finished with my master in mathematical finance. I have finished my thesis and have one course left to take.
Edit: I am about to graduate from a third world university and am planning to apply for a PhD in a first world university.
I am interested in taking up a PhD in a different branch of mathematics called stochastic analysis (stochastic calculus. or whatever it's called.) but am wondering if my background is insufficient. If so, I may take up a second master's.
Given my limited background in stochastic analysis and other information (below), can I already apply for a PhD with stochastic analysis for my dissertation topic, or might I need a second master's first?
Some information:

I am not particularly interested in mathematical finance anymore unless it is in a rigorous context rather than with computers, modeling, statistics, non-mathematical finance, simulations, etc. As of right now, I no longer have any plans to go into industry.
My background in Stochastic Analysis is 2 courses on Stochastic Calculus, 1 prerequisite course for Stochastic Calculus (probability) and 2 halves of classes which apply the stochastic calculus.
I don't know about the basics of one kind of stochastic calculus as we were taught mainly the other kind.
My thesis is about credit risk, having mainly to do with statistics, the part of mathematical finance I don't want to go in to, if I were still interested in mathematical finance. Hence, I feel have no background in mathematical research given that the research conducted was mainly to do with statistics and finance.
I have read a sample PhD proposal and have no clue what to put for methodology. I am not quite sure what kind of research methods pure mathematicians have.
Furthermore, while I technically passed the thesis, I scored the lowest passing mark. Meanwhile, I did score well in all the classes relevant to stochastic analysis.

I think the answer to your question may depend on more than just "which world" you are applying to.  In Europe, entering PhD students often have very advanced, specialized training.  In the US, having a master's degree in a closely related field is better than average training for a PhD (but moreover having a more advanced degree is not too highly correlated with success in the program).  I think you would certainly get consideration in a US program.  On the other hand, "lowest passing mark" does not inspire too much confidence: if your letters are not strong, it will be hard.

@PeteL.Clark Thanks. You mean I might get into the US if I were to somehow demonstrate other abilities that compensate for "lowest passing mark" and lack of specialized training? I scored high in the relevant classes.

@PeteL.Clark Regarding which world, I was editing just in case it was brought up as apparently it was important in another question. Another question, do you have any idea if the methodology thing I mentioned may be a problem?

Regarding #5, a dissertation in pure mathematics usually consists of a proof of one or more theorems.  The research method is "you prove the theorem".  I would suggest that in order to be adequately prepared for a PhD in pure math, one should, at a minimum, be comfortable with mathematical proof in a variety of areas, and have enough experience reading the research literature to know what a mathematics paper looks like.  If that's not the case, then probably you do need more preparation.

@NateEldredge Q1 "variety of areas" Within my own desired field you mean? Q2 "The research method is "you prove the theorem"" Shall I refer to your answer here ( academia.stackexchange.com/a/34045/22511 ) in this matter then? ----------- Also, thanks. Absolutely right on the preparation. I plan to read several textbooks and papers on stochastic analysis.

A variety of areas throughout mathematics. And that answer of mine that you link was written for an audience completely unfamiliar with mathematical research - someone ready to pursue a PhD should already know what it says.

@NateEldredge US PhD or Europe PhD? :P (referring to your brilliant answer and follow-ups)

I would say the answer depends on your background in mathematics, and from the information you give, I can't tell how extensive that is.  It isn't so important what the title is on your degree; it matters what you've done and what you know.
To start a US-style PhD in pure math, in which the first couple of years are coursework, you should have the equivalent preparation of a bachelor's degree in mathematics.  It should include, for example, about one year each of proof-based real analysis and abstract algebra.  You should be very comfortable with reading and writing mathematical proofs.
To start a European-style PhD, you are expected to be ready to begin working on research.  You should have completed graduate-level courses in algebra and analysis, and be very familiar with fundamental material in your subfield.  For an area like stochastic analysis, for example, I'd say you'd want to know the majority of the material in a textbook like Karatzas and Shreve, and be able to work through the proofs and solve the exercises.
One question is - what was the level of mathematical rigor in your courses up to stochastic calculus?  If it wasn't high, that's likely to be a problem.

1 Thanks Nate. That does seem to explain why some of the UK and other European schools I heard of require PhD proposals involving frickin literature reviews while some American schools don't. 2 For the US part: My bachelor's is mathematical finance. We didn't have a thesis because the program assumes most of us take a master's in mathematical finance which then has a thesis (which isn't mathematical). I am very comfortable reading and writing mathematical proofs. I haven't had abstract algebra. :(

3 For the Eur part: Daaaaamn. Any idea why European schools are so tough? That is one of the books referenced in my Stochastic Calculus I and II. I plan to start reading that along with others ( http://math.stackexchange.com/q/1204999/198044 ) sometime this week. But is that really enough? Just because I am familiar with the material doesn't mean I can do research well, does it? Or is this kind of post-master's, pre-PhD self-studying the substitute I need for a thesis?

4 On Rigor: ugh...I had 1 course on Advanced Prob. We used some chapters of Prob w/ Martingales by Williams. StoCal I and II were not very rigorous looking back. Mostly proving results used in finance. We did discuss Our profs didn't discuss convergence of random variables, or go into Radon-Nikodym derivative stuff, but those things were mentioned. They also didn't prove prove Ito's lemma or Girsanov Theorem. As I recall, we proved stuff involving simple processes or functions but didn't prove further than that. Afaik, my program doesn't assume its students will continue to PhD unlike MS Math.

5 "A variety of areas throughout mathematics. And that answer of mine that you link was written for an audience completely unfamiliar with mathematical research - someone ready to pursue a PhD should already know what it says." --> This is kind of why I am asking the question. I did not have thesis in undergrad. My thesis in grad in researching methodologies in finance and statistics for the particular case I had. None of that is (pure) mathematical research.

I can't answer all of this right now, and to be honest, I think you really need a long talk with some mentor in the discipline who knows you and your preparation.  I can't be your mentor over the Internet.  But just in general: European programs are not inherently "tougher", they just assume that you are further along (have a masters in the field).  US PhD programs are designed for students to start immediately after a bachelor's degree, so naturally the amount of background knowledge demanded is less.

The first two years of a US PhD program would get you to roughly the same point at which you would start a European PhD, so US PhD programs take about two years longer overall.  It's true that knowing the material in a book like Karatzas and Shreve does not by itself imply you are ready for research - but research in the field will require intimate understanding of those ideas, so if you don't know the material you are very likely not ready.  This knowledge is necessary for research but not sufficient.

Nate, you are too humble. You did answer my questions. Thanks :P

Nate, may you please comment on this, if you don't mind? Is taking a year or so off between master's and PhD to do independent research a common practice in Europe?

In some sense, the whole point of contacting a professor is that you're going above and beyond the official application process, as a way to stand out. If the university was to formalize a process for contacting professors, then students would find some other "out of band" way to try to make a special impression. – Nate Eldredge Sep 6 at 18:56 - Thanks for your comment :P

I'm an engineering graduate student, so things may be different for maths. That being said, I don't think it will be an issue (at least in the US). You should check the admission requirements for the universities you are interested in applying to. I made a similar switch within my major between master's and PhD and nobody cared.

Thanks. If I may ask, what was your major in engineering and your major in PhD? (major or thesis topic or dissertation topic, whatever the term is hehehe)

You said "You should check the admission requirements for the universities." In general, do university admissions offices care if my PhD dissertation is different from my master's thesis? I'd imagine only my doctoral advisor would care...I think?

*major in master's and your major in PhD?

My master's was in themo/fluids and my PhD is in robotics (pretty close to zero overlap between the two). I don't think the admission office would really care (I don't think they would even look at your thesis title). I think all they would care about would be what your major was. Your prospective adviser may care though.

"My master's was in themo/fluids and my PhD is in robotics (pretty close to zero overlap between the two)." --> Wicked. "I don't think the admission office would really care (I don't think they would even look at your thesis title). I think all they would care about would be what your major was. Your prospective adviser may care though." --> As I thought. Thanks Hadi. Here's a funny video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkwAzoiMnpw

Hadi, would you say that the methodology in thermo/fluids and robotics have overlap even though the topics have none? Sorry for the confusion. That's a big problem I have actually...I think.

I'm not sure I agree with this answer as it applies to math.  It's not essential that the fields be the same, but it is essential that you have background equivalent to someone with a bachelors/masters in mathematics.  And one doesn't tend to encounter rigorous proof-based mathematics in other fields.  People with degrees in, say, physics, do sometimes go on to grad school in mathematics, but only if they studied a significant amount of math, more than a typical physics degree would require.

As Nate mentioned since engineering and math are pretty different this may not apply to you. However, there is barely any overlap between the methods involved in fluid mech and robotics. I pretty much had to start from scratch.

@Hadi Still helpful. Even if not, it could turn out to be. Thanks Hadi. :)

Just a small clarification on why Europe and US is different (to what mister Pete L. Clark said): The duration of the stay, in Europe it is 3 years and in the US it is 5.
That being said, if you go to Europe, in my honest opinion, you should do at least a master 2 (second year of the master studies) first. They recommend this at the university that I am in and they have a good reason for it (even thought it might sound stupid at first). That way you will meet the people who you might do a PhD with, you will be able to adapt to the environment (if you are not that strong to start off a master 2, go with a master 1 even if it is easier, it gives you time to adapt and adaptation is KEY. Not only that you will study there, you will have to live there for the next few years at least). On the other hand, they have applicants from all over the world. They cannot get a good picture of what mark means what in each country or university.
Conclusion: If it is Europe, look at the tests/exams that  Master 1 (contact the director of Master 1 studies if the tests are not available online) students have to pass through, if you think you can solve them with little problem* then go for Master 2. If not, go for Master 1. Good luck!
*At some universities (especially in France) tests are made so that they cannot be fully solved in the given time. That is why you can sometimes solve 2/3 of the test and get 18 out of 20 as a final grade.

What is a master 1 and a master 2?

@TobiasKildetoft The Master studies in most of Europe take 2 years to complete (the higher education consists of 3 years bachelors + 2 years masters (master 1 + master 2) + 3 years PhD for those who want to get to the last level). So Master 1 is the first and Master 2 is the second year. One can apply for an entry directly into Master 2 if he/she feels ready for it.

Yes, I am familiar with the European system (as much as there is a uniform one). Those terms, however, are not ones I have come across before, so I doubt if they are standard.

I don't get it. What's a master 1 and master 2? How can someone take only a master 1 if they refer to year levels in a master's degree?

@Jack Please read the explanation that I gave to Tobias regarding the Master 1 and Master 2. I said "only Master 2" because if you feel ready, most European universities will let you start directly from the second year of the master studies. And when I said "go for Master 1" what I meant was for you to start at Master 1 and then do Master 2 hence completing your MSc studies. I hope this helps.

@MarkoKarbevski Yeah thanks but I did not understand the explanation you gave Tobias. Rereading, I think I may have gotten. Did you mean I should consider applying for "Master 2" which means completing a second master's in only 1 year instead of PhD directly and if not plausible (based on Master 1 exams) then just take a second master's?

@Jack Yes, exactly.

@Jack You are most welcome. Also don't forget that in many European countries, the education is really cheap (~300 USD for an entire year), so it is almost as if all you have to pay for are the living expenses. Good luck!

@MarkoKarbevski Oh yeah. I heard about that. Is it true that it's cheap because they want to attract more non-European students or something? A friend of mine said he was planning to take a master's in Austria, and the tuition was about the same as a where I took my bachelor's and master's (in a third world country) :O

@Jack That is one of the reasons, yes. They also want education accessible to everyone that lives there as well as equality for the foreigners, where there is space for it (especially if they are motivated). I also come from a third-world country and the price was the reason that I went to France (as well as the fact that I had B1-B2 level in French and that the maths here is top-notch). There are a ton of master programmes in English too.

@MarkoKarbevski To clarify, ~300 usd tuition for a year? You don't mean ~3000 usd, do you? 300 usd is 1/10 the tuition in my third world university.

@Jack Yep, around 300 usd. To be precise, it is 200 euros a year.

@MarkoKarbevski Example of schools? That's insanely cheap. How does anyone get paid?

Pretty much all French universities, each one that you will find here:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/SubjectMathematics2014.html They are all state schools though.

Wait Marko, you mean the European ones there?

Marko, does the low tuition apply to foreigners? http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49589/is-education-in-europe-really-this-cheap/49590?noredirect=1#comment115148_49590

@JackBauer It does for the state universities (excluding the buisness, architecture and probably art schools).