text:
May I include results from a collaboration in my PhD thesis?
As a Ph.D. student, I am curious about the following: if you collaborate with a researcher(not necessarily your advisor) while being a student, should you write in your dissertation the work of the other collaborator?
Assume that while being a student, you collaborate with Prof. X, and you write a paper together. In this paper, the work was split 50-50, so that half of the results belong to Prof. X.
What should you do when writing your dissertation? Most probably, omitting the results of Prof. X will result in a significant gap in the thesis. I am particularly interested in the case of mathematics: if I cite the result, should I give a proof?

You should definitely discuss with Prof. X what you can include in your thesis and how to present things.

As with many things, you need to ask your advisor. My department had a rule of maximum one coauthored chapter, but my advisor had a rule of zero coauthored chapters :/

It is completely normal to include in your thesis work that was done in collaboration. Almost every PhD thesis in STEM subjects includes at least some collaborative work, simply because your PhD itself is a collaboration between you and your advisor.
Usually, you just need to clearly state what work in your thesis was done in collaboration and with whom. It may also be expected that joint work should be put in your own words, rather than just copied from the paper.  That's good practice anyway, since it's a great way to make sure you really understand the work. And you'll need to understand it because you can be examined on anything that's in your thesis.
Check your individual university's regulations for the precise details. And ask your advisor – this stuff is literally their job.

Assume that while being a student, you collaborate with Prof. X, and you write a paper together. In this paper, the work was split 50-50, so that half of the results belong to Prof. X.

That simply isn't how collaboration works in mathematics. The results "belong to" all the authors, because they came from a creative process that heavily involved all of them.  Of course, some parts of the work will be solely by one person sitting in their office with a cup of coffee until they figure it out on their own, but it's mostly not like that. And usually, even these "solo results" receive at least some contributions from the other authors as the paper gets written and rewritten. And, very often, even if it was Author A who came up with the actual proof, Authors B and C were part of the process that led to that particular technique being chosen, and so on.
Of course, there are some exceptions. Sometimes, an author joins a collaboration late because their expertise on some area is needed. In computer science, papers are often released first as a shortened conference version (which is a peer-reviewed publication, unlike in mathematics) and later, the full version appears in a journal. I'm aware of papers where extra authors have been added to the journal version because of specific contributions they made after the conference. I guess the closest analogue in mathematics would be a paper going up on the ArXiv and then acquiring extra authors. If an author in that situation was a PhD student, I'd expect their thesis to include only a high-level summary of the material that existed before they joined the project.
The fundamental rule is honesty. If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you made significant contributions to the work and you're clear about who else contributed, it's almost certainly fine. If you're including big chunks of stuff that you made no significant contribution to, I'd hope you already know that it's wrong to say "I did this."

The short answer: Yes. However, it may depend on several details. In my case, I did include results from a collaborator in my thesis and that was generally accepted. I was however asked to provide an acknowledgement section where I had to clarify which results were done by me and which by the collaborator. Also, my thesis was in organic chemistry so things might be different in mathematics. So while  I can't say if it is common or not in mathematics, I can tell you that it was allowed in my case.

The instructions when I did my thesis were to just be clear about contributions from other people.  I had 5 or 6 pieces and really 3 of them needed to fit together like a triangle.  One of those 3 was mostly done by a visiting summer scholar.  I got him started and did some measurements, but he took his "triangle leg" and drove it himself.
I always considered it part of my original domain so I wanted it in there.  Plus you would have had a logical content gap if you omitted it.  I just wrote a sentence or two paragraph (in italics, in main text) at the front of the relevant chapter.  I think this was adequate.  Being upfront and explanatory.  But didn't require some long, precise allocation of every detail.  Just the basic explanation that I gave you here.  There was still "plenty of work" where I was the main driver so it was not an issue.
We had already co-published the "triangle leg" separately as a regular journal article.  Visiting scholar taken care of (put as first author of that leg).
It is very normal that people work in collaborations (especially in experimental science) and that different students need to write up their theses in addition to regular journal articles. Just be upfront about what you did (don't say you fabricated samples if you did measurements or visa versa).
I am not used to some big signoff from the collaborators. They just wish you well.  It is a good touch to give them a copy of the thesis (electronic or spiral bound, bound volume not required) so that they can learn from it, benefit from it, retain it for insights for themselves.  Sometimes theses go into a bit more detail or are better explanations than terse journal reports.
If you are STILL worried, just notify him of your plans (going to have our collaboration as chapter 3, will credit you).  Collaborator can squawk if he wants.  (Unlikely, he will wish you well instead.)  Uh...just don't try to get him to help you write thesis or the like...it's your glorified term paper, not his school assignment.  He will be journal article driven.

In our country, the Higher Education Commission requires a student to publish at least one paper in any well-reputed journal (IMPACT FACTOR or MASTER LIST JOURNAL) with lead authorship. However, there is no such restriction on including papers into thesis with multiple contributors.
In my personal opinion, I humbly suggest that a written consent of the co-authors should be obtained. To me, it sounds good both ethically and to be on a safer side. Also, the rules of the university matters, if they are silent then go ahead but atleast get a written consent of the co-authors for dealing with any possible future issues.
Hope this helps
-- Rocky

In addition to the accurate answers so far, it's worth pointing out that the order of the author list matters in some fields: The first author is generally assumed to be the lead author, that is, the author who contributed most. In these fields it can be the case that lead authorship is required for claiming a paper for your PhD thesis.
Details may depend on the institution. For example, at the institution where I did my PhD, the regulations explicitely required three papers with me as the lead author for a cumulative PhD. A colleague of mine, who collaborated in a group where authors were always listed alphabetically, had a statement in his thesis where he assured that he was the de-facto lead author of his papers.

@NajibIdrissi You're right, my answer is probably not relevant for the OP. It may be relevant for users who have the same question, but are from a different field.


text:
Permissions to reproduce an image while writing review papers
I've seen some review papers use images from other articles under the 'adapted from [ref]' description while most others use the standard 'reproduced with permission from [ref]'. Does the former not require asking for permissions from the original publisher? If I redraw images myself, is it sufficient to simply cite the reference at the correct places and not ask for permissions?
If I ask for the permissions to reproduce a large set of images from a variety of different publishers for my review paper which is to be published in a particular journal X, and for some reason they reject the review; do I need to ask for the permissions again before sending the manuscript to another journal Y?

Usually the journal you are submitting to, will have instructions (even a form with legalese).
If it is just for your thesis, I don't think you need to be hyper legalistic, but ask for permission for the intended use (in your thesis).  Email is sufficient (don't need a signature, but don't rely on word of mouth either.  If part of the thesis ends up becoming an article later, just go back at that time and ask for the fuller permission using the journal's advised form or instructions.

In short:
In a review paper, you can reproduce parts of the articles you are reviewing, with proper citations.
In long:
Redrawing and reproducing images are different issues. The answers may vary in according to each country law, but I'm trying to give a general outline.
Information is free while its creative expression is protected by copyright. Therefore, you can take information from published images and draw your own, just as you can take information from an article and write your own text including that information. The resulting image is your own work, and the need to cite your source is mandatory in academia because of intellectual honesty, not because of copyright. However, your image wouldn't be your work if you had copied creative elements of the original work, just as a text is not your work if you copied sentences from someone else's work.
In the other hand, there are situations where you are allowed to reproduce other people's works. In the United States, fair use doctrine apply when limited reproduction of a work is justified and it doesn't cause an unfair prejudice to the copyright owner - copying for review purposes would fall into this category. Other countries have a more restricted right to quote which allows the cite of a part of a work for critics, review or discussion. Usually this right is extended to images and review papers would perfectly fit its purpose.

Thank you for your input, especially the longer explanation.

Do you know this from experience? I have been told that images are treated differently, essentially each being considered a separate item, so fair use does not allow you to reproduce them.

Not from experience with reusing images in academic articles, but yes from experience with reusing images under fair use in Wikipedia. The fact that each image is a separate issue doesn't affect fair use, but you have a point that "limited" reproduction may prevent you from reproducing the images with more quality than strictly needed for reviewing purposes.

@AndrésE.Caicedo - However the question would benefit from an answer from anybody else with more experience in this context. I tried to do my best when I saw the question had sit unanswered for 11 hours.

The publisher of the review will most likely require you to request the permissions prior to publication and hand them in. And yes, you need to get a new permission, if the image shall be published somewhere else. I'd suggest to contact your library. Several have a copyright service and will assist you in requesting the permissions.

Most major publishers use automated copyright clearance forms (look up "RightsLink") attached to articles websites. There is usually a "request permission to reproduce" link next to the paper whose figure you want to reproduce. You are asked about the type of work (e.g., a review paper) where you plan to reproduce the copyrighted work. For typical academic use you are granted permission immediately and for free. You'll get an email with the terms of usage (how to cite) of your license and perhaps publisher-specific requests (for instance, APS asks that you also seek permission from authors).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it polite to ask to be the corresponding author in a paper that I contributed the most?
I wrote a paper and have done the majority of the work, including the idea generation, research, and the writing. I am coauthoring with my advisors and a few other researchers. In the paper the authors will be alphabetically listed due to a cultural factor. The field is a branch of applied math where some people still do alphabetical ordering.
One advisor is in the UK and one is now in the US. Other authors are either from US or Europe.
Usually the corresponding author is the "boss". However, in certain countries, only the first or corresponding author's publications will be materially counted.
So I want to ask my advisor if I can be the corresponding author as otherwise I will be only the third author. The corresponding author is not confirmed yet.
Is it reasonable or polite? How can I initiate this talk without annoying an advisor?
A big thank to all of you for your suggestions. Two points I learnt:

Corresponding is an extra work, or a burden
Seniors usually do the job because they have a stable contact method
Corresponding author knows the work better

So here is what I try to politely ask my advisor:

"Will you be happy to do me a favor? I wonder if it is possible for me to submit the paper and be the
contact person, as being the contact person is a big burden and I can
handle those chores which I probably know better. We both use gmail
and gmail is stable enough. Although you contributed much more than me
by providing some big pictures, I think a chance of being the contact
person will be a meaningful training experience for me to grow-up."

Then I will agree with whatever he says.

Some related info: Here is the American Mathematical Society's 2004 "culture statement" on coauthorship.  It says that more than 75% of coauthored math papers (including both pure math and some applied math fields) with at least one American author use alphabetical order, and that this percentage is over 90% in pure mathematics.
Might be Related: Uncommon order of authors names?
Is there an inflation in the number of authors per paper?
Can I add a baby as a co-author of a scientific paper, to protest against co-authors who haven't made any contribution?
Why do people sometimes put authors with equal contribution in non-alphabetical order?

Note: the field is not pure math. Since some of you raised a valid point that authorship status does not matter that much, here is a quote from a professor, in a related applied field that relies heavily on mathematical skills:

A follow-up on some of your concerns: I do work in signal and image processing. Some worthy young applying candidates from mathematics are disavantaged because of the poor knowledge of people in the neighboring field, and the first letter of their names, at the end of the alphabet. That is why these discussion are important, to fathom the different uses in science –
Laurent Duval

I've heard about the same thing from the colleagues, too.

Third out of how many?

@AzorAhai-him- At least four. Could be five.

What cultural factor? Is the factor that the culture is math?

@AzorAhai-him- It is a branch in applied math and applied statistics where many researchers still insist the alphabetical listing. None-alphabetical list is also possible but it is unlikely to change this at this stage. Everyone joined the project knowing that the list will be alphabetical but corresponding author is not determined, yet.

So if the corresponding author is usually the boss, why should you be the corresponding author?

@AzorAhai-him- To survive

Is there really anything significant about being the corresponding author your field?  In pure math, there is none, and it seems like you're following our authorship conventions.

@Kimball I am in applied math. It really depends on the location and the discipline culture. I've read that math students having a bit hard time in finding research positions because applied field values first authors more (I can try to find references if you want)

@Roland Do you mean that, if the student knows the paper best and the student also has a permanent email address, you will think it is the most convenient to let the student be the corresponding one?

@HighGPA If you don't have an argument to be corresponding author other than "it looks good for me," I can't imagine asking to be it would be a good look.

@AzorAhai-him- On the other hand, being asked for a favor that costs you negative work  (not having the responsibilities of corresponding offer) is sort of a no-brainer to accept. Even if the role means nothing to most people, if it is helpful to a student/mentee in any context and costs nothing I'd hope an advisor or senior colleague would jump at the chance.

@BryanKrause Well, if we don't question the premise that the CAship is 1) usually the PI and 2) valuable to all authors because there's alphabetical ordering, asking to be the CA would be as rude as saying "Can I be first author instead of John because I need the publication more?"

@AzorAhai-him- You are definitely right, except that John is not appointed yet. It is basically asking to be the first author, so I have to do this politely.

@HighGPA Right, but I asked why you deserved to be the CA (going against convention the senior is usually CA), and you only said "because it would be good for my career," which isn't an appropriate argument. If you meant something else, please edit.

@AzorAhai-him- You remind me about the convention. If breaking the convention will make the seniors unhappy for sure, then I think the career benefit of being the corresponding author does not offset the unhappiness of the seniors. So my new argument could be: "offer the senior to release his burden of being corresponding author and still remind happy"

Would it, though? If they are unhappy about you breaking convention, they (a) aren't likely to agree, and (b) a good recommendation from your supervisor is more valuable than one paper. Corresponding authors are usually stable in their jobs, beyond being a designation of seniority.

@AzorAhai-him- Agree. So you are suggesting that I am not suppose to attempt this at all? What I found on this forum is that professors here believes that being the corresponding author is all about works with no personal benefits, so I am offering to release their burden.

@HighGPA Yes, exactly. But I'm not in your area

@AzorAhai-him- Ok, I updated a message in the main post, detailing how will I approach my advisor. I will only mildly attempt this once. Do you think I am reasonable?

I think you are overstating the importance of being corresponding author in the pure math field. It is a job, not an honor. Ideally it should be the person most able to answer questions that might be raised in the future about the paper. It is for that reason that a senior person is often corresponding author. They have more experience and a broader overall view as well as, perhaps, having more time since you suggest you do the bulk of the work here.
In pure math, the reason that alphabetical listing is used is that there is an assumption that all contributed "equally" to the content of the paper. It doesn't mean that they all contributed "in the same way", but in math, a short conversation in the coffee lounge can be the crux of a hard problem.
But, I think that if you are an early career mathematician that you should ask to be corresponding author and the reason is that you want the experience of fielding any future questions on the paper and what that might lead to in possible collaborations.
And, if you are the one most familiar with the "whole of the work" then you are a natural for the job of corresponding author. Asking is fine.

Agree with the main point that corresponding author is not an honor.  But it’s best if the corresponding author is someone with a permanent job because it’s more likely that someone will be able to get ahold of them in 5 years.  Earlier career people don’t have stable email addresses, and it’s hard to find email addresses of people in industry.

@NoahSnyder, more enlightened universities will preserve the email addresses of doctoral students, perhaps as a pass thru and perhaps by request. Some colleges preserve them for all students. This was the case at Dartmouth in the past, but I don't know now. I think it is a brilliant move, actually.

This answer is very encouraging and reasonable; I truly appreciated it. My field is applied math and applied statistics though, not exactly pure math. Still very helpful to me and now I understand how I initiate the talk.

Glad to help. Your citing of AMS led me to make assumptions. Things can be a bit different in applied math, but if you use the alphabetical author convention I think this applies.

@Buffy Sorry for being not clear. AMS says that 75% of all math paper are alphabetical, while 90% of pure math paper are alphabetical.

Oh gosh. Ideally this was discussed early on with the condition that this can be revisited again throughout the process as roles shift, demands in time, etc.
Hopefully you have a good relationship with your adviser and can simply ask, "Could I talk you about authorship?" or least help bringing this up to all those contributing.
Good luck as maybe not everyone may see eye-to-eye or whoever is first author may not  want to cede that position.

There is formally no first author as the authors are alphabetical. But indeed, many research shows that even if the authors are alphabetical, the first author still benefit more from it.

Ideally the authorship is discussed early but in the research process many other helps may be needed so adding other authors could be inevitable.

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


text:
How can I deal with a significant flaw I found in my previous supervisor’s paper?
Suppose that I found a technical flaw in one of the papers coauthored by my previous advisor. This mistake will substantially change their major result, but their contribution will be still worthwhile after the correction. I am 90% sure about my findings. It is not a difference of ideologies or subjective beliefs, but a mistake in purely technical analysis.
My previous advisor is among the top-three worldwide in his narrow field, and that paper was published on the top journal. He was neither the corresponding nor the first author. The first and corresponding author was also his previous student. So here is my possible options (any other suggestions are also welcomed):

Write a short paper and submit to the same journal. The journal welcomes this specific type of submissions. Best case is, if my previous advisor is happy to see his previous students are still contributing to this field, then I will get a top publication. Worst case is, since many of the referees are also his previous students, they could possibly defend our teacher and deny my submission, and I lost all the precious time redoing the analysis and writing the paper.

Talk to my previous advisor. Since he keeps constant contact with the journal’s editor, he can definitely update that mistake, much faster than me; that way I will lose a worthy publication. He can also decide to ignore my findings or even try to prevent my findings to be published because they significantly challenge his result.

How can I choose between these, or is there a third way?

Update: I am preparing to send a friendly inquiry, politely say things like:

Dear XX, It was a pleasure to read your exciting work titled XXX. Could you do me a favor by explaining your analysis in ABC? I was hoping to do analysis XYZ such that your results can be refined and here are my preliminary findings. Do you feel this approach promising? Would you like to help? Thanks for sharing thoughts, again.

How do you feel about the tone? Shall I be more explicit?

Update: after talking to multiple mathematicians about erratum, I find that even the most honest, objective, and rigorous mathematician will be deeply embarrassed in heart with new mistakes found in his paper.

I’m struggling with the implication that you don’t trust your advisor (previous or not) enough to have a frank conversation about their results, without fear of your ideas being stolen.

Shouldn't the fact that the paper is by your previous supervisor mean that you contact him/her?

@corey979 I am a little worry about the possibility of ideas being stolen...

@JeffE This is exactly what I was struggling with...

@Alchimista I'll do that

If you trust your previous advisor, I would:

Talk to him (or his co-authors) to figure out whether you are really correct about that mistake. Also state that (if correct) you would like to get a publication out of this due to the effort you put into this. If he accepts the mistake, you may then benefit from having him on your side (be it as a co-author, reviewer, etc.). If it turns out that you were wrong about this, you save a lot of time. If he doesn’t agree, but also cannot convince you otherwise, you can still to have an open scientific debate about this.

At least in my fields, contacting the authors is the common first step when noticing potential mistakes in papers, independent of the relationship to the authors.
This is less to give them a chance to correct it, but to give them a chance and use their capabilities to dispel potential wrong arguments.
If you do not trust your advisor and pre-prints are a thing in your field, consider having a pre-print ready for submission when talking to your supervisor, so you can outrun them (or use any of the other methods to prove priority). At least in any reasonable journal, you shouldn’t be able to correct a fundamental mistake just like that. Corrections need to undergo at least some review as well.
Finally, if you think that your field may be so corrupt that corrections of mistakes can be completely suppressed, you should seriously ponder whether you want any reputation in that field anyway. If your answer is no, you have nothing to lose, and may as well try to publish about the mistake. Either you succeed or you can make a fuss about the way you were rejected.

I am following your advice by preparing a informal inquiry (updated in the main question). I will update their responds if there is any.

Two suggestions:

You found that someone was wrong in a good journal.  The fact that the error was published in a good journal does not mean that it is worth working on.  You should decide if this error is really worthy of your research efforts.  It might be better for you to work on something more important.
If you decide to pursue the error, you can choose to present your correction as a new idea.  If you tell people that you have found a new idea that advances the state of the art, that makes you look good.  If you tell people you have found someone else's error, that makes the other person look bad but may fail to make you look good.  The actual substance of the research can be the same, but the way you present it makes a world of difference in how it is viewed.

Thank you for your suggestions! You just did me a huge favor by sharing your precious experience. Not sure if my following understanding is correct: a paper with "new idea" must have innovated designs and methods, while a "correction paper" usually use the same approaches and the same methods as the original. You recommend me to do the first one? Do I need to explicitly say that the previous results were wrong in my "new idea" paper? Thank you again for your help.

Don't you just love academia, can't even say somebody is wrong because "it might make you/somebody else look bad"... maybe we need a 4chan of journals where you don't have to worry about your reputation because nobody has one.

@MattiVirkkunen I agree with you. If I just love academia, I suppose to work on the flaw in the most efficient manner, regardless of reputation or publications.

@MattiVirkkunen I believe the concept you are referring to is etiquette. Not unique to academia.

Unfortunately, depending on the topic, published mistakes can damage reputation (e.g. in math, as far as I know). This may, depending on topic, affect your advisor. Publishing a correction oneself can mitigate that. Other fields are less sensitive to honest mistakes.
So, the question becomes:
Do you have a good relation with your advisor? Then it were just an act of friendliness to give them the opportunity to fix their mistake. If you make it public, it means that you do not feel friendly enough to give them this opportunity and you feel that you need to go formal.
Which is acceptable and not wrong, but it clearly sends a message that you do not feel obliged to give your advisor the opportunity to rectify, in favour of getting a few pages in this journal, or else - as suggested elsewhere in the thread - that you do not trust them to do so.
The question is really if you think that this correction is so worthwhile to be published as standalone that you go possibly contrary to your old advisor and his friends.
To be sure: if one thinks something is seriously wrong with a given important research and the original researchers are not prepared to fix it, then one should report it (one has to balance this feel of duty with the fear of potentially ruining one's career).
But this is different from above: you do not know yet how they will react as long as you haven't given them the opportunity to correct the mistake. In this case, however, it is certainly not about getting a correction paper into a journal; the stakes are higher. Any backlash, if they are unhappy with your suggestion and you end up publishing a correction, would counteract any advantage from getting your paper into that journal. You should do this because it is the right thing, not because it advances your career.

Trying to communicate with the first author. My email is updated in the main question. I will give more updates later. Any comments welcome. Thank you agina!

Talk to your previous advisor and just say I read the paper you were co-authored in, why didn't you do X analysis?

Doing it right now

I have been working through a paper by my PhD supervisor published in a very reputable journal. I wasted a lot of time before I realised that one of his equations was wrong.
What was the reasonable, professional thing to do? In my opinion, without any question, it was to contact him and say, frankly, I think that X is wrong, maybe it is a typo. His answer "I have looked at my original papers: "it was wrong then and is wrong now: it was not a typo."
A few weeks later I found another mistake, as I thought, in the same paper (actually on the same page of that paper). Same procedure. Answer - brief but conclusive explanation from my supervisor as to why it was not wrong at all. He was right.
Moral of the story: everyone can make mistakes, including your supervisor and YOU. As Oliver Cromwell put it: "I beseech you, ..., think it possible you may be mistaken." Having done so, approach the person concerned to express your comments with appropriate recognition  of your own fallibility.

Thank you for taking time sharing your stories. I will try to be frank...

Probably more likely than not that he either doesn't like it or defends the old calculation.  That's human nature.
Thus, I counsel course one:  a corrective paper, not a discussion as in course two.  Just put the thing out there and let more people judge versus trying to convince your advisor.

Thank you for your ideas! The difficulty is, since this field is so narrow, my submission is likely to be ended up on the hand of his friends and/or students.

Well, you can decide to fight it or wash your hands.  I would think there are ways to get a publication out.  There are so many journals out there.  But it depends if you think it's worth your bother.

@HighGPA People overestimate their ability to figure out who reviewers will be.  If there are only a few people interested in this topic, why are you bothering to work on it?

There are many aspects of this.
People make mistakes. Even top mathematicians make mistakes.
People have egos. Top mathematicians are no different. See the movie Good Will Hunting for a dramatization.
There are a lot of different sorts of mistakes that one can make in mathematics:
Suppose someone publishes a theorem with a "proof" that "A is true". And suppose that you have a "proof" that "A is false". Assuming that the axioms aren't inconsistent, one of the "proofs" is wrong and needs to be resolved. It could invalidate a lot of other work if A is false.
Suppose, on the other hand, that someone publishes a "proof" that "A is true", but you find an error in the proof. Without more work, the truth of A becomes unknown. Perhaps you can supply an alternate "proof", establishing "A is true". This is a proper advancement and deserves publication even if no one has questioned the truth of A.
You describe a somewhat intermediate case, of course. A is 'mostly' true, presumably with a proof.
In mathematics, often enough the proofs are more important than the theorems, if they give a certain previously unexplored insight that permits the proof of other things.
However, you say you are 90% sure of your work. That doesn't seem very high to me, but that is just a guess, as your estimate is likely also a guess.
How to proceed.
Write up what you have found as a proper publication, citing the earlier work and complete in every way. You can submit it to a journal (any journal, actually) or you can submit it to your advisor for comment. Send an email stating that  you think there is a problem/issue/error and the enclosed paper develops the idea.
Either way you will get feedback, either from reviewers or from your advisor. But it is feedback that you really need. You might learn that you, too, have made an error.  You might get a request for collaboration if you send it to your advisor. You might get a request for co-authorship, though that would seem to me to be less valid.
But, the bottom line here is that it is the mathematics here that is the important thing, not the egos. Yes, your advisor will "feel bad" if s/he has made an error, but, like I said, people make errors. There are a lot of published errors in fact.
One reason that errors get published, other than simple carelessness, is that in an esoteric corner of a field there are only a few people qualified to review a given paper. Likely all of them were similarly trained and have the same, or very similar, insights about that field. If the author missed something, it isn't especially unlikely that a similarly trained person will also miss it. If you "expect" something to be true, in the middle of a complex proof, you won't be as likely to notice that it isn't. There are many papers by prominent mathematicians with this sort of error. They are worth correcting, especially when the correction leads to new ways of proving things or new kinds of insight.
Politically, the proper course is to send it to your advisor, rather than first to a journal. But this depends a bit on your past and expected future relationship with the advisor, as well as your judgement about how ego driven they are.
But, among other things, you need to reduce the 10% uncertainty you have to zero or near zero.

You are right. I should not do this correction for my career; I suppose to do it for "science". So regardless of the tier of publication I have to put in time to reduce the 10% uncertainty. Thanks for your advices.


text:
Shall I give a template to the rec-letter writer?
Many professors, specifically in China, wants students to provide at least a template (half-written letter). In US, is it similar? I've read an article from Harvard Business Review website saying that it is better to enclose a template. https://hbr.org/2010/04/how-to-ask-for-a-reference-let-1-2 I think HBR is a credible source for US professional practice?
However, I am afraid that this practice would seem really creepy to some most honest professor. For example, I once informally ask a professor if he wants a template. He decisively refuses.
After that experience, I never mentioned about a template in US. However, later, some professors (in US) asked me in a vague way that they want a template. So I am kind of confused. What is the default way?
Here are my options:

Include the well-written template letter along with my materials (he might be insulted)
Mentioning that I am going to include a "narrative list of accomplishment in third person tense", along with my PS and CV. I would also mention that this is just to save his time and minimize his trouble; it is not to force him to write me in this way. If he does not refuse, then I send him all documents. If he explicitly says that he does not want the "narrative essay in third person tense", I would just have him writing the letter or switch that guy.
Ask the professor directly if he wants a template letter written (he might be insulted but he might just think that I am ignorant)

Asking for a template letter is bad practice, albeit probably not uncommon in some countries.
Generally speaking, I'd avoid volunteering any template, and if the professor asks for one, think carefully whether you really want a letter from them.
When you ask for the recommendation letter, just include your CV, possibly a transcript of your exams, and then ask the professor if they need further information. This may be similar to your point 2, but avoids suggesting a narrative.
You don't specify your field, but I think the above is sufficiently broadly expected in STEM fields (in my experience, even those who ask for a template, frequently recognize that it's bad practice). Therefore, I definitely disagree with the author of the linked HBR article.
Points of view similar to mine, if not even stronger, can be found elsewhere on this site. See for example:
This very detailed answer from Pete L. Clark
This comment from JeffE

https://hbr.org/2010/04/how-to-ask-for-a-reference-let-1-2 I think HBR is a credible source for US professional practice?

@HighGPA See my addition.

Would you be offended if the student is proposing to send you a "narrative list of accomplishment"?

Any application where this letter of recommendation will be used will also contain the CV and the transcripts. So if the letter is just a summary of these two it is not very helpful. Some additional information can make the letter much stronger, the question is how to communicate it in an ethically impeccable way.

Writing a template letter looks ethically questionable to me but it is perfectly reasonable to give the professor some guidance as to what you want written in the recommendation letter. The ideal way is to have a 1-on-1 talk but if that is not feasible you can also provide some written notes.
Giving the professor the base information like your CV and transcripts is good start, but a good letter should contain more than can be seen from your grades. So something like your list of accomplishments would be useful. I would put this extra informaton in bullet points or some similar format so that the professor can't just copy and paste and has to actually write a letter for you.


text:
How is Gmail better or worse than Alumni email or a temporary institutional email?
The majority of researchers use "edu" emails on their research publication, when some academia use Gmail as the corresponding address.
Many of the young researchers do not have a permanent "edu" email address. It is seem to be consensus of this site that Gmail is better than temporary emails and alumni emails. According to other answers, the Gmail option receive much more upvotes than the alumni option.
Established researchers and people on this site heavily promote Gmail; in contrast, on research papers, the vast majority of the junior researchers put their temporary institutional address rather than Gmail. Although I cannot find a research article backing up my "statistical findings", I am quite sure about this at least for students in my school.
In my opinion, alumni email combines the advantages of both Gmail (permanent) and institutional email (credible). However, people do use Gmail much more often than alumni email. I've read or skimmed thousands of papers and alumni address was noticed only once. I guess it might be weird if the email address and the affiliation come from different educational institutes?
So I ask: how is Gmail way better than the alumni email or temporary email? If Gmail is so good, why do people still use temporary emails at the most of the times? If I have a permanent alumni address, is it a choice better than my temporary address or Gmail address?

This question is unanswerable without knowing the purpose for which you are using the email address.  Teaching?  Contact information in a publication?  Joining the alumni association?  In any case, your choice of email address matters little.

@AnonymousPhysicist Contact info in research publication

I guess the cited answer isn't representative.

I don't see anything contradictory here. What precisely is claimed to be the contradiction?

@TobiasKildetoftto The majority here voted for "Gmail" while the people in real life vote for the other option.

@henning--reinstateMonica That is a good point. There are at least three QAs here on this site arguing Gmail is a very good option for junior researchers; those answers get a lot of upvotes. For example this one: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2873/69151.

How is that a contradiction? That just indicates that the group of people you have looked at either do not follow the advice given or have not heard the advice.

Your edit did not actually make the question clearer.

This thread recommends you use a custom domain: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/122253/choosing-an-email-address-provider-for-academic-work-as-you-change-positons The answer you cite doesn't recommend gmail. It just says using Gmail isn't objectionable. Given its context, I actually interpret the answer as saying: if (given frequent changes between short term positions) you can't use an institutional email address, gmail isn't worse than other solutions.

@henning--reinstateMonica You are definitely correct; however, this specific thread receives little attention and I don't know why.

The email address listed in a publication (per clarification in the comments) does not matter at all, so long as you can read email sent to it.
Most of the email you will receive will be from automated systems.  I use a unique email address for each publication.  These unique email addresses receive many requests for money from fraudulent journals.
Exception:  According to rumor, a few universities have (insane) rules requiring you to use a particular email address in your publications.

I didn't know why people downvoted. From my experience, once you block those fraudulent journals, you can easily see some honorable communications such as questions and material requests.


text:
The referee says that I did not attempt to "reject" my model – what does this mean?
A referee wrote:

The experimental results tried to confirm but did not attempt to reject the model.

Obviously my null hypothesis is that my model is wrong, and I rejected that hypothesis. What does the referee mean?
Details: the null hypothesis is that the model does not significantly explain the data. So I think if the null hypothesis is not rejected, then my model is not confirmed and not rejected. Confirm a model is much, much harder than not reject a model in statistics.
Did the referee mean that I have to set the null hypothesis as my model is correct and then try to reject that hypothesis?

This might be a better fit for stats.stackexchange.com, possibly

Your referee's statement makes no sense: Experimental results don't do anything. Are the results not clear enough to make a judgment on your model?  Did you not try to use the data to fit some other, incompatible model? Was the experiment badly chosen, or just not sensitive enough?

Of course, it’s hard to be any certain without intimately knowing your work and you have to judge whether the referee’s request is any reasonable, but:
This sounds like a request for Popperian falsifiability: The referee wants you to perform an experiment, analysis, or similar that – given your a priori knowledge – could reject the model.

Obviously my null hypothesis is that my model is wrong […]

I do not find this so obvious. In many cases, a model being wrong does not pose a feasible null hypothesis, because it would have to include every alternative model. There are exceptions to this such as when your claim is that some model has predictive power and you can investigate the null hypothesis that its predictions are as good as chance. But even then, your null hypothesis is something different from “my model is wrong”.

Details: the null hypothesis is that the model does not significantly explain the data.

That does not sound like a null hypothesis. First, the word significant (in the sense of statistical testing) does not make sense within the hypothesis as it is a property of the data with respect to the null hypothesis. Second, what does your null population look like? For any given model, there is an infinity of models that are an even worse description of the data. Are they present in your null population?

Very helpful! I updated the details. What do you mean specifically by "reject" on line 4? I think I do perform a analysis that could "reject" the model. I have a null hypothesis, and the null hypothesis is not . I think I might misinterpret your meaning of "reject" on line 4. Do you mean that I have to set the null hypothesis such that the model is correct and then try to reject it?

@HighGPA : The only descriptions of your null hypothesis you have given are "that my model is wrong" and "that the model does not significantly explain the data".  What experiment could reject either of these.  Neither of these, as written, are "testable", that is, are susceptible to measurement or rejection.  This Answer suggests a testable null hypothesis: "that [the model] predictions are as good as chance", which is testable -- there exists an experiment which produces at least one set of data that rejects this hypothesis and at least one set of data that does not reject this hypothesis.

@EricTowers I am not sure if I understand it correctly but do you mean that I have to prove that my experiment is able to produce at least one set of data the reject and one set of data that won't not reject the hypothesis? Any examples will help my understandings. Just one name of any good paper with a good design will suffice and I'll download the paper myself. Many thanks again!

@HighGPA: I think I might misinterpret your meaning of "reject" on line 4. Do you mean that I have to set the null hypothesis such that the model is correct and then try to reject it? – No, and it’s hard to elaborate the alternative without writing an essay about falsifiability. What is usually done is comparing the model to some data that did not inform the model in any way, i.e., it neither inspired its general form nor contributed to the parameters. In this respect, your model should perform better than a reasonable alternative, usually the model you are proposing to replace.

I think this answer just restates the question "The referee wants you to perform an experiment, analysis, or similar that – given your a priori knowledge – could reject the model." and does not say how to do that.  Note the null doesn't need to be stated.

@AnonymousPhysicist: Well, the question was aiming at understanding the referee, which can be solved by rephrasing (in a very broad sense). The question does not ask for a detailed instruction of what to do – which we cannot give anyway not knowing the work in question and which would be off-topic here anyway.

It's been many years since I've been in Academia, so I may be wide of the mark, but my interpretation of what the referee is saying – loosely speaking – is that your experimental data is "too easy" on your hypothesis. While your experiments tend to suggest the hypothesis might be true ("results tried to confirm [...] the model"), they do not (in the opinion of the referee) sufficiently "stress" the hypothesis by including "difficult" data.
Taking an analogy with software engineering, it is common practice to perform unit testing on any new block of code. While it is important to include tests that represent "normal" input data (that "[try] to confirm [...] the model"), it is also important to include "edge cases" and "difficult values" that are essentially chosen to try and "break" the new code ("attempt to reject the model").
For a simplistic example, consider a function add( param1, param2 ) designed to add two numbers together. A simple, if slightly naive, set of tests might check that add(1,1)==2, add(2,2)==4, add(5,5)==10 and add(10,10)==20. Passing these tests gives some evidence that the function is working correctly, but they don't really stress the code. Suppose that instead of writing result = param1 + param2 in the body of the function, you had result = param1 + param1 (either through "finger trouble" when first creating it, or a later search-and-replace that changed more than intended). Those tests will still pass, but they won't detect that the function is merely doubling the first parameter.
In conclusion, I believe the referee is saying that while the experimental data you've included does tend to support your hypothesis, you've not chosen a sufficiently wide range of experimental data, and that you cannot claim that the hypothesis appears to be true even in the face of experiments deliberately designed to disprove it.

Here is an example.

Hypothesis: Penguins only live in Antarctica.
Alternate hypothesis:  Penguins only
live outside Antarctica.

Experiments

Attempt to reject the alternate hypothesis: Look in Antarctica for penguins.
Attempt to reject the hypothesis: Look outside Antarctica for penguins.

To gain useful information, you need to do both types of experiments.  The reviewer thinks you only did the first type of experiment, finding penguins in Antarctica and rejecting the alternate hypothesis.  The reviewer wants both kinds of experiments because the reviewer correctly suspects that penguins live both inside and outside Antarctica.
Formally speaking, hypotheses should only be rejected based on evidence and not confirmed.

Wouldn't the null hypothesis in that case be that penguins live not only in Antarctica?

@DavidZ The null hypothesis is not necessarily unique.

In that case, maybe what I mean to ask is: haven't you incorrectly identified the null hypothesis?

@DavidZ  That's not relevant to the question in hand.  The example hypothesis is also wrong.  The null I've provided is just to illustrate the reviewer's point of view.

There are considerable problems with this answer: 1) The null hypothesis and the hypothesis (a.k.a. alternative hypothesis) have to be complementary. As @David Z pointed out, they aren’t. 2) “Penguins only live in Antarctica.” is not a hypothesis that can be reasonably assessed within the framework of statistical testing. 3) You never attempt to reject the hypothesis in the framework of statistical testing. 4) This does not connect to the modelling context at all.

@Wrzlprmft I don't see how your criticisms 2-3 are relevant to the question, which is not about statistics but rather experimental design.  4 Models are a subset of hypotheses.  1 Might be correct, but I think complementarity is a matter of opinion.

The word null is just a distraction, so hopefully this edit is clearer.

@AnonymousPhysicist: The term null hypothesis is a technical term that is predominantly, if not exclusively used in the framework of statistical hypothesis testing. If you use this term, you have to adhere to its rules (or specify that you are outside this framework for whatever reason). And then Point 1 is not a matter of opinion anymore and Points 2 and 3 are very much relevant.

@Wrzlprmft I did just remove it....


text:
Would a good AP Calculus exam score help for admission to mathematics graduate programs?
I have had a privilege of knowing what concerns the admission committee about my applicant's file for pure math degree. As of right now, the most significant concern expressed was my weak performance on the GRE subject test (in math.) My question is, would the committee care about the perfect performance on AP Calculus tests, AB and BC? Could it somehow help to mitigate the less-than-appealing GRE math score?

Related and possible duplicate question: Should I include high school details in Grad School Resume?.

Thank you! It's related, but slightly different: GRE and AP Calc don't indicate the ability do to research, but rather the ability to... I actually don't know. I am still in shock that, for some reason, making time to study for GRE is more important than doing research or learning something useful in my classes.

The questions on the math subject test are all on material that a strong math student should know from those classes where you learned something useful.

There are other things that can outweigh a bad GRE score. I had an absolutely appalling GRE score, but I had research experience and excellent recommendations. I'm currently at a top-20 university.

Retake the Math GRE if you can. AP scores are poor predictors 4 years out. I had an appalling AP Writing score, and I ended up with a 6 in the GRE Writing Section.

I would say a graduate admission committee in pure mathematics would consider AP Calculus scores completely irrelevant.
Good scores (even perfect scores) on these exams show only that you are (or were) competent at high school / freshman calculus; if this were not the case, you probably should not be applying for grad school in mathematics at all.  As a mathematician would say, calculus competence is necessary but not sufficient for success in a grad program.  Of more direct relevance is your preparation in more advanced, proof-based subjects (abstract algebra, real and complex analysis, etc), of which the GRE is a better (thought not necessarily good) measure.  You must have observed that these courses are of a very different flavor from calculus, with much more theory and less rote computation; at the graduate level this trend will only continue.
Even if you are brilliant at calculus, math professors know that this does not necessarily carry over into more advanced subjects.  They really want to see what you have been doing lately.
(Disclaimer: I am a mathematician but have not been on an admission committee.)

I am a mathematician and have been on admissions committees, and I endorse this message.

Putting an AP calculus score in an application for math graduate school is inappropriate, almost like saying you are listed in Who's Who. Nobody cares and it will carry zero weight with an admissions committee. It might even count against you to suggest in an application that an AP calculus test  is a worthy alternative to the GRE math subject test. (I'm not even sure why someone would take both the AB and BC exams.) Equally useless would be a recommendation letter from your high school math teacher.

I am case study #1 for your third paragraph.  I was one of the top math students in my state up through 3rd semester calculus (which I took while a senior in high school).  Next class after that I realized that I wasn't going to be taking any more math classes, because I went from 'brilliant math student' to 'guy who can do the test but not understand one thing about the class' that quickly...

@Joe: we called that "hitting the wall". It doesn't necessarily mean you can't carry on as a mathematician, just that you have to decide whether to or not, whereas prior to that you could basically do everything they throw at you in five-minute blocks of spare time in addition to the other subjects you had to work at ;-)

Allow me to disagree. 50% of GRE math subject test is calculus. Even if one aces more advanced subjects, one still has to spend several months studying the tricky integrals they throw at you, which was not a luxury I could afford.

@user29323: What exactly are you disagreeing with?

With the second paragraph of your answer.

@user29323 You make a good point, there is a bit of calculus on that exam. However, being able to recall both ideas and techniques from a wide variety of courses is an essential skill for research in mathematics. A sharp contrast between your GRE math and your AP calc score will suggest that you can master a subject when focused on that one area, but have difficulty when you are expected to retain comfort with diverse mathematical concepts.

@user29323: Irregardless of whether you disagree and whether the calculus on the AP exam is comparable to that found on the MGRE, it's sort of besides the point: you asked whether admissions committees will put any weight on your high-school AP exam scores, and the answer is a flat-out "no". Admission committees almost certainly don't care about what you did in high school, unless it was something so phenomenal that it resulted in a professional journal publication or a similar achievement.

@user29323: Your figure of "50% calculus" is misleading.  The test instructions do say this, but they go on to clarify: Material learned in the usual sequence of elementary calculus courses -- differential and integral calculus of one and several variables -- includes calculus-based applications and connections with coordinate geometry, trigonometry, differential equations and other branches of mathematics.  So the percentage of the exam which overlaps with AP calculus is more like 25%.  (I just looked at an "actual past exam" and confirmed that 25% is about right.)

Moreover, as others have pointed out: even if the content overlaps nontrivially...so what?  Half of all students who take the BC calculus test receive the highest possible score.  That is certainly not true for the GRE math exam, so getting a poor score on the GRE shows, among other things, that your grasp of freshman calculus is not as strong as many other students who took the exam.

I find your comment about tricky integrals pretty confusing: first of all, no one I know who went to math grad school spent any time studying integrals for the math GRE.  I assure you that those who do the best on the GRE are not the ones who spent months studying specifically for it.  Second of all, if you are trying to say that your AP score should be meaningfully considered then...isn't doing integrals what you should be good at?!?  In terms of luxury, here's a tip: many math majors get paid to tutor calculus students (I did).  Doing this for a year or two really improves your skills.

@Pete: It's reasonable to spend some time studying / practicing for the math subject GRE; I did, and found it helpful. (Especially the calculus material, since at that point my calculus course was about four years in the past.) But definitely not months; some friends and I got together for some practice problems once a week for maybe 4-6 weeks before the exam. Maybe 15 or 20 hours total.

No.  Half the people who take the Calculus BC exam get perfect scores, so you can assume almost every applicant has a 5 on the BC exam.  (Except they wouldn't say so, because by the time they graduate college they usually have other accomplishments that carry more weight.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Calculus#Grade_distributions_for_AP_Calculus_BC

+1.  Indeed even speaking about a "perfect AP score" seems misleading.  To me, getting a perfect score on an exam means that you got everything right.  When they only report five numbers, the highest of which is attained by half of the participants, it seems more meaningful to say that they're just not telling you your score except in the most approximate terms.  If you took a class pass/fail and passed it, would you say you did "perfectly"?  This is almost the same thing.

(Also, you can't assume "almost every applicant has a 5 on the BC exam", because it is not the case that almost every applicant for math grad school in the US went to high school in the US.  Far from it!  This is yet another reason why reporting these scores isn't very meaningful.)

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


text:
Can New Zealand/Australian academics do consulting work during summers?
Is it possible (if not usual) to do consulting work during summers while working as academics in Aus/NZ universities? I guess the more important point is, is it allowed by the universities to earn extra money/work through outside consulting work?
Thanks,
John

As mentioned by awsoci, this is a university specific policy. You will often find detailed information if you google the university of interest with the phrase "paid outside work". Many universities will have their broad policy listed on their website.
Here are two examples:

Monash university outside work
University of Melbourne outside work

My impression is that most universities allow academic staff to do outside paid work but there are a range of conditions. In particular (a) it shouldn't interfere with your existing duties; (b) you need to get approval from your supervisor.
The external work is more likely to be seen positively if the external work relates to your academic role (e.g., it enriches your teaching; it transfers knowledge to society; it informs your research; etc.).
As a side point, there is also often a trade-off between time spent doing external and  university activities. To take a simple example, if you spend more much time on external work, you may produce fewer research outputs (e.g., grants, publications) and this may slow your promotional progression. Thus, even from a simple financial perspective, there can be a trade-off between income from external work and forgone income due to delayed promotions.

Here are the ones from the major Sydney based Universities as well.
Sydney University  -
UNSW  -
UTS

How about summer (additional) teaching to get extra cash? Is it allowed/usual in Aus/NZ universities?

@john You might want to ask a separate question specifically about teaching, as there are a few different scenarios. But in general,  running specialist courses for a fee is relatively common in academia (particularly in fields like statistics). There are different ways that such fees can be handled: (a) private money, (b) money goes into research account for academic, (c) fees just become part of academic workload, possibly with an offset for other teaching activities.

This is dependent on the university. This is allowed (generally) but you have to get into contact with the designated person(s) for your department/faculty/school regarding the appropriate procedures in taking on paid consulting work while employed at the university.
Usually you have to have an agreement/contract set up that stipulates specific rules and regulations regarding this. Most universities would have something like this available as many academics do consulting work depending on their research expertise.
I would get in touch with HR and/or your supervisor to find out about your options.

Thanks. Is it also possible to teach more courses in summers, than contracted to earn more, in aus/nz system? Or they are not allowed to earn morE money from the uni?

I don't know, it really depends on whether you are contracted per course, in which you would be paid casual sessional rates, or if you are on a fixed term/continuing contract. Generally, on a fixed/continuing contract, you wouldn't be paid an additional sum to take on more courses in the summer because it would just be part of your job.

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


text:
How important is the exact name of an undergraduate degree?
How important does one think the exact name of a degree is? Suppose a student had a BASc in Software Engineering (Bachelor of Applied Science, somewhat common in Canada) or a student with a BSE degree (Bachelor of Software Engineering, as awarded by, say Waterloo), would you perceive the students differently? Do you know of instances where this may have affected a student in a job search or in grad school admissions?

No and no, respectively.

In general, we try to be cautious about creating new tags - see When should I create new tags?. Having a large number of overly specific tags makes it harder to group questions, and makes it harder for new users to find appropriate tags for their question.

The students would be perceived the same. When applying for a graduate program, you submit your transcripts. The classes you took, your letters of recommendation, and your grades would be more important than the name of your degree.


text:
Referencing Springer products: what name to use for the publisher?
For references to Springer products, I have come across a lot of names for the publisher, (and all of those are present in my own Mendeley library):

Springer Science+Business Media
Springer-Verlag
Springer

Is there a difference, or can I just go and standardize my library to one of them (preferably Springer. In my area, mathematics, there is no chance of confusion with Springer Publishing, and even less with Axel Springer SE)?
Also, is there a difference between the locations [New York|Heidelberg|Berlin|a combination of the previous] usually found along with Springer, or can I just standardize my library to always use Berlin, since that's where the headquarters are? I understand Springer has major offices in the other cities, but do different books really pertain to those different offices, and does this need to be made clear in the References?
If the answers to one of the questions is no, do you have a hint where to find the correct information? The first pages of the books that I have sometimes list all of the above options in different places. Furthermore, for example my copy of V.I. Arnold's "Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Second Edition" says "© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc." without any mentioning of "Springer-Verlag", whereas the website says "Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York".

If I recall it correctly, the "Lecture Notes in Computer Science" Copyeditors always change the bibliography entries to "Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg". So if this is what they use themselves in their own books, this should be OK. In my own publications, I wouldn't even bother to put the "Heidelberg" there anymore. "Springer-Verlag" clears up any possible confusion with "Axel Springer".

@DCTLib How would you find out if a book was actually published by Springer-Verlag (in my understanding a part of Springer Science+Business Media)? Also, by now I also found "Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg" for a book on springer.com. Furthermore,  in a single book (incidentally published by Springer) i found "Springer-Verlag, Berlin", "Springer-Verlag, Berline[sic!], New York, Heidelberg" and "Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg". Conclusion:
"Springer, Berlin" it is, no one seems to care

Since you are in mathematics, my suggestion is: take your bibtex entries from Mathscinet, unmodified. So use whatever they use.

I usually write "Springer-Verlag", and I don't list any cities.  As far as I can tell, the publisher's location was important in olden times, when people might want to order a book by sending snail-mail to the publisher. Nowadays, the location seems useless.  I don't recall ever having any complaints from editors or publishers about omitting the locations.

"Springer Science+Business Media" is the parent company not only of Springer-Verlag but also of other publishers such as Birkhauser or Kluwer, so it would seem odd to use it as a synonym for Springer-Verlag (I suppose you would not use it for a Birkhauser book). Personally I just use Springer, and for the city I use what's written in the book, generally Berlin Heidelberg or New York, sometimes London.

The suffix "-Verlag" basically just means "publisher" or "publishing company in German. Therefore, I would include it only if other companies in English—such as Dover Publications, for instance—also appear with the "publishing" term in their listings. If they don't, I'd eliminate the "-Verlag" for consistency.
As for the others, those tend to be "imprints" within the publishing house. In general, I believe these can also be omitted, particularly in "abbreviated" citation styles. In longer styles where full details are provided, you may provide this information; if the publisher doesn't want to include it, they can remove it when editing the proofs.

Thank you. I own a lot of the yellow books published by them. I never knew Verlag just mean publisher.

authors: Даниил Олегович


text:
Should I participate in non-funded bioinformatics research?
I'm a PhD student. I will have some months free after writing my Thesis. I've been suggested to participate in a non-funded research, involving some bioinformatics tasks.
There are also other funded bioinformatics work I could do.
In my opinion an unfunded research normally has weaknesses and lack of review by other experts.

Did you ask the person who suggested you to participate in the non-funded research this question?

No. This would probably result in an understanding from their part that I think that their research is outdated, with limited scientific relevance.

That the work is not funded does not mean that it will not create publishable results later on.

@Biotechnologist ... which is exactly what you think?

Wait, is the project unfunded, or are you being asked to do it without getting paid? People frequently work on projects that might lead to funding opportunities but aren't funded yet.

@Bill Barth, the project is unfunded, I'm getting paid.

Many variables correlate with a study being finally published. One of these variables may include many other variables: funding (money). If the project is funded means that at least two or more persons have revised the bibliography related to the aim, have sufficient skills to perform the task and have time to dedicate to it.

I don't think that either of your first two assertions about funded projects are necessarily true. There are certainly funded grants that were prepared by a single person, so unless you count the program officer and review panel as having "revised the bibliography", that's not always true. Some people get grants without having the necessary skills, though they probably managed to convince a funding agency that they did.

The fact that work was funded says almost nothing to me as a reviewer of a paper about that work nor about the odds that such a paper is good. I think funded work is more likely to lead to papers, because the researchers have been paid directly to work on it and have better odds of making progress. That being said, funding is not a guarantee of goodness.
Your assertion that unfunded work is normally weaker and unreviewed is not well founded. Unfunded work is often preliminary work designed to prove the feasibility of an idea and lead towards some sort of publication (poster, presentation, or article) to bolster the case for later funding. This is very important work and is often done by researchers (establish and new) who are moving into a new area or working on a new direction or idea. To attribute lack of funding to weakness is fallacious.
Also, many, many good ideas go unfunded. The rejection of a grant application is not necessarily a reflection that the idea is bad, wrong, unsound or otherwise unworthy of funding. Sometimes, many times, it represents the fact that grant programs are highly selective and very competitive. Some have a less than ten percent funding rate. This means that many good applications will be turned away.
I would suggest that you soften your judgement about projects based on their funding or lack thereof and focus on which you think is a better idea for purely scientific reasons. If you truly get to pick, then I would suggest that you work on the one that's more interesting to you, will better promote your career, or may lead to the biggest breakthrough.

And sometimes a very revolutionary idea may start unfunded because no one has shown that it works... yet.


text:
Undergraduate research in math, but no research paper, will this hurt me in graduate admissions?
I will be applying for admission into graduate school in Fall 2016.
I did research with a professor last summer in mathematical biology. I have presented that research at a two conferences and have presented a poster at three. However, my professor did not require me to write a research paper.
With respect to a graduate program in mathematics, would this hurt my chances of being admitted?
Thank you.
EDIT: I was following a timeline my professor created for me and writing a paper was not on it.

Writing a research paper is not something you do because you're "required to."

@Kimball: I suppose... I think I know what you are saying. I did not write one because I was following a timeline he created for me and writing a paper was not in that timeline.

I was following a timeline my professor created for me and writing a paper was not on it. — I don't think I've ever seen a research project timeline that had "writing a paper" listed as one of the tasks.

I've seen plenty with 'final report' on it, but that is often something completely different...

Speaking as someone in field not too far from yours:  sure, it would help if you had done all of the stuff you've listed and written a paper about it.  But having a bunch of conference presentations under your belt (oral and posters) is still pretty impressive;  and there are many applicants to Ph.D. programs without any research experience at all.  The fact that you've done research, and that your advisor thought it was worth presenting at multiple conferences, is a pretty big item in your favor.
Oh, and it should go without saying that this professor should be one of your recommenders (absent any major falling-out or other complicating circumstances.)


text:
How to collaborate with an experienced researcher as a first year master student?
I am currently investigating some generalized properties in my mathematical research with my professor. We are basically now working together to produce new paper to publish.
My professor is very well experienced and he seems to know what he is doing very fast compared to me. I feel like I do not do anything worth the contribution for this project.
Is it normal for a first year master student to feel this way when he or she tries to write a paper together with a professor? How come can a person generate possible ideas to solve so fast? Is it because I am still inexperienced or am I doing something wrong?

I usually read some papers trying to get some ideas which might be useful but I still dont get anything really 'valuable' for the progress of my current project.

I am hoping for some advises coming from well experienced mathematicians / researchers. Thank you very much!

Welcome to Academia.SE. The situation you have described is far from "hitting a dead end". Would you please edit your title in order to match with the question body? It will help others to answer effectively your question highlighting the main issue. Thank you! :)

Possible duplicate of How should I deal with discouragement as a graduate student?

What did the Prof say when you asked them?

Thank you for all of the kind comments here and to correct the title of my question!

It seems to me that you are looking more for reassurance than advice. There's absolutely nothing wrong in seeking that on an online forum, but you must first speak to your professor and senior students working in the group. The internet is comfortable in anonymity, but you must not develop an aversion to asking people for help in person. That may be far more harmful than being stuck on a research project.
Now, remember you are at the very beginning of a research career. Your professor has spent years and years.  Isn't it unreasonable to expect yourself to generate ideas at the same pace? To answer your question, there is certainly an inexperience component. Whether you are doing something wrong can only be ascertained by your professor. Most likely, you are worrying needlessly. There is, however, always a chance that this line may not be ideal for you- you will have a better idea of that by time your program ends. Your professor will be invaluable here too, but you need to take the first step and open up to him.

Thank you very much for your advice, my professor says it is okay to fail as long as I can realize where I fail and try not to repeat the same failure as a lesson.

Your post makes me think of the woman who always does the laundry because, as she puts it, "It would be so much trouble to teach my spouse how to use the washing machine, I might as well just do the laundry myself."
Ideally, an advisor will distinguish between a paper that needs to get out the door quickly, and a paper that is a suitable project for a Master's student, who may progress more slowly than the professor working alone would.
You might want to try gently asserting yourself with your advisor, e.g.

I feel frustrated when all I do is watch you do the work, without making any contributions myself.  I feel like I need to work on a project that you don't need completed super quick, so that you'll have time to give me suggestions of directions to go, and then be able to sit back and patiently allow me to see how far I can get at each step, before you jump in and just show me that step, already worked out.

A side thing that might help you would be to form a study group with some fellow students.  Working out problems together, and discussing a particular journal article after everyone has read it, may help you develop your skills, and increase your self-confidence and self esteem.


text:
How involved should your PhD adviser be in your project?
I just completed my first year at a PhD program at a University in the United States. It's been a semester since I joined a lab and I'm slightly confused about my decision at the moment. I feel like my academic advisers are not as involved in my project as they should be.
I'm working on a joint project between two professors in a field that is new to them, besides their expertise on instrumentation. Both my advisers are well accomplished in their respective fields but their experience in the area that my project is concerned with is (at least on paper) substantially less (only one publication from the lab so far). Besides, there is only one other graduate student involved on this project while all other group members work in a different area, making it difficult for me to get any help from members in the lab. On top of this, I meet my advisers only once every 2-3 weeks and although they are extremely patient with regards to my queries, their feedback hasn't been very useful yet.
While I was aware of this situation before deciding to join the lab, I went ahead with the project for its future prospects and overlap of required skill set with mine. It also offered the opportunity to build up a lab almost from scratch with very experienced advisers, which I thought, was great. While I don't hate working on my project, I'm concerned since I haven't made much progress and am not sure if what's happening is normal. Both my advisers are experts in instrumentation, which is a major hurdle in the project (and hasn't been tackled by any other group yet), but aren't aware of the current scientific problems in the field.
Finally boiling down to my questions:
(i) I often find myself worrying that the problem I end up working on for the next few years as a graduate student might turn out to be insignificant or turned down as trivial by experts in the field. Am I thinking too much?
(ii) I often hesitate digging deeper into articles in my field (not directly related to my project) wondering if it's useful at all, considering that I'd be all by myself if I pursue it and would thus stand no chance against other research groups that are actively involved in the field. Is that reasonable?
(iii) Would it be rude to confront my advisers with these concerns?
(iv) Would it suffice for me to get help from another faculty on campus and continue with my project?

This is a wall of text. Please edit it to add paragraphs.

i) normal, but if your supervisors are experienced, they should 'save' you whenever you are lost and also tell you whether a problem is worthy, (ii) you should have at least a working knowledge of relevant works, (iii) nope.  Your advisers can't help or advise if they don't know you are drowning, (iv) probably not.  It is important to commit to something.  it is fine to explore at the beginning, but eventually you need to focus on something.   Also, your supervisors may think you are less than enthusiastic about the chosen area if you run off to another faculty.

For (iv), I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Are you perhaps suggesting that there is another faculty member on campus who would be a useful co-author and bring things to the project that neither the current advisors or you have expertise in?

Whoa. In my world, your PhD supervisor... should be a mentor, in the first place... and to find yourself asking "how involved they should be in your project" is like asking (outside of surreal pseudo-aristocratic contexts) how involved your parents should be in your upbringing. There are prior errors... e.g., if your parents don't care about you, you need, in many regards, some other "grown-ups" to care for you. You do not want to be a street urchin, either literally or academically. It's not one of these "builds character" things, no matter what anyone says.

It would be rude to confront; it would be sensible to share your concern. // Are there any other possible topics?  If not, can you spend 10% of your time discreetly looking for other topic options?  How about if you and your advisors try to find someone known to them who can provide more specific guidance on some aspect(s)?

1) Email your advisors short (few sentences) progress reports every week or less. This forces you to move at a quicker rate than 2-3 weeks, and keeps them more invested in your progress.
2) As a junior student I suggest that for now you trust your advisors and peers and grind through this project. Researchers tend to always be critical of their own work, no matter how good it is.
3) It would be ideal to work side by side with a more experienced graduate student or advisor.
4) Part of a PhD is intellectual independence. You should not be afraid about pursuing an area if no one else is pursuing it, so long as you can see its merits. Why work on something that everyone else is working on?

What do you mean by working side by side with a more experienced advisor?

I mean work closely with a more experienced person in the field that you can easily access


text:
Can I apply for PhD without recommendation from my masters advisor?
I am currently applying for a PhD in a very competitive top tier university, which requires three references. I have two referees (my tutor and my undergraduate research project supervisor) who I am quite sure would write very good references for me.
I am stuck with the choice of my third referee:
I am currently doing a masters, but my masters supervisor is overly precise and temperamental. Although he is the "ideal" choice as my referee as he can comment on my research capabilities and working in a laboratory environment, I am certain that his reference will be lukewarm or may even be negative as I am currently having difficulty getting along with him. (ADDITION: I had only worked with this supervisor for 2-3 months. I also had an undergraduate research project supervisor who can also comment on my research abilities).
Alternatively, I have asked one of my lecturers (who I get along with very well) in my undergraduate, and he is very happy and eager to write a reference for me. I am quite sure that he will write a positive reference in support of my application. But he is unable to comment on my research abilities (just my academic capability and personality). Additionally, wouldn't the admissions tutors suspect that something is going on if all my referees are undergraduate even when I am taking a master's course??
What should I do?
PS. The problem is that he initially offered me a PhD position despite the fact that I wanted to pursue and applied for a masters programme. I turned it down as I was not interested in the PhD project and when I told him about my applications to other, top tier universities, his attitude towards me has changed and became very impatient, frustrated and uninterested. This is the reason why I am quite certain he will not be writing a positive reference for me.

I am certain that his reference will be lukewarm or may even be negative as I am currently having difficulty getting along with him. — Have you actually asked him, though? If not, you really can't be certain.

I have asked him many times and he has replied that he would only start writing the reference to me days before the deadline.
The problem is that he initially offered me a PhD position despite the fact that I wanted to pursue a masters programme. I reluctantly turned it down as I was not interested in the project and when I told him about my applications to other, top tier universities, his attitude towards me has changed and became very impatient, frustrated and uninterested. This is the reason why I am quite certain he will not be writing a positive reference for me.

"he has replied that he would only start writing the reference to me days before the deadline." — Yes, but did he actually say that he would write a strong letter only days before the deadline, or a weak letter only days before the deadline? You deserve a straight answer, but you have to ask directly to get it.

Can I apply for PhD without recommendation from my masters advisor?

Yes, you can apply, but you may experience great difficulty in getting accepted.

Additionally, wouldn't the admissions tutors suspect that something is going on if all my referees are undergraduate even when I am taking a master's course??

Most likely, yes.

I am certain that his reference will be lukewarm or may even be negative as I am currently having difficulty getting along with him.

As others have suggested, the very important first step is to ask your advisor for a strong recommendation letter. If he agrees, no problem. If not, and there is nobody else that can comment in a strong, positive way about your research capabilities/potential, you may need to take a break from your studies and come up with a plan about how to move forward. I have been in such a situation.
I had a falling out with my MS advisor. I knew that he wouldn't write me a strong letter (I was not on speaking terms with him and I can't say much more than that). I also knew that I would need several strong recommendation letters commenting on my research capabilities/potential to continue on with my goal of pursuing a PhD. To get strong recommendations, I decided to go back into industry for a few years. In my field, a good percentage of industry jobs that I qualified for are heavily R&D focused. A good couple of years back in that environment landed me some solid opportunities to work on some cool stuff and impress some people who were very willing to help me out with pursuing my long-term goals.
I'd like to point out that this is still not a fail-safe approach: several schools I applied to explicitly asked me to submit a recommendation from my MS advisor. I explained to them my circumstance (it's actually a pretty good story), but that did not matter to them. I was very fortunate that one of my industry-based references was considered a big shot by several top schools I applied to, and for those schools that did not ask for a reference from my MS advisor, that worked out well for me. While there was a lot of hard work that went into my plan, I also feel in some ways that I got very lucky.
So, if you cannot get a strong recommendation from your MS advisor, be prepared to take some relatively drastic measures to improve your chances of success. Also, if it is possible in your field of study, leverage the skills you have obtained to build up some strong research references.

You are applying for PhD to a top school. This means intensive research skills and abilities are needed and not having a letter from your advisor is a big red flag. Your advisor is the one who is most qualified to comment on your research.
Although many universities don't state this directly, you MUST have a letter from your advisor.
If I were you, I would just go and ask him for a STRONG letter of recommendation. See what he says. Most professors give indications on how supportive their letters are going to be. If you feel that his letter will have a negative impact, then there is not much you can do.
Try to find someone willing to comment on your research and take his recommendation (Department head or maybe a professor who knows your work and research).

I would just like to ask, is there a way of getting around to this? I do not know him that well and I have only worked with him for a few months (therefore he might not be able to write a strong reference). Would it be possible that getting other referees from my previous university (who I have done undergraduate projects and therefore can comment on my research) as an additional referee (i.e. getting 4 referees despite the application asking for 3)?


text:
Best choice of recommenders for PhD admission?
Background
I am an EE undergraduate student intending to apply for a PhD program in computer science (for Fall 2018), with a focus on the top 10 universities in this field (mostly in the US). I am in a bit of a dilemma with respect to the optimal choice of recommenders. Typical PhD program admissions in CS require three recommendations.
This summer, I worked with three professors on a single project (Professor X, Y, Z). Since I was directly under their guidance and did a decent job, I'd expect a strong recommendation from each of them. Two of them (Professor X, Y) are alumni of universities I intend to apply to and are well-established researchers in the field.
Additionally, I've also worked (and am still working) with (Professor A) in my home university, who recently finished her post-doc at a renowned school abroad. I expect a strong recommendation from her (assuming the on-going work goes well).
In my home university I have a couple of other options. I did quite well in (Professor B)'s undergraduate and follow-up graduate course. I worked with (Professor C) on two undergraduate course projects, but these were in EE (electrical engineering) and there wasn't much interaction with C over the semester.
In a nutshell, A, X, Y, Z are computer scientists in the field I intend to apply. They are likely to be known to the admission committee. B is a computer scientist in a different field of research. C is a EE researcher. A, B, C, Z are young researchers whereas X, Y are more well-established.
Question
I definitely intend to take one recommendation from A. Is it advisable to take the other two recommendations from X and Y (or Z)? The issue is that I was jointly advised by them on the same project and I fear that they might highlight similar things. I don't expect the recommendations from B or C to be as strong as A, X, Y or Z. Should I prefer A, X, Y or A, (X or Y) and (B or C)?


text:
I found a published paper that looks dodgy. What to do?
I looked into an article published rather widely in the media, but on a fairly marginal topic (perceptions of grammar use), so noone will die or ever bother to replicate or correct it.
The contents of the paper looked dodgy in analysis and setup, but more than anything else, the statistics look very suspicious and possibly erronous or at least probably mistaken in assumptions. I contacted the corresponding author for their data, and their editor for an overview of their data sharing policies. No answer from either for more than a month.
What can I do? Is there maybe an online web-environment, where I could flag potentially dodgy studies for further discussion? If the contents are as dodgy, what leverage is usually in process for a retraction to happen? Thanks!
The question is about this particular paper, but this kind of thing can come up a lot. If this was a paper in my own specific area of interest, I would maybe write a public answer, but as this is not, I'd just point it out to other interested parties.

Unless it directly impacts your own research, I would ignore it.

Practically, very much on target! Philosophically, it leaves rather grim outlooks to how seriously anyone should take stuff that's "published".

@puslet88 "published" simply means that 2-3 people related to the field thought it is reasonable. The review process can sometimes help improve the work and filter out work with glaring holes. That's about it. As a scientist you should always be skeptical.

@puslet88 one thing to keep in mind it that not all journals are equal and some are vanity projects created to further a specific pet theory.  That is why you should look at the reputation of the journal in the field you are investigating.  One metric you could use is to look at the http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/ of the journal.  That would give you a quick point of reference in comparison to other journals.

Some ideas: Can I get a refund if I bought an article that contains a major flaw? ;  Why doesn't arXiv have a comment section?

If it's wrong and you can demonstrate it with science then, by all means, do so and write your own paper.

It really depends on where it was published. A lot of minor journals with extremely low impact publish rubbish in order to advance the careers of academics at third/fourth rate universities.

A good way of posting comments, anonymously or not, with a good chance that other people will read them and react is Pubpeer. Although not all fields are covered, you can post your criticism on many articles. Sometimes authors react, sometimes publishers take action, sometimes nothing happens.

what leverage is usually in process for a retraction to happen?

A good list of the cases where Pubpeer comments lead to retraction can be found on the Retraction Watch website:
http://retractionwatch.com/?s=pubpeer

Pubpeer is a really great solution to exactly this problem. In the bright future something like pubpeer could be the first place we check just in case whenever we start up a paper we don't know the background of.

@puslet88 I encourage you to write your concerns on this platform if you can spare the time. Also, if you find Pubpeer helpful, you could up-vote its community promotion add.

thanks for the response, I've upvoted the advertisement gladly, didn't post on pubpeer yet on this occasion, but it looks like an excellent site with right goals and good activity. Really great to see how it finally has an effect or when the authors manage to give their own response.

IMHO, Ignore it and move on

With the outbreak of many journal publishers and reviewers of diverse levels of experience to review them, you would find many such papers being published today. As a researcher it would be up to you to determine which paper seems verifiable and of proposed results are reproducible.

That would be the most practical advice indeed, and for research purposes, indeed the community should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. At the same time there is an added complexity recently written about in e.g. http://andrewgelman.com/2016/01/25/uri-versus-powerpose-and-the-moneygoround-part-one/ (has link to slate article) where the popular media consider all that is published as having a true basis in science (also in this case). In this sense, ignoring noticed mistakes as a default strategy, makes the outlook for the future perception of science as rather grim.

It then seems that for science, academicians should work really hard to demonstrate to media how getting results in science is really difficult and that not all that is published is gold. Calling things "scientifically" based has a lot of power to it, that may cause mistaken beliefs or people altering their strategies towards poorer states. Bad social science floated in popular media for example can be picked up by people building policy decisions, and at that point it'll be too late (they won't have the time) to point that the basis could have methodological flaws.

There may be some complexities here. For practical purposes of managing my own turf and responsibilities and this particular case, I'll probably do exactly that and move on. Thanks! :) Pubpeer offered by @cape-code however seems a perfect solution to, if you want to take a moment and point these things out.

Disagree. This is only true if you indeed consider the "outbreak" of fake science, which actual academics automatically filter. I trust OP is not talking about a fake open access journal.