text:
What does delegate registration mean in a conference?
I saw on a conference website that the "delegate registration is up to the end of March".
I'm wondering what that "delegate" really means?

Usually, this definition is extended to all the attendees of a conference, not just the presenters. So the delegate registration would be for anybody wanting to attend the conference

In some conferences, only registered participants (with a badge) are allowed in to hear the presentations or view the posters.

@GEdgar: In my field, this applies to all conferences, and while it may be different in other fields, now I wonder: What significance does a "registration" have if its purpose is not to determine who is allowed in to hear presentations?

@ORMapper: At smaller, informal conferences, registration serves  mainly to help the organizers plan (how large a room do we need, how much coffee, etc), and to let participants know who they can expect to meet there. There may not be any fee. In such cases, registration may be requested as a courtesy, but if you just show up without registering they won't keep you out.

Provided that you are talking about a computer science conference, this most likely means that for every accepted paper, one of the authors should be registered by the deadline in order not to get the paper removed from the program (and the proceedings). The presenting author would then be the "delegate" of the group of authors.
If it is already known that the paper will be presented by a non-author, then the respective person should also be registered by that date.

In the context of an event there are a few things to consider. First
it may depend on the "type of event" for example: conference, summit, symposium, forum, expo. But typically it is referring to someone who registered for the event. A delegate is usually used at an association or membership event. There usually consist of a membership overall. However I have seen delegate used to describe someone with the basic attendee level. For example: delegate, premium, vip, sponsor etc. I've also seem delegate used instead attendee. This is a tricky one because there seems to be no consistent way.


text:
What is the exact meaning of a deadline for conference paper submission?
If I see on an IEEE conference webpage that the deadline is set to the 30th of March (for example) what does that exactly mean? Does it mean the submission system will not accept any submission after 11:59pm on March 30th?

I would veer on the safer side and assume the submission system wouldn't accept any submissions after 11:59PM on March 29th.  But that's just advice on being punctual.

There are three typical scenarios that you will encounter with most computer-science-style conferences (including most IEEE conferences):

Submissions shut down at the exact time specified, and nothing late will be accepted.  This is most common in large top-notch conferences with extremely fierce competition.  If this is the case, a time-zone will almost always be specified as well.
Submissions shut down an arbitrary but relatively short time after the deadline, i.e., when the organizers get around to switching it off.  There is still likely to be little flexibility, but the conference is less high-stakes, and so they aren't worrying about precision.
Submissions will actually be due ~1 week later, after a universal extension is announced.  This is most common in smaller conferences that are more concerned with making sure they get enough submissions.  It can also be counter-productive, since a tradition of extensions means nobody takes the first deadline seriously.

If you see a time zone, you're probably in case #1; if multiple past editions show an extension, it's probably case #3; otherwise, it's likely case #2.

Perhaps it is worth noting that if no time zone is given, this typically means "anywhere on earth" - so if at some spot on earth, the day of deadline hasn't ended yet, submission should still be open.

I just noticed it says the following :"The site closes for submission at 24:00 hrs (midnight) server time on the date indicated" .   That perhaps? means on March 30th at 11:59 pm?

@user3327426 that does not mean anything to me.  Where is the server? Is the server's clock in the same timezone, month, year, or century as mine?

@user3327426 and emory: you can reasonably assume that the server's clock matches the actual time in some time zone. (It's possible for that not to be the case, but it's technically difficult to run a web server that way.) The chosen time zone is likely to be the one in which the server is physically located, but this is not a requirement and I would not make that assumption. So unless you're told what time zone the server is in, it's probably good to play it safe and treat this deadline as 24:00 on the date indicated in the first time zone anywhere on Earth to reach that date and time.

In at least one large IEEE conference, the deadline goes by Hawaii time (to ensure the deadline is the same for everyone based on day). Don't presume this though, obviously

my problems is rather general. on the submission page there is a server time. and on top of that it says "The site closes for submission at 24:00 hrs (midnight) server time on the date indicated". So what does that mean?!

Thank you so much for the good comments. Now I think the best policy is simply to submit the "draft" (not finalized) manuscripts, if the deadline is not clearly stated. Mostly, after first-submission, you can re-upload the files later till the deadline.

@user3327426 If you find it ambiguous, the only people who can give you the true interpretation are the conference chairs: email them.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why should students be asked to register for a co-supervisor?
The university where I'm doing my PhD is asking me to register a co-supervisor.
However, I don't really know the role of co-supervisor. What exactly is it for? Does it mean that for every publications we do, we should also add him in the authorship?!

It increases the bus factor of your thesis.

There are several reasons that the university wants you to do this.
The most serious is as a safeguard against possible problems that might arise if your relationship with your (actual) advisor deteriorates. For example, if your advisor asks you to do something that you think is unethical, or is making what you think are unreasonable demands on you, the idea is that you should be able to go to this second advisor to talk about these things. Whether or not this is actually realistic is another question.
This has nothing to do with authorship of publications, unless the second advisor is actually an author.

There are a few possible reasons.

One of the most important aspects of your graduate education will be how to successfully collaborate with others. By requiring you to work with someone other your boss, they hope to have you learn more about working on a research team.
It's almost always a good idea to have many eyes on research before it goes out, to make sure that it's inspected from a number of viewpoints. Requiring a larger committee enforces that idea.
Having someone else as a "dotted line boss" provides you with someone else who is officially responsible in some way for you. This can be a good way to generate discussion and get feedback on your ideas from someone other than your advisor. The most useful discussion I had in the entirety of my graduate career happened with one of my committee members, not my advisor.
Some programs require you to have a co-chair not in your program. In that instance, your graduate program would like to make sure you leave the program with exposure to disciplines other than your own, and this policy enforces that.

I'm not being sarcastic, just curious (since I don't know about this) - What happens in the event of a fallout between the two supervisors?

@TheDarkSide: in such a case, Questions get Asked on Academia.SE.

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


text:
How common is spousal hire (academic or non-academic) in the Australia/New Zealand system?
I am an academic with hoping for an offer at an Oceania university. I want to know how common in this system is it to ask the university to give my spouse a job? It is common and often successful in the U.S. universities, but I don't know in the Oceania (which is largely the same as the British) system.

My experience on this is more anecdotal, but perhaps it will be helpful.
In Australia, I've certainly known plenty of couples that work at the same university. I can also think of a few where I imagine a package arrangement was organised (although I don't know details). Equally, I can think of cases where academics have left a department because the department decided to no longer employ their spouse (i.e., they moved to a new university that would employ their spouse). The ease of making such arrangements depends on how desirable you and your spouse are as academics. It certainly helps if at least one member of the couple is a super star, and  the other member is at least competitive.
Another general point is that Australia has a lot of universities. In particular, if you are in Melbourne or Sydney (and to a lesser extent other major cities) then you would have six or so reasonable universities to work with. So I also know a lot of couples in the university sector who are able to solve the two-body problem by working at different universities in the one city.

Just a small clarification is needed. Australia has very few universities in comparison to the US (total estimates for AU are around 40-45 while US is over 2000). Australia does tend to situated most of its universities in the major cities as you've suggested (also based in Melbourne), so there is opportunity to work at a different university in the same city, especially in Melbourne!

Tanks for your answers. My question was not specific to the case in which both of them are in academia (at least ph.d.s and wishing to go for assistant prof/lecturer positions). What about one spouse is ph.d. with an offer for lecturer/senior lecture position and the other with a master's degree and teaches undergrad level courses at university level, or some doing sort of administration work which may also be applied to university businesses.

@John I'm not as familiar with this scenario. However, I imagine that it would be easier for a university to accommodate a spouse as administrative worker than an academic. But the flip side is that administrative staff at a university could probably find work in a whole host of organisations outside of academia.

@John As a lecturer / senior lecturer you will be quite possibly required to do the undergraduate courses. Based on what experience do you suggest that a university will hire someone without a PhD on a full-time position to do courses? This seems quite unlikely to me.

@o4tlulz, It is fairly common in the US to hire a spouse with a masters degree (and some teaching experience), for example, to teach low level undergraduate courses (e.g., calculus/physics/chemistry/biology 101, etc.). You don't need a PhD to teach these courses. Oceania universities, same as the british universities, do seem to have positions such as 'assistant lecturer' or 'tutor' in various departments. They are not necessarily meant for PhDs. My question is, whether these universities consider spouses for such positions as they do in the US.

I don't think there will be any specific policy regarding this - it depends on how desirable you are. I have a colleague who was head-hunted from overseas who's wife was given an administrative position; however this is not quite the same scenario.
If you are applying for a Associate Professor/Professor position, I think you would have a decent chance. Anything else would be unlikely, or simply depend on how congenial your (future) boss is, and whether positions within the department are available.

In the US, many universities have formal policy for 'spousal hiring'. You mean to say there is no specific spousal hiring policy in the oceania?


text:
Can I pursue a Master's in the USA in software engineering after a Bachelor's in IT in Nepal?
Can I do a Master's in software engineering in the USA, because I've done a Bachelor's in information technology in Nepal?
Software engineering and information technology are different majors, so will it cause any problem to do a Master's in software engineering? So, please help me out here.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a duplicate of your other question here

I closed the other one instead, because this copy has an answer.

You can apply for the master degree in computer engineering with a bachelor in IT. However number of things here:

You will pay a lot of money for a master degree in the US. So what is the game plan here?
If you get into a true to the core engineering course, you will have a hard time, as they will focus on the practical aspects of computer science and it might be very hard for you to complete your degree on time. For example, you might see a typical student can create a simple compiler in a 5 hours sitting, while it might take you three months to get to that point.
If you want to continue to the Ph.D. program after your Msc, you will still have some problems, because your marks might not be good based on the second point.
If you want to start a company after Msc, I would suggest to think about it very carefully as Msc, with huge tuition fee, might not be a good choice.


text:
How to cite my earlier paper which is submitted to the same conference?
I actually wrote two papers on my work, and I want to publish both in same conference. I have now submitted first paper and it is yet to be selected and my second paper is extension of my first paper. I want to publish the second one also. So can anyone please tell me how to cite my first paper? Both are IEEE papers.

One solution would be to post one or both papers to the arXiv, and then cite the arXiv versions.
IEEE does allow posting to the arXiv with certain terms. From their FAQ:

Can an author post his manuscript on a preprint server such as ArXiv?
Yes. The IEEE recognizes that many authors share their unpublished manuscripts on public sites. Once manuscripts have been accepted for publication by IEEE, an author is required to post an IEEE copyright notice on his preprint. Upon publication, the author must replace the preprint with either 1) the full citation to the IEEE work with Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) or a link to the paper’s abstract in IEEE Xplore, or 2) the accepted version only (not the IEEE-published version), including the IEEE copyright notice and full citation, with a link to the final, published paper in IEEE Xplore.

Thank you for your valuable answer,I will surely consider it.

Since at this time your first work is unpublished, that is how you unfortunately have to cite it, unless you state "submitted to ...." but the latter is usually used on a CV rather than for publications.

Presumeably, the issue just arises for the submission version, anyway. If both papers are targetted at the same conference, their acceptance or rejection notification will arrive roughly at the same time, and the final (published) version can be referenced in the camera ready version.

Dual submission of related works is a fairly common occurrence, and need not be problematic.  The key question is the degree to which one work depends on the other.
Typically, if you have two pieces that are being submitted in parallel, they should be exploring different aspects of the work.  In this case, you simply cite the other paper with its publication date and venue as "submitted."  When this is done with journals, one often submits the other paper as supplementary information, but many conferences to not allow this.
If one piece builds incrementally on the other, however (as it sounds like is the case for you), then you should seriously consider whether it is actually appropriate to have two separate papers, or whether they should be combined into one.  Otherwise, you may be viewed as engaging in salami slicing, which is definitely a bad thing.

Thank you for your help,the thing is my first paper represents 1 algorithm and in second I added another algorithm and many features.So the overlapping is not too much,hardly 20%.Is it ok?

@PushkarTerwadkar Now that you've created the second algorithm, is the first one actually still particularly interesting, or is it obsolete?  If the first is basically obsolete, then the papers should probably be compacted into one focused on the second algorithm.  If the algorithms are separately interesting and each have a real full paper worth about them, it's probably fine to have both.

No both algorithms are there,first one is not obsolete rather both are different methods to solve same problem.Thank you for your help.


text:
More than two years in a journal
My paper is undergoing its third revision in a journal, primarily focusing on applied mathematics. There are some technical parts in it, but nothing really out of reach.
The time line is something like this:
-Submission to the journal.
-Eight months wait for the reports. Reviewers provide in-depth and crucial feedback. Both reviewers express difficulty delving into details due to writing issues, a point with which I agree. The paper, particularly given my non-native English background, was poorly written, and I was not aware of Grammarly and AI tools at that time. Still, there was many other important in-depth remarks about the model. In particular, I was required to provide with some comparisons with other tools in the field.
-Resubmission (1st major revision).

Eight months wait for the reports. One reviewer sent his report quickly, but I had to wait both reports to be sent to read it. This one has only minor remarks but expresses its satisfaction overall; he finds my comparisons interesting and is fine with the paper as such. The other one, who seem to be a native speaker, finds the paper better, but still challenging to read and poorly written. At this stage, I am in a situation where I do not want to make too many changes, fearing to touch to something that the first referee liked. Still, I manage to clarify the paper further by incorporating mathematical results, initially in appendices, into the main text, and I broke down fundamental notions into smaller pieces. Now I believe there is a significant improvement in the way to convey the insight.

-Resubmission (2nd major revision).
-Eight months wait for the reports. The first referee expresses that he is satisfied. But now the other one is focusing only on LaTeX remarks and notational criticisms, maintaining that the core part of my paper is "incredibly technical" (come on...), too technical to delve into. I now start thinking this is an exaggeration and potentially procrastination. There's a lengthy list of recommendations for minor LaTeX adjustments and criticisms of my notational choices. But at this stage, trading a notation for another one is just trading one inconvenience for another one... The paper is now quite stable, and though I took into account some interesting notational shortcuts, this new version is not fundamentally different from the previous one.
-Resubmission (3rd major revision).
-Now I have been waiting for another four months. Nothing moved since then. I see that the first referee submitted his report in a few days (probably saying one more time that he is satisfied, at least I hope), but and am growing increasingly frustrated about the inactivity of the second reviewer. It has been over two years since the initial submission. The editor is very professional, friendly and responsible. He perfectly understands the problem, but he cannot do more than nudging the reviewer. Should I approach the editor once more? Last time I contacted him was six or seven weeks ago.
I apologize for posing a question that has likely been asked many times, but the extended waiting period seems unusual.
Thank you in advance for your suggestions !

Is it a Q1 journal? Would you consider sending it to a different journal?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/88355/is-my-paper-under-review-or-similar-for-too-long-and-if-yes-how-should-i-reac Does this answer your question?

"but he cannot do more than nudging the reviewer." Yes he can. He can nominate a new reviewer and discard the one that doesn't do their job if the new reviewer sends a report earlier. He can even in principle make a decision based on one review and his own reading, if he feels comfortable about that.

@leonos I don't think three months is very unusual in applied math. This easily happens if some reviewers decline and somebody who promises a review doesn't send it. Two years is unusual though and hard to justify.

Thank you a lot to you all for your answers, this helps me figuring out the situation better. Yes it is a Q1 journal. Three months is normal for applied maths. It is normal that we need time to get familiarised with the model. I am not too shocked that we need eight months, even though I personally think that six months is a maximum. What is unusual is that we need this amount of time between each resubmission.

Actually, I remember suggesting finding new referees in one of my letters to the editor, or proposing new referees myself. But apparently, he wanted to keep these ones.

@BNPO I would find such a suggestion a little bit unprofessional, to be honest. However, I understand you.

I did not insist too much on that, and I understand that the editor prefers to keep the initial reviewer. As Jan is saying, the editor understands my problem. I do not think proposing new reviewers is that unprofessional, in general, since editors who are not familiar with the model need ideas about who contacting. My idea was also something like "maybe we need someone else who can delve into the details, so that the editor will have more cards in hand to appreciate the paper". (I wrote "these ones", but I meant "this one")

Waiting 1-2 years, even for the first revision, is not unusual. I understand your impatience and frustration, but you cannot do much now. Writing to the editor is OK after some time; journals usually say one year. In this particular case, I do not think it is a good idea to write to him once again. As you say, he understands you. On the other hand, he cannot push the referee too much. In the end, for the referee, it is a voluntary work. The system is clearly far from ideal at this point, but for now you have to cope with it.

I understand your frustration and, like the other answers, I don’t thin there’s much you can do. If you are worried of getting scooped and consider the paper stable enough, you can post it as a preprint in whatever repository is most common in your field——at least, this way you can claim precedence should someone else publish similar results whilst you wait.

Six or seven weeks is about right for another nudge, although since the editor has indicated that they are actively nudging the reviewers, I'd give it another few weeks.
Unless:
If you are at risk of getting scooped for a Nobel prize winning publication: tell the editor that you will retract within a week's time and submit elsewhere.

If it's on arxiv then they won't get scooped.

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


text:
Do grades obtained after applying to a graduate school matter?
Suppose one submits his/her application to a graduate school this November and grades for the ongoing semester are due after that. Do these grades, received after submitting the application, matter in the admission process?

I have heard anecdotal evidence of students getting their acceptances revoked from medical school due to this. What are you planning to do, get Fs across the board?

No I need to know what if people take all their easy courses before submitting their application and leave the challenging courses for afterward.

Well, as long as you put in reasonable effort, I don't see any issue. It's not like people take classes hardest to easiest in college.

This really does not make any sense your GPA in application is GPA at time of submitting the application and you can have basket of easy classes and have 4.0. BTW I did not mean getting all F. I meant reduction to B+ or A- from A's because this is still reduction in GPA.

Bear in mind that graduate admissions committees don't just look at your GPA, they look at whether you have taken challenging courses that will adequately prepare you for grad school.  If you've taken only easy courses, you'll probably be rejected no matter how good the grades are.

You're fretting too much if it's a B+ you're worried about.

if people take all their easy courses before submitting their application — Those students don't get accepted.

Yes.  Many graduate departments may accept your application, but require a final undergraduate transcript before you actually start your first semester there.  If your grades have seriously dropped in your last semesters, they could rescind the offer of admission, and not let you in after all.
So in short: extra good grades in your last semesters can't help you, but bad grades can hurt you.


text:
As a postgrad student, is it appropriate not to add my supervisor's name on publication?
Let me summarize the complicated state of affairs, as follows:
This summer, I was cooperating with the other team in a spin off project, we decided to publish the results, so I prepared the paper.
In the authorship, I added my supervisor's name. I think it is usual because I am his student and whatever I've learned came from him.
But when the other team's supervisor saw this, he asked me to drop my supervisor's name from the list. I sense that this is not only because he is not involved in the project, but also because of some political issues.
Dropping my supervisor's name makes me feel bad, like betraying him.

If anyone is not "involved in a project", they are not an author. Listing them as an author is academic dishonesty.

@PVAL it might be worth reading through similar questions and answeres on this site, before making absolute statements like that that are potentially misleading to the OP. It might be worth paying close attention to the question's 3rd paragraph, as well as the one phrase in the fourth that you've picked up on. Bear in mind that different fields have different conventions, and though you may feel that your field's conventions are right and other fields' are wrong, there may be room in the world for more than one set of conventions.

@PVAL: I thought it was a perfectly reasonable reply actually. It's been my understanding that it's pretty normal for PIs to find projects for their students to work on, resulting in them being last authors by apparently popular convention -- is it not?

@Mehrdad If you look through the questions and answers here, you will discover that this is widely discipline-dependent (and also that people have quite strong opinions on this topic).

@Mehrdad Also, from the formulation of the question, I am not convinced that the collaboration of thesta has indeed been "found" by her PI. It sounds like (s)he worked entirely independently and now wants to add the PI's name as a pure curtesy. This would be at least somewhat weird even in my discipline (which has rather lax author requirements), and I would expect the other authors to push back.

Finally: "In the authorship, I added my supervisor's name. I think it is usual because I am his student and whatever I've learned came from him." This is an insanely disquieting statement coming from a postdoc. Aren't you supposed to be a (more or less) independent researcher by now?

@xLeitix I was under the impression that a "postgrad student" is a Master's/PhD student. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

@alarge Maybe. If this is the case, I will delete my comment. (but the statement is also very disquieting for a PhD student, although less uncommon)

If a person has heavy involvement in a paper or if they basically told you what to do, they should be put down as a co-author, although the definition of heavy involvement might be up for debate.

Since you haven't explicitly mentioned which academic discipline this concerns, and as EnergyNumbers mentioned in the comment, different disciplines may have different conventions, I'll answer in terms of my discipline, (Theoretical) Physics. I would be horrified if it so turns out that things are any different in any other scientific discipline (at least).
Whenever an article gets submitted for publication, one has to''accept'' a declaration that all those people who made significant contributions were (at least) offered co-authorship. If they decline to be an author, that's a different story. As PVAL mentioned above in a comment, it is academic dishonesty if someone is sitting in the author list without having contributed anything significant to the investigation. Even if you discount the ''politics'', as you mentioned, the other team is frowning because your supervisor is ''not involved in the project''. If that means that he only offered occasional advice, perhaps born out of his experience with doing similar things, (''have you tried ...'' variety), then the right place for him is in the acknowledgements section. Just mention, ''we thank [his name] for helpful discussion/ inputs ...'' etc. But if it means that you want to include his name only because ''what I learned came from him'', I'm afraid I have to point out that authorship is not a Christmas card. (By the same token, why not include your parents, or your spouse, or your high school teachers - you owe a lot to them also :P). It is WRONG to include any person who didn't contribute TO THE INVESTIGATION, howsoever highly regarded he may be in your personal life.
But having said that, here's some seasoned advice - Go and talk to your supervisor in private and explain the situation. Ask him whether or not you should include him in the list, fighting opposition from the other co-authors. It is possible that he may have been in this situation before (whichever side), so he will show you the light. One-to-one dialogues go a long way in resolving these sort of harmless dilemmas.
Besides, that will serve another purpose - you will show him that you ''respect'' him so much that you want to gift him authorship in an investigation that he hasn't contributed to at all :P. (I expect that any sensible man would decline in this situation).

+1 for talking to the supervisor. Learning that the other side has opposed to his co-authorship, he will probably not want it anyway => OP's problem solved.

Prepare to be horrified, then. "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy"

@EnergyNumbers "Prepare to be horrified" is also pretty much the first thing I thought when I read this answer :)

Good advice, I think.  If disagreement between the two supervisors persists, I would try to have them hash it out amongst themselves (another possible benefit of talking to your supervisor).  Why should you stand in the middle?

It's weird that people can accept terminological differences across different fields or even different journals, but become astonished or horrified when the terminology in question is the meaning of the word "author" ;-)

Thanks to those who found this sensible and liked it. For those who found it narrow, well I'd put a first-paragraph-italicized-disclaimer only to address this narrowness. I, of course, haven't (yet) published anything outside Physics. So, relax and cheers :)

"...authorship is not a Christmas card" -- lol! that's a nice way to describe it.

Yes, in many fields, it is very much expected that your supervisors' names will appear on papers written during your study, because in those fields, much of the substance of your work comes from your supervisors.
You're right that politics can be involved too.
Do bear in mind that different fields have very different conventions about what "authorship" means. Quite a few pharma trial papers have almost all their words written by ghost authors who do not appear at all in the list of authors. No doubt this will horrify some readers here who consider their own field's conventions to have some sort of objective purity, despite them being just as much a negotiated compromise as any other field's. In different academic disciplines, different types of contribution (data collection, analysis, writing, thinking, editing) may each earn co-authorship, acknowledgement, or money. Furthermore, the concepts of, meanings of and interpretations of contributorship and attribution within scientific publishing are in flux at the moment, evolving and trying out new forms - see discussions at The Scholarly Kitchen and other places, .
So don't get too hung up about some people's ideas of what being a named author means.
Do discuss it with your supervisor(s). Find out what the conventions are for your field, and for your target journal in particular. And in general, don't add someone as author without having discussed it with them first.

"And in general, don't add someone as author without having discussed it with them first." This is the most important statement right here. In some fields being an author on a publication implies a familiarity with the research, methodology and results of that publication. If a person has not been involved in anyway(be it advising, assisting, what have you) then putting their name on there isn't just academic dishonesty it's also a potential nightmare for the person who goes to a conference and gets stopped with questions about a publication they have no awareness of.

In a theoretical world, I would favor cutting advisors from a lot of papers.  In theory you make a contribution, not just management.  But in reality, we know their role is often to raise funds and run a little kingdom.  The level of contribution to the actual work would not merit authorship were they a student (or a manager in a company).
However, we have to live with the practical world and in some fields, it is just expected that they get their names on there.  Heck, it would probably hurt them with funding, promotions, etc. not to be listed.  And I don't mean that in the sense of them getting something they don't deserve.  I mean that in the sense that it is expected to see their names on the papers when looking at productivity of the "kingdom".
This other project doesn't seem like they are paying for you (and yes, payment is not authorship...but in the practical world...it sort of is).  Also you say the other project is a spinoff.  That sounds separate, but still somehow connected.  It's not like you finishing up a paper from before you got to your new posting.
P.s.  Please stop referring to yourself as a postgrad "student".  Even though you are a peon, as a Ph.D., you are considered at least a worker, not a student.  (Even the real students work more than they study, but that's a story for another day with many sad issues like workers comp for accidents.)

We get inspiration and ideas from all over the place, but authorship implies something more specific and tangible.
If your supervisor did not make a contribution commensurate with authorship, he/she should not be named as an author (the fact of your being his/her student is irrelevant). If you feel compelled to acknowledge him/her, then use the Acknowledgements section or a footnote to do that (e.g.: "I am grateful to Prof. Josephine Bloggs for her guidance and for brainstorming a few ideas relevant to this article. Her feedback helped me bring the conclusion into focus.").

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


text:
Is it rude to ask the status of an application?
I have applied for a PhD position in October 2015. I was not informed about the result since then.
Is it appropriate to send a mail to a member of the hiring committee (with whom I have contacted before applying) to ask about the process? Or should I wait for them to contact me?
The university is in Sweden and I have contacted with the member prior to the application since he is the head of the research group that I intend to work in.

Which country have you applied in? The answer to this question really depends on the country (e.g. in my country you wouldn't contact any committee member, but the PhD school's secretariat).

I guess an even better question would be when and how to ask the status.

If the department concerned has staff whose job it is to coordinate admissions process it is better to start by contacting them.

It depends. What does your acknowledgement say when you had submitted your application?
If you were told something like "you will be informed your result by XX month/year" and you have not received anything in that regard by that period, then you can write an e-mail to inquire the status of your application.
If you were told something like "only successful candidates will be informed by XX month/year" and you have not received anything in that matter, then you can write an e-mail to your contact person to know the status.
In any case, you can write email politely to know about your application status if you think it is already too late. There is no harm to inquiring application status.

In my prior application to the same university, they have sent me an e-mail for notification of rejection. However, the interval between application deadline and notification was not so long.

I don't think it is inappropriate nor rude to send them an email. It's your right to be informed with your result as time is passing.

If you're waiting 6 months for someone to write you back, perhaps that reflects poorly in their eyes on your skills as a researcher... seriously, though, you have to be more assertive about these things. If you feel it would be rude, try to make it as un-rude as possible: Ask about applications in general, not just your own; say you want to make sure you haven't missed a reply by mistake; ask whether they can estimate when a reply can be expected (rather than asking whether you were accepted); etc.
But don't just wait for it to happen!


text:
Will these "errors" in my advisor's letter raise red flags when I apply for academic faculty positions?
I am currently on the job market. One of the positions uses the online application system where I am able to open the letters of recommendation and read them. I found out that there are "errors" in my advisor's letter.

First, she put the name of University A in the letter that goes out to University B.
Second, she wrote that I have successfully defended this month when her letter was dated June, which I worry is going to give the search committees the impression that I defended my dissertation in June when in fact I had defended in May.

I conveyed this to her; she offered to fix the name of the university. But what if the same error is repeated in her second letter, or worse, she adds more errors in her second letter?
So my questions are:

Will these errors raise any red flags in the eyes of the search committees?
Will these errors give me enough reason to not to use my advisor's letter?

I am contemplating not to list my advisor as one of my references. I have read the responses to a question similar to mine in this forum, so I understand that I am taking a risk and I will have to explain it if I choose not to list my advisor as one of my references.

My university sent a confirmation of my PhD with the year off by 10 years... (this was 15 years after the defense). It was a genuine mistake, they sent back the right data with some nice comments about that excellent graduate of them :) I would not worry too much about small errors which can be rectified.

If I were your advisor, I would fix these typos before sending out any more letters (i.e., to other schools).  If there is an online system where I can instantly and unobtrusively replace a letter with a fresh copy, then I would do it.  Otherwise I would let it go.
These are not serious enough for you to worry about.  The impression that this will make on the reader is that your advisor is a human being, perhaps a human being who is rather busy.  Ideally your advisor will be someone whose reputation is known to the readers, so cannot be spoiled by a few careless typos.

One of the positions uses the online application system where I am able to open the letters of recommendation and read them.

This concerns me...but you didn't ask about it.
Added: I missed at first this part of your question:

[W]ill these errors give me enough reason to not to use my advisor's letter? I am contemplating not to list my advisor as one of my references, and I have read the responses to a question similar to mine in this forum, so I understand I am taking a risk and I will have to explain it if I choose not to list my advisor as one of my references.

Heck no.  Not getting a letter from your advisor upon graduation is a very bad idea in almost all cases.

Thank you, Pete. It's good to know that this is not something serious enough to raise any red flags. :)

The wrong university might result in someone in the hiring committee smiling for a second. It is a copy and paste error, which would only become a problem if applying to University A would be an error in itself, e.g. if A is the school of astrology in Hoople, Southern North Dakota, and B is MIT.
The wrong date will not be noticed by anybody. If you have to look at 60 applications, you do not read every letter line by line, but just skim over it to see whether it contains some real information, like "was very engaged in teaching/student union/environmental issues/...".
A large part of the meaning of a letter of reference is independent of the content of the letter. If I believe that X is good and honest, and X writes a letter for Y, then I guess that Y cannot be too bad.

Thank you, Jan-Christoph. I will use my energy on something more productive.

How should the advisor know (mine didn't) that I am engaged in some environmental NGO activities?

@Vladimir: Well, he might know, and he might say so in the letter. And if I look at a letter I am looking for information which is not obvious from your CV or your grades. Everything else is just "Oh, got a letter by X".

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
A professor is happy to supervise me. Does that mean my formal application will be accepted?
I am worried since, in fact, I do not meet the minimum grade requirements for a PhD admission of the school. But the supervisor says they are happy to offer me a funded PhD. Note : this is in the UK.

You are accepted when you receive the acceptance letter. Until then, nothing counts.

In UK, the professor's word does count. If the prof. is interested, then everything else is just a formality (usually).

@Faustus Please note that the OP states that "I do not meet[d] the minimum grade requirements' . It's exactly the formality I am concerned about.

Does your potential supervisor know in no uncertain terms that you do not meet the grade requirements? Even if he or she has seen your grade transcript, you cannot take it for granted that they have considered this aspect. You will likely need their support in order to gain admission.

The university has a "minimum grade requirement" for admissions to the Ph.D. program?

@Faustus Everything else is a formality (usually) — This is a good working definition of "not counting".

It isn't guaranteed.
The fact that you have a professor who is willing to be your supervisor is a strong factor in your favour -- very strong.
However, there may be other requirements that means a student can't be accepted onto an institution's PhD program. These include language ability, suitable visa or residency requirements, and, of course, how strictly the institution adheres to whether you satisfy the minimum academic requirements. In some cases, the proposed supervisor's influence overcomes these. In others, it does not.
The head of department in some cases has the final say as to whether a student is to be accepted into the PhD programme. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that an HoD would deny the student onto the programme, irrespective of the professor's support.


text:
Can a graduate from university of applied science In Finland study higher degrees (Masters and PhD ) outside Finland?
Can a graduate from university of applied science in Finland study higher degrees (Masters and PhD) outside Finland?
I know you that can do a Masters inside Finland in any university of applied science inside Finland. But I don't know about PhD,
and I also don't know about completing a Masters and PhD outside of Finland. Is it possible?

Yes you can.
You would have to go through the application process of whichever university outside of Finland that you wanted to apply for. The university may have certain minimum requirements, and it would be a competitive process, with you competing with others trying to get into the university.
Depending on which country and university you choose, you may be counted as a EU student or as an international student, which usually has higher fees than domestic.


text:
How to indicate a 'summary' of some sort in a presentation
Soon I will give a presentation in college for a few professors. In this presentation I research a somewhat complex concept, though the focus is how said concept can be used in company X.
So I'd rather not spend too much time elaborating on the concept and spend more time on the actual findings of my research. How can I do this though?
Currently I have a slide with a rather long quote on top, 5 key points in the middle and a 'summary' or a 'simplified' version below. I'm not entirely happy with this though, as in my opinion a simplified sentence implies the stuff above is less important or even too complex for my audience.

Move the details to "alternate slides", either at the end or set to be skipped when in presentation mode.  They may be useful during Q&A following the talk.

I recommend short simple words no matter how complex the audience is. Just highlight main points of what is being said per slide. I don't recommend quotes on a slide though especially if it requires inhaling to read.
If you need hard data shown, I recommend bringing a printout and handing it out.
Be sure to include your name/contact info at the last slide.

Mmhmm good point. The quote is the 'official' definition of the concept, but is indeed much too long for a presentation. Also, good point on your last one, almost forgot about that.

Figure out which part of the concept is absolutely essential to the rest of your presentation. This should be less than the five key points: if you can distill it to one or two sentences, that'd be perfect. Make this part of your presentation overlap with the next part: instead of explaining the concept completely by itself and then moving on to your results, provide a one-slide, high-level introduction to why the concept is applicable (in one or two points!), and then -- just as your audience starts to wonder why this is relevant -- tell them how your findings show it applies to/is valuable for company X. Move everything else to extra slides at the end of your talk as suggested by Ben in the comments: that way, you can give a mini five-minute presentation on just this concept alone after your main talk, if necessary.
The most important part of polishing any presentation is practice talks: give the talk to a few of your friends or some of the professors who you will eventually present to, and see if they stumble or get confused at the slides you're worried about. Having seen the rest of your presentation, they'll have a better idea about where exactly you're stumbling and how to make your presentation flow better.
Also: I hate quotes in presentations, because you can only either read them off verbatim to your audience (which is boring), give the audience a few minutes to read them (which is also boring, but useful if you need a break to drink water), or ignore them entirely, which is a big no-no.

Yeah, think I'll do that. The quote is definitly too long, so I'll remove it and explain the concept using 5 key points and a simplified sentence. Thank you.


text:
Will I be regarded as academic dishonest if I submit one paper to a conference as well as a journal?
I finished and submitted one paper (journal version) several months ago. My mentor suggested to me to submit a shortened version of the original paper to a conference. The conference version is almost the same as the journal version, except that some detailed mathematical proofs are omitted. But we cross-cited these two papers and told the reviewers of the conference paper that the journal version was under review.
Now both the journal and the conference have accepted my paper. I wonder whether there will be any problem if I choose to publish these two papers in a journal and a conference at the same time.
Furthermore, now I am applying for a PhD degree. If I list these two papers on my resume, will I be regarded as academic dishonest and be rejected?

What is your field? In some subfields of CS, it is the normal course of things to have a conference paper and an extended journal version that repeats much of the content of the conference paper - although submitting both at a time, rather than first writing the shorter conference version and then extending it (also based on the comments gathered uring the conference!) is somewhat unusual.

You submitted the same paper on two venues at the same time. Do not do that, ever.

I upvoted it because it's a legitimate question. The OP's mentor suggested him to do it and then he doesn't feel right, thus the question.

But we cross-cited these two papers and told the reviewers of the conference paper that the journal version was under review — Many conferences (even in computer science) explicitly forbid submitting papers that are already under submission to any other conference or journal.  If the program committee accepted OP's paper even after being told that it was under review elsewhere, I think OP is in the clear.

I am in electrical engineering department and my main research focus is information theory. I used to see other guys going like this---finish a conference version and submit an extended journal version later. However, in my case, I submitted two versions almost at the same time, that is what I am worried about.

Publishing a shorter conference version and a longer journal version of the same article is common practice in at least one discipline I am familiar with (computer science) and maybe in others. So that by itself is not an offense. Keep in mind that conference and journal publications are philosophically different and serve somewhat different purposes:

Publishing in a conference proceedings is a quick way to get your research published. And of course you also get to attend the conference and speak about your work to people working in your area. Hence in rapidly moving fields this is the standard venue for publishing exciting new research. However, proceedings papers have strict length limitations so one cannot include as many details as in a journal article. And most importantly, the review process for conference publications is faster and usually not as strict as for journal articles. Many people consider conference publications not to be proper peer-reviewed publications, and when citing a result from such a publication one must be aware of a very real possibility that the result has not undergone the fullest scrutiny as to its correctness and may be wrong. (Of course this possibility also exists in journal publications, but to a lesser extent.)
Publishing in a journal takes a lot longer for the review and publication process, but there are fewer or no space limitations, and the review is a proper peer review that (ideally, though not always in practice) provides strict assurance that the results of your paper have been checked and are correct (or use proper scientific methodology and are likely to be replicable, in experimental sciences).

Because of these differences, in a field like CS one common practice is to submit a short and quick version of your paper to a conference to get the ideas out in front of their intended audience as quickly as possible, and then to follow up later with a longer, more detailed, version of the results, and to submit that to a journal for strict peer-review certification and the accompanying credibility and prestige.
With regards to your question, I think there are two potential pitfalls you need to beware of in your specific situation:

It sounds like the journal editors are unaware that you concurrently submitted a short version of the paper to a conference. Since you made the conference submission after the journal submission (which is the opposite of the usual order of doing things, as someone else pointed out), there is a possibility that you are violating the journal's submission policy. I suggest making very sure that that is not the case, and if in doubt contacting the journal editors to inform them of what you did and ask if it's okay. There is nothing shameful or dishonorable about making such an inquiry - you are trying to do the right so it makes perfect sense to ask such questions.
Even if you verify that with both submissions you did everything by the book and did not break any rules, NEVER claim or make a representation in your CV or publication list that the two versions are different publications. That in my opinion would expose you to serious criticism of dishonesty and resume-padding. Benoit Kloeckner's answer gives a good explanation of the proper way to cite the two versions by including both in the same entry in your publication list.

The bottom line is that in some areas it is acceptable to publish two versions of the same article, one in a journal and one in a conference proceedings. I should add that in my opinion doing so is also of questionable value, unless you are in a discipline where this is the standard practice for publishing for the reasons I listed above. You will not get, and should not try to get, double credit for publishing the same material twice.

NEVER claim or make a representation in your CV or publication list that the two versions are different publications. — Alas, this rule is universally obeyed.  My university explicitly requires me to list my conference papers and journal papers in separate sections of our official biographical data forms, even though almost all of my journal papers are revisions of conference papers.  When I objected, my department head said "No, really, list them both."

@JeffE, if the biographical data form is for internal use within your university, e.g. promotions, then that sounds reasonable (though in such a situation I would make sure to point out in a prominent place in the file that there is double-counting of substantially similar publications), but for public posting online I honestly don't think I would allow my publications to be presented in such a way.

BTW did you mean to say the rule is not universally disobeyed?

... not universally obeyed.

The issue of duplicate publication concerning conference and journal versions of similar papers is a difficult one. What is acceptable to do and what not depends highly on the field and maybe even individual venues. Of course it also depends on the degree of overlap between the two papers.
Whenever you plan to reuse some content in another publication, be sure to make the duplicate publication transparent by stating the other paper in the cover letter, and citing it from within the paper. In general, it will be required that the later paper goes beyond the results of the first paper, and it is important to point out how it does that both in the cover letter and the paper itself.
In your case, from the conference's side it's probably fine since you informed the reviewers about the duplicate publication and they obviously had no objections. However, since the journal paper was not yet accepted, you should have at least checked their guidelines on duplicate publication, or better verify with your handling editor that it is fine to submit a shortened conference version. Maybe you can still do that now, and offer the journal editor to withdraw your conference paper if the duplicate publication in that case is against their guidelines.

"by stating the other paper in the cover letter" - and of course, the existence of a cover letter depends highly on the field, just as well.

Concerning the resume question, I'd suggest presenting the papers as one item, e.g.

Fancy Journal Paper, Journal A (2015) (a conference version has been published in Conf B (2014))
Truly different paper, Journal B (2016)

or giving the conference version its own item, numbered 1', or anything similar which makes it clear you are not trying to sell twice the same work as CV lines.
As all other advices, this may be more or less compatible with the habits in your field, you should get more specific advice IRL.

My CV uses the following format: [1] This is the title of the paper, which is found many times in the paper itself. With Coauthor One and Coauthor Two.  Redundant Journal of Redundancy 42(3):16–23, 2015. Extended abstract in Proceedings of the 123rd Annual Pub Crawl on Computational Zymurgy, 1923–1932, 2014.  [2] Next paper


text:
Is copying a sentence considered plagiarism?
In writing a phd thesis, if a sentence is copied as it is and given proper references, then will it be considered as plagiarism?

To me, the term "proper reference" means signaling it as a quote somehow (e.g., quoatation marks, set off and in italics).  So if that's what you mean, then no.

Verbatim cited text is preferably put between quotation marks. E.g., Smith et al. (Smith 2008) state: "literally copied text goes here."
If you use quotation marks to indicate the verbatim copied text, it is not considered plagiarism.

Well a "blockquote environment" is fine too.  What's important is that it's clear it is a direct quote.

This can reach levels of silliness.
If Hunter and Garcia did a study on aadvark toenails, and wrote in 2008 that
"We sampled 200 aardvarks and we conclude that all aardvarks have long toenails."
I would be satisfied with:

Hunter concluded that all aadvarks have long toenails (Hunter and Garcia, 2008).

I would also be fine with:

All aardvarks have long toenails (Hunter and Garcia, 2008).

I have had TAs report cases of both types to me as plagiaristic.  I simply don't agree.  There is no reason to change a simple sentence that has a limited number of ways it can be phrased to

All aadvarks have toenails of great length (Hunter and Garcia, 2008)

to avoid charges of plagiarism.
Sometimes, because there are limited ways to write out a phrase, an attempt to paraphrase results in sentences that have parts that come out the same.  So long as citation is proper, I don't believe quotes are necessary.
Though this has little to do with plagiarism, on undergrad papers in the hard sciences, I often see students going to great lengths to include quotes, because they believe it to be stylistically required for some reason, but in the hard sciences, paraphrasing is the norm, and overquoting just looks silly.  Our writing folks tell me its not this way across all disciplines.
Going back to plagiarism, and all may not agree, I try to determine if the author is trying to represent someone else's work as their own.  For the examples I cite, clearly not, and thus they're not examples of plagiarism.
Where do I draw my line?  Probably at full sentences or large phrases, where it's appropriate to use quotation marks.  In the hard sciences, paraphrasing is usually more appropriate anyway.
Where does one use quotes in the hard sciences, then??  When the phrasing is important or has significance.

Einstein said "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity"

is a different passage than

In Einstein's opinion, one may often find opportunities when difficulties are apparent.

To wrap up, if you are copying a sentence, it is most likely appropriate to use quotes, but in many fields the accepted style is such that it is not appropriate to copy a sentence.


text:
Relation between a recommender and a PhD applicant
Online PhD application systems usually ask for relation between the recommender and the applicant.
The applicant was in a PhD program and the recommender was a professor in the department. The applicant approached him for some research opportunities at first, and later did some research in one of the recommender's projects, directly mentored by an assistant research professor. There was no formal title of "research adviser" for the recommender to the applicant, or for the research assistant professor to the applicant, as the student was still in the process of finalizing research direction and adviser. The student then didn't finish the PhD, and later applied to PhD programs in other universities.
Can the relation between the recommender and the applicant be "research adviser" in PhD application? What is best to describe that relation?
By the way, the recommender was also an instructor to the applicant in some courses. But a relation besides "instructor" was preferred, if possible.

There's a certain level of hairsplitting here.

PhD advisor or thesis advisor should definitely be reserved for the person advising a student completing her thesis research.
A research supervisor can be much broader in scope. For instance, someone performing a bachelor's or master's thesis needs a supervisor, as well as students doing summer research projects within your research group.

However, the important thing is to make clear in the letter the exact relationship between the referee and the applicant. Then no confusion is likely to ensue.

You may consider two roles for the students in previous institute; one as a PhD student looking for topic and the other is a short-term research collaborator. As the recommender was not engaged in your PhD job, he cannot be PhD advisor.
However, since the recommender was primary investigator (or head) of the project student worked in, the relationship is research collaborator or more focused, primary investigator in a collaborative research. Your output of the collaborative research with him as technical report, conference paper, or journal article would prove the relationship.
But I think student needs to convince the new graduate school that why did he fail/dismiss previous PhD.


text:
How to fill a "Relevant Knowledge/Training Skills" section in an application form for a Master Degree
I am applying for a Master in Law (distance learning) in a top-ranked UK university.
To do that, I need to fill in a form with several details and then upload some specific documents. One of the questions of the form is "Relevant Knowledge/Skills" with a word cap of 500 words.
In my past applications (jobs/academia), aside from my Personal Statement, I usually have sent a copy of my CV. Filling out a box with 500 words about my knowledge and/or skills is a new thing for me.
What do you recommend to handle this requirement successfully? What approach should I use for drafting an appealing section for my application? (e.g., not only put a bullet list with specific knowledge or technical skills)

Do you have an undergraduate degree?

Yes. A LL.B in my country

Some universities supply information about how to complete applications to their courses on their application website. Perhaps there is some useful information there.

What major in your Masters in Law? Maybe write 500 words on the specific area of law that you want to specialise in, why, what you hope to learn etc.


text:
How to make a complaint about grades?
My professor announced the grades. He told us in each part what grades we had.
My oral presentation for the project was way better than other students. But he just gave me 89 for oral and gave others 88.
I think it is not fair at all, because most of the students were not clear or the did not consider timing. He also told me that "your presentation was very good".
Also, I performed very well on the final exam but he also did not give me the 100. I think it is not fair.
How can I make a complaint? What should I write?

Your student guide should have information in it about whatever the grade revision process is for your university

Possible duplicate of How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor?

In principle, at least in some places, you can request an independent regrading for your written exams, as far as I know. The upside is, apparently, a few extra points and, possibly, going one shade of grade up (if you have anywhere to go; normally 90%+ means an A anyway). The downsides are
1) Getting at odds with your instructor (never really pays off, if you ask me)
2) The risk that your grade will get even lower (unless you are totally sure that your answers are 100% correct)
3) Creating a reputation of somebody who complains too much about too minor issues.
It is up to you to decide if you want to play this game. If you do, just visit the department chair office and politely ask what the rules for making such requests are.
As to the oral presentation, it is gone. Nobody (neither you, nor your instructor) can prove beyond doubt anything about what happened there now. You'll just enter a long and mainly pointless discussion about who heard what and how to measure "fairness". Besides, it is one of the cases when the scores are going to be at least partially subjective no matter what.

I was part of a large shared project (6 courses ) and we videoed every presentation including the q&a at the end. Two reasons, 1 to give as feedback(not the q&a part) and to have evidence for any attempt of “I deserve X grade due to Y”. One student wanted X, but his input showed it was not correct...


text:
Describing graduate certificate in written bio (US based)
I have a graduate certificate from a US school (i.e. - Master's level work) and this program, in addition to offering graduate certificates, also offers graduate degrees.
Is it appropriate to describe myself in a written bio (rather than a resume, in which the certificate would be listed as given), as a 'graduate of the XYX school of economics'?

It depends. There isn't always a lot of consistency to how graduate certificates holders are viewed. At some universities they are considered full alumni with all rights and privileges thereof. At other universities they you must hold a full degree (e.g., bachelors, masters, etc.) to be considered an alumni. In general, it is best to defer to the school's guidelines in terms of describing yourself as a graduate of the school or not.
However, it is always appropriate to list the certificate, i.e.,

Graduate Certificate in Economics, State University, 20XX


text:
Publications in personal statement
What is the best way to include publications in my statement-of-purpose which I want to submit to a university? Should I give a full description of my publications, or just list them?

Put them in your CV.

This would depend a bit on whether the publications are relevant for your request. I would suggest a two-fold approach:

A list of all publications in your CV, in usual bibliographical style.
A list of relevant publications, with a short comment on each, the affiliation under which it was published, and the connection it has to the studies you now wish to undertake, within the statement of purpose.

This will help the people making the decision understand you have a focus on what you are doing. You are not only telling them what you want to do, but also how you came to want it.
Best luck!

+1: I'd emphasize again: "relevant publications". Be very selective and try not to repeat too much with your research goal. Mention 1-2 unique aspects about paper that resonate with or reinforce your goals and aspirations. For instance, if your goal is to do more community-based research, and in one paper you invited a community stakeholder to be a co-author, then you can highlight that as a point that made you particularly proud about that publication in the statement.


text:
What does 'Ex:' in Google Scholar results signify?
Any Google Scholar gurus out there?
When I run a search in GS, in this case for the term 'webometrics' for the year 1988, the results all contain the following in parenthesis...
(Ex: webometrics)
My assumption that this means this particular result excludes the term 'webometrics' - which confuses me a whole lot as that is the only term I am searching for so I cannot understand why that result would be shown.
Is that assumption correct?
(As an aside, the term webometrics was first coined in 1997 so any reference before then is pretty much guaranteed to be an erroneous result!)

Google Scholar seems to be picking up on something somewhere in the archive websites where they say that they use Google Analytics to analyse webometrics. In this case, "Ex" seems to mean "For example", and isn't specific to Google Scholar.

if they had only used the latin, no one would be confused :-)  (e.g., this way)


text:
Can a thesis approved by supervisor fail? What to do to appeal?
I am doing PhD in an Australian university.  My thesis was approved by my supervisor, however, one of two examiners suggested revision and re-submission (with harsh criticism and no solid recommendation), and eventually failed it. The committee asked for another examiner and failed it. I would like to know if we can appeal in this situation:

My supervisor has approved the thesis,
I never had any problem in annual review, and
I have made revisions in accordance with the comments received from the examiner.

I think your supervisor knows the answer better than us. He knows your thesis and your university policy.

Obviously this is a frustrating situation for you, but I don't see how this site can help.  If your institution's rules say the examiner's approval is required in order to pass, then of course you have to have it.  If your supervisor's approval was all that was needed, what would be the point of having other examiners?  As to appeals processes, they are different for every university; you will have to research how yours works, whether you have appropriate grounds to appeal, and what your chances are of succeeding.  But again, nothing that a stranger could help with.  Sorry.

What discipline are you? How many papers out of this thesis have you published? How many years were you in that PHD program?

If you have publications from your work in peer-reviewed journals or conferences you should be able to over-rule that one person. however, you also should be able to replace him if he is not suggesting improvements.

I don't see how you can successful appeal the failure based on your supervisor's approval.  The only recourse is to change supervisor, complain that your supervisor is incompetent, and get the university to waive any penalties to do with late submission.  The supervisor's job is to make sure your thesis is up to the international standard. He/she is not responsible for passing you. In your case, as three external examiners have said no, then there is no way to pass without first doing more work, and then submitting a revised thesis; perhaps sending it to new examiners.  Also, I would definitely get an experienced supervisor or co-supervisor to guide you.
The other side of the coin is that it is possible that the fault is entirely yours.  I know of students who went ahead with the submission despite having a poor thesis, and the supervisor reluctantly approved the thesis to prove to the student that the thesis is not up to standard.

+1 for @went ahead with the submission despite having a poor thesis, and the supervisor reluctantly approved the thesis to prove to the student that the thesis is not up to standard". This is probably the only reasonable explanation.

As a number of respondents have said, it really depends on your university's policies on supervision, vivas and appeals, but it is likely that there are three issues here.

The question of adequate supervision. Were you supervised properly in essence? Was your supervisor reasonable in approving your submission or did they guide you correctly in your choice of topic etc? Very often that will come down to the documentary trail on meetings, discussions on the parts that led to the fail etc.
The conduct of the viva. Was it procedurally correct? It is highly unlikely that you can appeal on the grounds of the examiners' academic judgement.
Which leads to the quality of your work. Is it of sufficient quality for you to be awarded with a doctorate?

It might be that you could establish a procedural irregularity in the exam or that you were subject to inadequate supervision but that still leaves open the question of the quality of your completed work. In other words, it might be that you deserve some kind of remedy, but that remedy might not entail you being awarded with a PhD.
Your first step is likely to engage with the relevant officers in your students' union, if they exist, and also to have a conversation with your Head of School about possible next steps. That second conversation might be best managed towards discovering what your department's attitude is, not for you to rehearse your own feelings on the matter.


text:
Why are some PhD holders unable to become professors?
Why do some people get STEM PhDs, want a professorship, and end up not getting it?
Is it only about opportunity and competition, or are there PhD candidates that are just not qualified to be professors (why?)?

My understanding is that, at least for academia, the number of PhDs far outweighs the number of positions available, so even if everyone were exactly equal there would still be a limit on the number of graduates with good jobs in academia.

The question needs to be clarified: what kind of job is "expected" with a PhD? "Low paid" is also quite subjective; additionally a high salary is not the only motivation for a job. Please give at least examples of what you consider expected and what you consider a low paid job.

@Nat, good point!  Edited.

Isn't this true for any type of degree from any country in any field? I can't imagine any of them have a 100% job placement rate.

Maybe changing perspective to another walk of life would help: Some people play sports for decades, but still don't become professional athletes. What could be the reason?

By “some” you mean “most”...

One reason is that they cannot teach.  I have interviewed many candidates with an outstanding research record, but have little idea about teaching or is likely to be bad teacher.  It is worth remembering that a university's core business is teaching.

[Thanks for the clarification, it turns out to be an easy question]

What the reasons are that some people get STEM PhDs, want a research job in academia, but end up not getting it.

Because the ratio between the number of candidates and the number of available jobs in academia makes it mathematically impossible for every candidate to get a job.
Many candidates don't even lack anything to be a good academic, it's just a very competitive job market.

[Edit to answer comments (and the last version of the question)]

are there PhD candidates that are just not qualified to be professors (why?)?

Of course there are:

a PhD is not a diploma which makes you qualified to be an academic professor anymore, it only validates the fact that you are capable of doing research. Basically you received the training, but it doesn't automatically mean that you're good at it, let alone in the top N%* best where you get a real chance to become a professor.
even being good at doing research is by far not the only skill required to be a professor. Of course there are teaching requirements (not everybody with a PhD is interested in teaching), but there's also a range of soft skills which are recommended: social skills, public engagement, performing administrative duties, and maybe more importantly nowadays being able to attract funding.

It's also worth noticing that very few people become professors just after the PhD, postdocs are part of the career process because that's where one can demonstrate the other skills I just mentioned. But the same applies to postdocs: even somebody who has  all the skills might not be good enough, it's a tough competition.
* "N" varies depending on many factors: discipline, country, etc.

Is that only about opportunity and competition, or, do PhD graduates suffer from quality issues?

I think there are three pools of candidates: those that could become professors and do, those that could become professors but there aren't enough slots, and those who aren't qualified to become professors. It would be interesting to expand this answer to explain why some applicants end up in the third pool.

The 10% figure is implausible as it varies so much by discipline.

"a PhD is not a diploma which makes you qualified to be an academic professor" Seventy years ago it was agreed that a PhD did qualify you to be an assistant professor.  The required qualifications have increased, not because the job has changed, but because the supply of PhDs has increased.

@AnonymousPhysicist you're right, I edited.

Just a note - postdoc "part of the career process" varies widely by field. (Edit: I guess the OP asked about STEM - but even there this varies, though not quite as widely as overall.)

I would also like to emphasize that faculty who are great at administration tend to be effective overall. In my experience as an administrator, it is the understanding of how bureaucracy works that is important. It generally means they spend their time effectively and come prepared. They are highly self-reliant and disciplined.  If you want to succeed in academia, learn the rules and play by them. Of course, the top performers I support also tend to stretch those boundaries, but they always do so with a please and a thank you!  ;)

For the united states, the number of PhD graduates per year is steadily increasing for many years.

However, the federal budget for funding is stagnating and even decreasing:

source

source
This does not have to be the situation in other countries:

To better estimate your chances of getting tenure, I would suggest taking a look at the demographic trend in a specific country and how the number of PhD graduates develops.
So the road after PhD towards professorship can be very different in, e.g., Germany vs. US. A rough estimate is always to take a look how many PhD's are graduating during lifetime of a professorship, average over faculty, universities... For physics this will be around ~20-40 in Germany, so your chances are 1/(20-40). In mathematics your chances are much better. But even solid state physics vs. astrophysics this number can vary strongly.

I think there are three pools of candidates: those that could become professors and do, those that could become professors but there aren't enough slots, and those who aren't qualified to become professors. It would be interesting to expand this answer to explain why some applicants end up in the third pool

@cag51 I agree on the groups you outlined, so the road after PhD towards professorship can be very different in Germany vs. US. A rough estimate is always to take a look how many PhD's are graduating during lifetime of a professorship, average over faculty, universities... For physics this will be around ~20-40 in Germany, so your chances are 1/(20-40). In mathematics your chances are much better. But even solid state physics vs. astrophysics this number can vary strongly. I think we agree there are more PhD's that are qualified to become professor than open positions... ;-)

In the US, a student visa to attend grad school is essentially a (limited) work visa that is super easy to get. And very low risk. This skews all the numbers in recent years.

"For physics this will be around ~20-40 in Germany, so your chances are 1/(20-40). In mathematics your chances are much better. But even solid state physics vs. astrophysics this number can vary strongly." --- can you kindly supply me some relevant links so that I can research more?

@user366312 https://www.dynamic-connectome.org/pubs/WissNachwuchs.pdf report in german with some numbers in the two tables, PhD have likelihood below <5% to become professor, mathematics 6.3%

It's basic supply and demand.  Too many Ph.D.'s running after too few professorships.
You also need to keep in mind that many grants and PIs have incentives to hire lots of grad students (as cheap, smart, lab techs).  That the kids don't have good career prospects is not the concern of the PIs or grants.  (Sure, everyone prefers if their people get nice placements.  But they aren't going to cut their group size.  And the main criteria for taking a grad student is what he will do as a grad student, not his employment prospects.)
That a STEM grad student finds this hard to comprehend (even to anticipate before starting a Ph.D.) baffles me.  If someone lacks the curiosity and analytical ability to figure this basic phenomenon out for themselves, how can we be confident they will be shrewd, curious, independent, and creative researchers to recognize new physical phenomena?
See also:  https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2013/11/academic-cartel

That the kids don't have good academic career prospects.... Please.  "Professor" is not the only viable career for PhDs, especially in STEM fields.

The same logic applies with their industrial prospects. If kids have a hard/easy time getting a job with Novartis or Exxon is not the main concern.  Incentives are not aligned. Nothing wrong with that. Just caveat emptor.  And for what it's worth a lot of physics Ph.D.s have a tough time getting industrial jobs.  Or check out the average ACS conference (hiring discussions).

I want to add that many PhDs do not want to become professors.
A lot of people do a PhD as the final part of their studies without the intention to work as a professor (or see during the PhD that they do not want to stay in Academia). Some do the PhD studies because of the belief that the title helps in their career.

I think this is actually the majority.....at the end of the PhD :-)

While true, this doesn't seem to answer the question, which is why PhD holders who want to become professors don't, not why PhD holders in general don't become professors.

There are far, far more PhD holders than academic positions. In my field, pure math, just about everyone in it is there because they want to be a math professor. (Even if you want the payout of, say, quantative finance, it's probably better to go into physics.) Every point of the process involves a lot of factors outside your control and sheer random chance: how useful your adviser is; whether the research you started on pans out (you only have a few years to produce substantial results, and yet you have to aim high enough for those results to be useful to you); how well you manage to network; your own physical and mental and financial security; and so forth. Just wanting it isn't enough, and there's no way to conjure up a professorship just by putting in enough effort, even if you're quite talented and have a PhD from a prestigious grad school.
There's an anecdote in one of Paul Halmos' books (I think) where he describes talking with his advisor around the time he was leaving grad school, saying he wanted to continue in academia, and his advisor making a phone call to summarily arrange a position for him. That's not a thing anymore. Being good in your field isn't enough; you have to be good at the business of academia, and you have to be extraordinarily lucky.

The requirements and skills needed to get a PhD are different than the requirements and skills needed to get a job offer.

Usually there are multiple qualified applicants for each job, so meeting the requirements is insufficient.

@AnonymousPhysicist I think my answer is still correct. I said the requirements needed to get the job offer, not the requirements needed to be qualified for the position. Generally the requirements to get the offer means you are the best (or their favorite or ...).

No, that is not what "requirements" means.

@AnonymousPhysicist Yes, it is: "that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory." When I give out job offers, one of the requirements is that they are better than all the other viable candidates.

If you have two openings and you require the best candidate for both, you will only be able to fill one of the openings.  Utter nonsense.  Nobody works like that.

@AnonymousPhysicist In that case if the two positions are actually identical, the requirement is then "be one of the top two candidates."

Requirements are usually meant as a baseline, not as a ranking criterion. It is a prerequisite whereas placement in competition is by nature a posteriori.

Austin, I feel like you are twisting words in an unhelpful way. “Requirements” refers to something which is a strictly necessary condition to be eligible for consideration, but something being a requirement doesn’t imply that having it is sufficient. So, not getting a job offer does not mean that you did not satisfy the requirements to get a job offer.

I'll point out that some PhD holders don't hold full-time academic jobs because they don't want the kind of jobs that are available, even though they in principle would like to stay in the academy.  This is not quite the same thing as saying there aren't enough jobs (though I don't disagree with that).
For example, in the United States, while in English literature it is now not unusual (I don't know how common) for someone with a terminal doctorate to have a full-time tenure-track-like position at a community college, most scientists would not consider such a position.  Similarly, many graduates from more elite programs would rather change careers than assume the responsibilities of a "heavy" teaching load.  Some people are very happy to move to another country if they are more interested in a research career, but perhaps many will not be.
My point is that although supply/demand is the overall picture, the OP's question sort of implies there is a monolithic "professor" position, while the reality can be quite different.  So perhaps some want a professorship, might even get a job offer, but don't want that one bad enough to take it.

(Personal aside: I'm not sure that this assessment reflects very well on the motivations of people to get a PhD in STEM.  If you compare the teaching load of  few generations back in mathematics (my field) it looks quite different even at PhD-granting institutions - this paper has some interesting details.)


text:
Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through "Description" of the report
I received a referee report from a journal (with single blind peer review policy).
If that matters, the journal uses "Editorial Manager" system.
By clicking on "View Attachments", one can see 5 these information "Action", "Uploaded By", "Description", "File Name", "File Size".
The content of the column "Uploaded By" is "Editor".
The content of the column "Description" is  "from prof. X"
Hence the identity of the referee is disclosed.
I am wondering if it is an unintended mistake from the Editor or it is the referee who has written such description.
The referee has done a substantial work to evaluate the manuscript and has proposed many suggestions leading to the improvement of the manuscript.
My dilemma is that, as I know the identity of the referee, should I use his real name in the acknowledgement or just thank an anonymous referee?

If the review itself is not signed, it sounds like the unblinding was not deliberate. I would:

Reply as if the review were anonymous
Notify the editor in a separate, private message saying there may have been an error in showing the reviewer name

Agree. To do otherwise might suggest to others that you were given some special treatment.

I would add: Notify the Editor after the paper is published. Otherwise you risk some complications. You did not do anything wrong (especially, you did not actively search for who the referee was), and the editor could over-react in some way and even blame you or change his attitude towards you.

@yo' Hide the truth until it's too late! Bury the evidence! Learn these and other useful techniques in our new course Shady Ethics 101.

@DavidRicherby Nothing shady. The authors did not do anything wrong. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake of either the Editor, the reviewer or the system they work in. I don't see any reason why the authors should risk their article being badly treated by anyone involved.

@yo' If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. (IMO, this shouldn't actually affect your chances. The worry about non-anonymous reviews is that the reviewer might seek favours by giving a good review. But, in this case, the referee thought s/he was anonymous, so wouldn't have been trying anything.)

@yo' If the editor will give you a hard time about accidentally seeing the unblinded names before publication, it's likely they'll be even harder on you if they find you deliberately & strategically held back the information until after publication. Sure, they probably won't rescind publication (though they might if they feel the review process was tainted), but you just burned bridges with them, and will find it hard to publish with that editor/journal in the future. -- If you're looking long term (and not just for this particular paper) the best course of action is to be open and forthright.

@R.M., it's possible you missed in the original comment that the author was recommended to immediately tell the editor about the unblinding. So there's no withholding of information.

@CameronBrick But RM is directly responding to a comment that explicitly recommends withholding!

My mistake, apologies

@DavidRicherby: I agree that the best and most responsible thing to do is to notify the editor immediately, and that no reasonable editor should let that affect their decision. That said, people aren't always reasonable, and you should be prepared for the (small) chance that the response is "OMG you hacked our site! We'll sue you and blacklist you from all our journals!" (Worse, with some of the anti-hacking laws in place in various jurisdictions, they might actually have a non-zero chance of winning the lawsuit if they argue that you weren't authorized to click the "View Attachments" button.)

... That said, even factoring in the small risk of an extreme overreaction, I agree with @R.M.'s point that waiting doesn't make the risk any lesser. If you're going to disclose this issue at all (and I agree that you probably should), it's best to do it immediately.

@IlmariKaronen It seems that the most prudent course of action would be to explicitly ask the editor for permission to click each button and then report anomalies soon after permission is granted, but not before.  If something is not needed for the OP's process, then permission should not be requested until after the process is complete - but perhaps OP would have lost interest by then.  OP should not click on any buttons that the editor has not explicitly granted permission for.

@R.M. in general if people are not willing to take constructive feedback well, it is OK to burn bridges.

@DavidRicherby IMO "If you are aware of something which you think might negatively affect the chances of your paper being accepted, not bringing that up is shady" goes too far. For example, I don't suppose anyone would argue that if you should inform the editor if you happen to be a member of some demographic you know they are biased against. I wouldn't feel ethically required to disclose information if it would be unethical for the journal to allow that information to affect its decision. And I think this case clearly falls into that category.

@EspeciallyLime If you believe that a journal is unethical (e.g., by racially discriminating among people who submit papers), you shouldn't support that journal by sending your papers there.

@R.M.: I don't understand how it might possibly be strategic to hold back the disclosure until after publication, can you explain why? (Do you mean OP could figure out based on their identity what changes or citations to use on the resubmission? and even if, how would that be unethical by OP?)

@smci because it happens too often that if you bring up a security issue, that instead of a "thank you" you get an "omg you hacked the system." reply.

@PieterB: really? Sounds crazy to me.

OP did not have a security issue in my opinion.

I would ignore the inadvertent disclosure of the referee's name.  It is unimportant.  Do not name the referee in your manuscript.

Could you explain more about why the disclosure of the referee's name is not important? It seems like journals put a lot of effort into the single-blind peer review process. That makes it seem important.

@BrianMoths it is important that authors do not bribe reviewers.  That's not the issue here.

Ask the editor.
Probably it is a mistake, but it is not your fault. I do not expect this to be to your detriment (and they might already have noticed it themself) and you seem to have a dilemma what to do.


text:
Graduate application: Institutions that I have attended
I am applying for a Master's degree program, and in the application I'm asked to list the institutions that I have attended and to attach the transcript for each. I have attended school A for a Bachelor degree in a related discipline to the program I am applying for. But later, I attended another undergraduate School B which is completely irrelevant to my major. It would take me a while to get a transcript from school B.
My question is: Must I mention School B in my graduate application? Or should I just mention A since it is the one relevant to my major and the program I'm applying for ?

Safest stance: mention both.
School B may be "irrelevant to my major", but mentioning it is going to add to the application. Though we are talking about an application here, and not about a CV, something related happens in a typical CV too. You assign more significance to stuff that is more relevant to your major, you put a general heading Other relevant information, and include other not-so-relevant bits over there. Over here, you need not put a separate heading. but still, mentioning it (with a clear pronouncement that you've done it though it ain't directly relevant to your major), can only add to the application. What do you lose by mentioning it!
As far as the issue of transcript from B is concerned, apply for the same - that would serve the purpose of authentication. If there isn't enough time to get it before the application deadline, write an email to the department saying that you have applied for the same on ( insert date here ), and some delay in receiving it is anticipated. If possible, you can forward the application (for the transcript) too, along with this email, to serve as a direct confirmation. Maybe, you can also add that you will communicate the same as soon as it is received. That would be a correct and safe statement. And I don't think your masters-degree-school will consider it a wrong stance, since the crux of their decision will certainly not be based on this part. This is only going to be a point in your favor (if it does count at all), but certainly isn't the bone of contention for your application.

Also, if you have an official copy of your transcript from the other school, I'd send it along (and if you don't, get a copy and scan it in, just for future use).

In some countries, (germany for sure) admissions offices need to know the number of terms you studied with any university to calcuate certain financial grants which may or may not apply. Failure to disclose those may result in an application to be rejected or even an offered spot to be canceled. Talking from experience!


text:
How to conduct research project using R programming language
I am a student of Energy policy and International relations, I have earned a certificate in R basics with the purpose of conducting research/analysis in formulating the policies for the energy transition to renewables and have found the R language very interesting. Can you guide me on what next logical steps I take to give a professional edge to my gained knowledge?
I have heard from everyone that one should build or work on a project to showcase it on resume, now my question is from where I can get the genuine data/packages related to Social Science and renewables energies to build my own research question/project. And after building a project how and where to show it on my resume.

A bit of advice. Lots and lots of people are proficient with R, many of whom understand what they are doing. It’s simply a tool. The way to distinguish yourself, as it seems you’re asking about, is to understand your field and to be able to formulate studies, or at least assist in the process, that lend themselves to statistical analysis. When you’ve found and successfully performed a project you’re proud of, put it at the top of the Recent Projects section of your CV.

@A rural reader that would make for a good answer.

Why do you want to use R in particular?  What advantages does it give you over other languages like Python, for example?

You have it backwards. First you need a research question that has the potential to improve the knowledge in your field, then you think about the corresponding hypotheses, and only in the end you worry about the data and methods needed to test them. Practically speaking, you should look for an advisor who knows the field well and can suggest some reading to explore interesting research avenues at the cutting edge. On your own, you'll likely get lost and side-tracked in the thicket of the literature.