text:
When should one recommend rejection of a manuscript versus major revisions?
Is there any good way to determine when it appropriate to reject a manuscript versus merely recommending major revisions? I.e., at what point do you declare a manuscript a lost cause? I understand there are some situations where the decision is very clear. For example, if a paper has methodology problems but is otherwise solid "major revisions" is an easy decision, as is the case if the manuscript presents clear examples of plagiarism or results that do not advance the field.
However, there are cases where the proper decision to make for a manuscript is not clear. As an example, I was recently asked to review a manuscript on this topic. Originally, I thought the paper was a straightforward "major revisions", but the more I look at the more I am not sure. Specifically...

The paper is poorly written and has a large number of grammatical and syntax errors. The journal is an English journal but I know authors are ESL speakers (they are from Argentina and France). In general, I have a strict policy as a reviewer not to reject papers for spelling/grammar/wording issues if English is likely not their first language since the issues could be out of unfamiliarity, but merely make suggestions as to how the syntax could be improved. So this is a minor issue from my standpoint but combined with the other issues it starts to add up.
The data are incorrectly formatted and input into their analyzing program of choice, which is likely causing bias in the data (and at the very least raise questions as to its results). Specifically, the data's formatting contradicts what was described in the methods. The methods state the values were based on the published values for the data points but the actual data corresponds to broader (and much less precise) categorical bins used in my field. They authors claim the data was compiled from the previously published literature but it is clear they merely got it from an online database, as it contains errors that are only in that particular database's version of the data.
Their definition of terms contradicts that of all previous studies, and they do not justify this change. They find a non-significant result but this is almost certainly because their data are nonsense because of noise introduced by their different definition of the term
Inconsistencies in reporting of the data. I.e., in some places the authors say two variables are negatively correlated and in others they are positively correlated.
The authors make claims in the discussion that they say are "evident" but provide no support for this either in their own results or via citation of the previously published literature
The authors do not sufficiently cite the previously published literature. Specifically, the authors appear to be avoiding citing papers from my research group. In their manuscript when reviewing the previous literature and in the discussion they bring up some of the exact same results obtained by previous papers by myself and my lab group, but do not cite them once. Checking through the references they cite pretty much every major research group working on this topic except ours. Discussions with other colleagues in the field suggest this may not be an honest oversight, but may be personally influenced. My concern is that leaving a highly critical review would result in academic retaliation or being blackballed by the authors, and our field is small enough it would be hard to leave an anonymous review.
The lead author is a graduate student (approximately my age), but the others are my senior by at least 10 years (I am a PhD student) I suspect the paper was primarily written by the graduate student based on literature errors that suggest a lack of familiarity with the subject. People have told me that if reviewing a manuscript from someone that is my senior I should be very lenient because they have power over me. There's is also the whole aspect of not being too hard on a very young researcher.
The paper is also scooping research that at least two other groups, one by myself and other colleagues and the other a third party, presented at the main conference for our field last year. The abstracts of these presentations were publicly accessible. I have no problems with this fact, I want to see this group's paper accepted. However, examining the data in detail suggests that they may have just thrown the dataset together using previously published databases without critical review.
EDIT: Based on the comment by @Buffy I thought I should add a bit more clarification. Our research group was actually planning to scrap our project because we weren't making much progress on the manuscript and it wasn't high priority, and this will likely be the nail in the coffin. The issue is more the fact that our lab group presented on this same topic is publicly accessible knowledge.

The paper might be salvageable and contains results that would be worthwhile if they stand up to scrutiny after the data has been fixed, but at the same time it shows extreme sloppiness that would not be acceptable for any scientific publication. I suppose, more broadly the question could be formulated as if there is any point where comparatively minor issues are so numerous that rejection becomes a better option than major revisions, or is it always better to choose major revisions over rejection? As you can see, this is a pretty complicated situation that makes it difficult to determine whether major revisions or outright rejection is the better course. Personally, I'd like to recommend major revisions for this manuscript, but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do. I usually don't like to reject a paper unless there is something fundamentally wrong with it that cannot be fixed with revisions.
I've talked about this with some colleagues, and I've had some who say I should not only not reject the paper, but I should also not bring up the issues as to improper data formulation, definition, and citation issues and give a recommendation of minor revisions at worst so as to avoid getting blackballed by the other researchers. But I'm not sure if this is the right choice.

This is a really long question, and the specific problems are a bit of a distraction. You should either ask about whether you should major revise / reject one issue or ask a more general question.

Maybe start changing into a clear brook of reasoning that feeds into this cesspool of cognitive biases, academic supremacy, and egotism? Out of all the comments you may have, divide them into "these are bad because they are objectively bad," "these are bad because I don't think they like me," and "these are bad because I don't like them," and submit the first category only? Sometimes it's that simple, speak issues that can be backed and can be addressed or improved. Life is too short, to-do list is too long for endless psycho-analyses.

@Penguin_Knight I don't get what you're getting at with this. The issues with the manuscript are methodological. I want to see their paper accepted. My concern is that they will interpret this as a personal attack and there will be negative repercussions for my career. The fact remains that they are a senior researcher and I am a PhD student and senior researchers generally do not like PhD students criticizing them. I only brought up the research politics aspects because it clarifies why I am concerned.

I'm saying don't play the game that they play. Comments like "they don't cite my work," "I bet a PhD student wrote this and the seniors just signed this off," are not necessary. Do all good works need to cite your work? Are all PhD students writing badly? I'm really just inviting all of us (me included) to check our own implicit biases and not complicate it more so than it already is. And if the comment does not apply to you, feel free to ignore it. And I sincerely wish you good luck with the reviewing process.

@Penguin_Knight In the case of citation, the issue is more they mention some of the exact same results that my other papers have found in their manuscript to but do not cite them. It's more than citation entitlement, it's plain not citing prior work to support statements. And with the student, I mention it mostly because the manuscript showed a general unfamiliarity with the literature that I would not have expected from the senior authors. I've seen this pattern multiple times where it turned out the work on the paper was done almost entirely by the lead, junior author (cont.)

@Penguin_Knight ...and the senior authors merely signed off on it without reading it. Indeed, from my experiences in my own field and talking with fellow researchers, it seems like this is standard practice in my field rather than an outlier (which is why I didn't think it was a personal attack to mention it). The issue is that while the senior authors may not be responsible for the lapsi in the manuscript, they do get offended when someone points out mistakes in the manuscript (which has happened with colleagues).

@user2352714 is peer review not blind in your field/this journal?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/148027/13240

@fqq Not really. Additionally, the field is so small it's really hard to remain anonymous. If someone in this field were to submit a paper there are only about 25 people who would be asked to review it, and its really easy to narrow down who does based on writing quirks, fields of interest, etc. In the broader field it's often said in practice peer review is never blind because everyone is so specialized you almost immediately know who is going to be reviewing your manuscript.

Many of the issues you raise are not relevant. Who wrote it, for example. Likewise scooping isn't relevant, though you may need to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. If the research is really parallel, not plagiarized, then scooping is fine.
But for the main question, ask yourself, what would be the quality and impact of the paper if the errors are (mostly) corrected? Is it innovative? Are the main results important? Is it "interesting". If the answer is no, then the paper should be rejected. Otherwise suggest major edits and let the authors see what they can do.
But I think the conflict of interest issue is especially important in your case. If it is eventually rejected and it is learned that you were a reviewer but later published something similar it won't help your career. You will be open to a plagiarism charge whether warranted or not.

I agree the scooping isn't relevant, my concern is that the authors will interpret it as personally driven because of that when my concerns with the manuscript are methodological, especially since it would be difficult to hide my identity. As I said, I want to give a recommendation of major revisions with the intent of seeing those authors eventually getting their manuscript published. But I know other researchers might reject it because they have a low tolerance for a lack of sloppiness when submitting.

Right answer about the content. Be sure to raise the conflict of interest question with the editor. Then they can do what they wish with your comments.

If the other reviewers suggest reject than that is up to them. It is also something you should ignore.

@Buffy Sorry, I meant more in the sense of "a different person in my position might choose reject, is that the right thing to do and am I making the wrong decision"?

Again, ignore what others might do. But it is a judgement call. Different people will call it differently. For your amusement

If you think the issues with the manuscript can be fixed, the authors should be given the chance to do a revision - if those are major issues, or a large number of issues, then a major revision.
If you think the issues cannot be fixed (or after fixing it would be in essence a new manuscript), then the manuscript should be rejected.

If there were an objective way to answer this, peer review would not be so random. Unfortunately there isn't. Still, the standard guideline is that if the issues are fixable, recommend revision; if the paper is fatally flawed, recommend rejection. Alternatively, if the issues are (relatively easily) fixable, recommend revision; if they will take a lot of effort, recommend rejection.
Examples of issues to recommend revision:

Poor (but still comprehensible) English.
Paper does not cite X, Y, Z, but it should.
Paper does not clearly define [term] even though it uses [term] extensively.
Paper does not perform [cheap experiment] to verify [claim], but [claim] is plausible - recommend they do the experiment instead.
Paper has a curious feature in the data that could refute the paper's thesis, and the authors do not treat it - recommend they examine the feature instead.

Examples of issues to recommend rejection:

Incomprehensible English.
Paper is provably wrong.
Paper is provably inferior, e.g. a paper proposes a new method to do X with 80% effectiveness, but another known method is already capable of doing X with 85% effectiveness.
Paper is plagiarized / violates academic ethics (e.g. it is submitted without the consent of all authors).
The paper, even if correct, is not interesting enough for the journal (or not within its scope).
Paper's central thesis is [claim], which is not supported by the analysis conducted. For example, if the paper says people prefer X to Y, but the sample of people it used is clearly biased, and there is no analysis of how the sampling bias might affect the results.
Paper lacks basic features, e.g. it analyzes the effect of X on Y, but doesn't have a control sample even though they really should have designed the experiment with one.

All that said, not everyone will agree with all of the above, e.g. some might recommend the authors repeat an experiment with the control. So you'll have to exercise judgement.
Based on your description of the paper you are reviewing, it reads to me like it's more reject than revise. The most problematic points are points #2, #3, #4 and the last one. A paper that contradicts itself is a clear problem that should never have arrived at you in the first place (assuming you didn't misunderstand). Scooping is not so much a problem as it is the fact that the data was thrown together without critical review. If as you describe it the data is nonsense, then the results are in jeopardy and could be completely wrong.
If you are still concerned, you could recommend revision and give the authors a chance to improve their work. If the revised manuscript is still terrible, then recommend rejection.

None of these reasons are reasons to outright reject a paper. Those that are relevant are possible to fix.

The paper is poorly written and has a large number of grammatical and
syntax errors.
This can be fixed by copy editing.
The data are incorrectly formatted and input into their analyzing
program of choice, which is likely causing bias in the data
If the data are genuninely incorrectly formatted, rather than just not formatted to your taste, then, again you can ask them to fix this and rerun the analysis.
Their definition of terms contradicts that of all previous studies,
and they do not justify this change.
I'm not sure I understand how the definition of a term can add noise to an analysis, but irrespective, ask them to change there definition and rerun or justify their change.
Inconsistencies in reporting of the data.
Ask them to clear up the inconsistancy. If they say positively correlated in one place, but negatively in another, ask them which it is.
The authors make claims in the discussion that they say are "evident"
but provide no support for this either in their own results or via
citation of the previously published literature
Ask them to provide support for this claim or claims.
The authors do not sufficiently cite the previously published
literature.
Ask them to cite the missing papers.
The lead author is a graduate student (approximately my age), but the
others are my senior by at least 10 years
Irrelevant.
The paper is also scooping research that at least two other groups
If you are worried about scooping then this is not relevant. If you are saying that they are plagerising, then that is relevant, and is the only thing here that is a reasonable reason to reject. But you should have solid proof its intentional plagiarism.

In general I only reject papers that have problems that are not fixable. All of the problems you have raised with this paper are fixable. Now the authors may decide they can't be bothered with all the issues you've raised, or the editor might decide that this amount of revision cannot be accomplished within the journals revision period, or they might fix the problems and their results, evaporate, but that's not something you can tell right now.
However, you say this:

and give a recommendation of minor revisions at worst so as to avoid getting blackballed by the other researchers.

If the paper is flawed, you cannot return a review saying it is not. But you do have the option of withdrawing from the review process if you do not feel able to give an honest assessment.

Age, and scooping are NOT reasons to reject a paper.  Poor grammar and syntax, incoherent data reporting, and "that's evident" are.
Multiple uses of "It's trivial to show" or "It's evident that" were enough to make me reject a paper on those grounds alone (references to proofs should be included).  Combine that with poor English and poor proof-reading it's likely the right call to reject the paper.
You cannot evaluate the contributions, importance, or correctness of the paper if proofs are left as an exercise to the reader.
You cannot evaluate the correctness if there are contradictory statements, such as claiming negative correlation and positive correlation.
Poor English skills alone shouldn't disqualify a paper, but if there are several it should be corrected before approval.

People have told me that if reviewing a manuscript from someone that is my senior I should be very lenient because they have power over me.

This is journal dependant, but most journals anonymized peer-reviewer feedback for this reason.  You should give an honest assessment of the paper.  Are you reviewing papers from your university (you should not do this)?
If you feel like minor corrections would fix this paper, then you can do a "reject with revision (aka soft reject)."   It sounds like there would need to be significant changes, like added proofs.  Be sure to write up these issues in the rejection reason.  Point them towards existing work, and explain why the notations they used were confusing.
The reject review should stick to issues with the paper, like missing proofs and poor editing and English.  Do not bring up age.  Only cite the "scooping" if the results were already available to the community at large (otherwise this isn't an issue).

For poor but comprehensible grammar, you should recommend revision, not rejection.

@AnonymousPhysicist - If you re-read the poor English sentence, I said poor English skills alone shouldn't disqualify a paper.  If the paper already has several issues (which it sounds like this one does), then it should be pointed out so the author(s) know to improve their English writing skill, and because it makes a paper with several other issues even harder to understand, and thus evaulate.

Is there any good way to determine when it appropriate to reject a manuscript versus merely recommending major revisions?

You list a number of arbitrary specifics—those are irrelevant. When making this decision, do not look at what the problems are with the paper. Look at what it would take to correct them, and be fair to the authors.
Put yourself in the authors' shoes. Would you be able to make the changes you think are necessary (is it at all possible)? Would you be willing to? Would it take a reasonably small amount of time compared to what the original work took?
If yes, do give them the chance to fix the work, and make it very clear what exactly needs to be fixed.
If not, recommend rejection.
What you should avoid doing is repeatedly asking for major revisions when you believe that they won't happen (to a reasonable standard) anyway. That creates false expectations and just wastes everyone's time. Suggest rejection—there's always the possibility of resubmission.


text:
What number of citations would be impressive for an undergraduate?
Currently applying for a research-related job in my field while in the last year of my undergraduate degree. I have conducted research and have publications in this field. I am wondering if the number of citations I have for my work is relevant, and if so, how many would I need to gain benefit by mentioning it? (I have 50)
The broad field is Computer Science.

Non-academic job search is probably off topic here. But few undergraduates have any publications or citations.

Agree with Buffy: any number of publications greater than zero is good for an undergraduate. Beyond that, I don't think it matters hugely (unless one of them is in Nature / Science).

One --- one citation is impressive for an undergraduate.

Non-academic job search is probably off topic here. But few undergraduates have any publications or citations

One --- one citation is impressive for an undergraduate.

Currently applying for a research-related job in my field while in the last year of my undergraduate degree.

In general, if you are an undergraduate then citations won't matter. It depends on the place and the position you're applying for. Again, another factor remains, i.e., the number of people applying for that same job position. In this situation, the organization that posted for the job vacancy would have to make a decision to choose the right candidate for their vacancy. Now, the word 'right candidate' is relative in nature.
When a huge number of candidates apply for a single job position then one of the ways the recruiters tend to choose is to find ways to reject a candidate. If this happens then a higher number of publications(and/or citations) would give you a better edge. But it's all relative to the situation you are in. The choosing criteria can be absurd sometimes, but having a good research publication and citation at your level would always provide you with an extra edge.
You also have to look into the job requirements carefully to find out how much your research and publications are related to the specific requirements of the research-related job you mentioned.
So, No, there is no proper rule for undergraduates to have citations until you stand out in their eyes in some way or the other. That can be your research, your attitude towards the job, your direct relation(your previous research and publications) to the job criteria or sometimes even a good recommendation. A large number of factors can contribute to your success in getting the job.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
impending deadline for tenure-track offer, with other applications in progress
I have been applying for tenure-track positions this year, and just received an offer from University A that I'm pretty happy with (I was relieved to get any offer at all, in this particularly difficult year). I have been given just over a week to make a decision, and have been told that this isn't really negotiable, because the next candidate in line has a different deadline shortly afterwards, and the university doesn't want to lose that candidate.
However, I have a different application in progress for University B (in a different country), which I am much more interested in. It's not necessarily a better university, but it already has a presence in my research area and there are other people in the department I know quite well and would be excited to work with, and in addition it's in a city I much prefer. I've spoken to a professor at University B, who said there is strong support for my application and I should expect an interview invitation very soon, but that they don't think it's possible that an offer can be made before the decision deadline for University A (it seems that both universities were affected in different ways by COVID, and University A brought forward their process while University B delayed it).
So, it seems like I have a few obvious options:

accept the offer from University A and withdraw my application from University B
give up the offer from University A and cross my fingers for University B (I have already been told by a much less desirable university that they will make me a non-tenure-track offer, so at least I have this as a backup)
accept the offer from University A, but continue with the University B application process, and renege on my agreement with A if get an offer from B (presumably this would come with a rather hefty hit to my reputation, and I would definitely feel uncomfortable about doing it).

There are also some slightly less obvious things I am considering:

accept A's offer, and if I get an offer from B, ask them if I can delay it by a year. So at least I would have spent a year at University A, and technically not have violated my agreement (though I imagine I would still upset some people by doing this?)
do some snooping to find out who is next in line for University A, and try to speak to them directly, in case they themselves are not that serious about University A or have some way of negotiating more time to decide on their current offer.

Are there any viable options I am not considering? Is there some way I might be able to pressure University A into giving me more time? Does anyone have any thoughts on the relative costs/benefits of the various options?

For most fields, highly qualified applicants are exceptionally plentiful this year thanks to recent layoffs.  Accepting the offer you have is probably smart.

An interview invitation simply indicates that the change of an offer is less small.  It's still small.

Hearing that you have “strong support” in a department isn’t necessarily as positive and reassuring as it might sound to you. In the U.S. at least, these days positive expressions like this one tend to be overused to the point of meaninglessness. I know of applicants being rejected who had “strong support” by a faculty “enthusiastic about an applicant.” Just keep that in mind.

I would advise you to not even consider speaking to other candidates.  There is high likelihood of ending up in very hot water.

I would accept the offer.  As others have mentioned, there may be no other offers.  Also if you know the group in university B well, then you can continue to collaborate.  In addition, university B may have an offer further down the line. So, the door is not closed entirely.

Thanks for all the advice, it does sound like it would be a bit reckless to throw away the offer (especially this year). Scott, can you elaborate on the risk of speaking to other candidates? My feeling had been that whoever is the next person in line, it would be in their interest to find a way to buy some additional time, in case in this time I get an offer from B (resulting in them getting an offer from A).

There are numerous other questions on this forum that ask the same question. In the end, it comes down to your risk tolerance. You can also accept A's offer, and if you should get one from B, talk to them to see whether you can defer the start of your work by a year and quit your job at A after the first year.

thanks for the answer, and the suggestion. I saw some fairly similar questions but thought it was worth a try in case there was different advice or suggestions with the specifics of my situation or the COVID situation this year.

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


text:
How to deal with an unreasonable reviewer asking to cite irrelevant articles?
Two years ago, when I was doing my master’s degree, I was working on a computational project. My supervisor was well-known in the field and a highly reputed person. We were doing a great job, trying to solve a long-standing problem.
When we made significant progress in our work, we wanted to publish it in a journal that has significant outreach for works related to our problems (We were working on flow acoustics). So we submitted out our article to a journal. The article went into review. Came back after two months. There were two referees. One of them was positive and then came the arrogant reviewer report.

I feel that the authors of the article have no knowledge of how certain computational methods can never reproduce physics.
Authors should try to reproduce the result with more reliable experimental procedures. [cites two articles from author A, B, and C]
Furthermore though the computational method is validated against work of author D, I believe authors should at least try to validate their procedure with works of [cites again different article from author A, C, and B, C, E and X, C]
Authors did not cite relevant literature [mulitple articles from author C]
I recommend publication after major revision.

It is rather obvious that author C is either our reviewer or someone close to our reviewer who is asking to cite irrelevant articles and threatens to reject our work on no scientific basis (our computational methodology was well established, robustly proved, highly cited and widely used). Unfortunately, the journal had no appeal process.
We wrote in our rebuttal to the editor that if author C is one of the reviewers, we would like to be peer-reviewed by a different reviewer.
However, the editor never seemed to care. No care was taken by the journal to provide us a fair review. Is there an efficient way to tackle such arrogant reviewers?

A friend of mine will cite another paper that makes the same point the reviewer wants, but uses a different citation to avoid citing them.

On the merits, regardless of the reviewer's identity, did you think those papers should be cited? If not, did you explain your reasoning to the editor?

@PatriciaShanahan We explained in detail to the editor why it is not relevant to cite those publications in our article.

I've left similar comments in a review but I was not one of the authors in the list of papers given to cite, and there was an author in common for all of them (because their research lab are experts in that area). I wouldn't be so quick to assume the reviewer is one of the authors.

"It is rather obvious that author C is our reviewer who is asking for self-citation" Counterpoint: No it isn't. Also, it's not relevant.

You seem to be a bit biased. Personally, if I find some author's work very relevant to the topic, then I stress out this in my reviews. I don't have to be that author, but that might be an author whose papers I've read enough to think that these references fit right into the submitted paper.

Regardless of what you should or shouldn't do and whether the reviewer is correct or incorrect and whether the reviewer is just trying to increase their own citations or not, a bitter attitude will only hurt you. Stick the facts you can prove. Don't let any of it get personal. Stay professional.

Perhaps the arrogant one is you, for thinking your work is perfect and you know best.  The fact that a reviewer can raise an issue, whether due to misinterpretation or your ignorance or his/her arrogance, then your message hasn't gotten through or could be delivered better.

What was the editor's actual decision? If it was a "revise and resubmit" then you may want to consider a different journal (ideally one with a faster turnaround!). But if it was "accept after revisions" that's an excellent outcome! That would mean that the editor can accept the revised manuscript on their own, or send it back to the same reviewers for a quick once-over. You can probably cite C a few times without adding every one of their requirements, they'll thumbs-up it, and you'll be MUCH better off than if you start from scratch with a new journal.

How do you know the positive reviewer didn't just do a poor job of reviewing? Perhaps the "arrogant" reviewer actually was the one who put effort in?

@Phill I can understand which reviewer is reasonable and which one isn't by reading their reports. It is a pity if you can't do so. The case we are discussing is where one reviewer claims that a proof is unacceptable just because it is computational. We did experiments on same topic too and published the results somewhere else later. We aren't novices.

Other answers suggest you should try to assume that the reviewer is well-minded and act accordingly. This is definitely the null hypothesis.
But if you - after a good night's sleep - have still the strong impression that the reviewer just does not like your method and wants you use/cite his method, you should think about withdrawing and going to another journal
This does not mean that a major revision is not necessary - but your chances may be higher with a fresh set of reviewers.

Regarding the second paragraph: I don't see the point in withdrawing the paper flat out.  This was only one of two reports the paper received.  If the OP addresses all the comments that have merit and explains what he has done, there is certainly a chance that the paper will be accepted by the current journal.  For that matter, there is a chance that upon submitting to the next journal the OP will get the same referee!

@PeteL.Clark I just said: If you are reasonably sure that the reviewer is biased, change the journal. I had a similar issue in a grant proposal where the revision was essentially useless - I tried to address all the points the reviewer made but I got a second review in the same hostile languague, parts of it copied word by word from the first one. I just want to say that a fresh start is sometimes better than waiting 6 months for a rejection that is very likely to come.

From your answer, we can guess that you received a "major revision" decision. In that situation, your job is to modified your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments, not to try to find out who are the reviewers. Taken out of context, the comments you mention do not seem arrogant. Those comments are usual demands from reviewer, but I can't judge, not knowing your work, if they are relevant.
In that context, you deal with those comments like with any other comments:

You accept and make the changes where appropriate.
If the comments are not applicable, you explain why to the editor and let him/her judge.

+1 Yes. In particular, a manuscript is rarely ever perfect at the first submission, and simply assuming so is fairly arrogant. Even when a reviewer is flat out wrong, their suggestions should be addressed objectively one by one.

The editor presumably does know who the reviewer is, as well as seeing the review and the response. If a reviewer makes a habit of unjustified requests for citation of the reviewer's articles editors are going to find out.

It is hard to say without knowing the details of your work, but I suggest taking a step back. There are of course arrogant reviewers, but equally it could be that there are good reasons to test your methodology in further contexts. What stood out for me was:

It is rather obvious that author C is our reviewer who is asking for self-citation and threatens to reject our work on no scientific basis (Our computational methodology was well established, robustly proved, highly cited and widely used)

It sounds like your work is empirical, is that correct? In which case your methodology cannot be robustly proven, only supported or disproven. I think that's what the reviewer is getting at; they want to see you try and disprove your work in further contexts. Take the following quote:

Furthermore though the computational method is validated against work of author D, I believe authors should at least try to validate their procedure with works of

You suggest your methodology is well established, but it seems like the reviewer is trying to, again, ask you to test whatever is novel about what you have done in further contexts.
It is challenging to say for sure, especially as we do not know which work the reviewer is citing (nor much about your work). However, I think the so-called arrogant reviewer's review needs a reappraisal.
As for whether they are author C, personally, I have given reviews asking authors to cite numerous works of other authors (not myself) when the paper has made an alarming omission.

This! I almost always ask authors explain their paper in the context of some omitted literature that the author may be unaware of. Usually, none of the papers are mine. Almost always these suggestions make the paper better because it increases the impact outside of the author's narrow field.

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


text:
Career advice: Post-doc away from my primary interest, or not
I'm in a need of a career advice, and I can't really think up any better to ask than all of you.
There is a post-doc position within upgrading biofuel that I am almost certain to be offered. There is some catalysis involved, but it is somewhat away from my primary interests: Organic synthesis and polymers. Similar positions within these topics are scarce, but at my alma mater they would hire me immediately if they get the funds nescessary.
What should I do? Accept being away from home ground for two years, working on getting funding for the Chemistry department, or sit tight and hope that a better fitting position comes along?
Cheers,
EDIT:
I would like to precise, that I am going to apply for funding for an industrial post-doc together with a company. They are highly interested in me, but lack the funding. The job would be way more aligned with synthesis and polymer chemistry - but I will have to take a calculated risk: There is a 60% success rate for the applications, but I'll have be without job (2 months) until we get a (hopefully) positive answer.
Is the post-doc really that career-determining?

Thanks. I am getting my PhD at a different university, but going abroad is not really an option - I have three small kids.

@pseudoninja OMG accept offer, now PostDoc positions are extremely rare

The most important thing is to evaluate if you will be able to keep a steady output of papers during this post-doc, if you can't hit the ground running than you will lose time to get comfortable with new material, two years go by very quickly. Also you should consider if in your country a post-doc in a different place is valuable experience to get tenure. You are the only one that can decide.

A common mistake is to keep on doing the same thing over and over.
When applying to a position, you will then appear to be a one trick pony.
Use the PostDoc to widen your research, collaborate with bed people on new directions, and show that you can now quickly dive into further lines of research.

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


text:
Should I tell my advisor about the way she has advised me?
I am approaching the end of my PhD. My relationship with my supervisor has been really complicated: I get on very well with her personally, but in terms of supervision/research it's a struggle. I didn't get any help in terms of feedback or the direction of my thesis, she barely knows about my topic and she doesn't even pretend to care about my research. When she comments on my papers it is always to comment on the form (spelling, syntax), not on the substance. She largely funds other PhDs or Masters students whereas I wasn't treated the same way. I basically rely on competitive funding. It's great on the CV, but the lack of support from her is a problem. She provides opportunities for networking and collaboration on papers for other phds. In my case, I never received anything like that. All students have co-supervision. This is crucial in my field in terms of funding (to fund experiments, field trips, for instance). In my case she always refused co-supervision. This is my biggest regret as PhD student. I feel very isolated as a researcher, despite being very involved in her lab. I have missed one our lab meeting in years and she's complaining about this one meeting occasionally. Others are skipping meetings quire regularly without any comments from her.
Today I offered her to be a co-author on a paper with another researcher. It took me a while to ask her because of the constant rejections from her.  This paper has clearly potential for a great contribution. She said no, again. The reason is that she is busy. The problem is that she collaborates with everybody but me, sometimes on random paper. Due to the constant rejection, I am now unable to solicit collaborations with other researchers. I tell myself that there must be a reason why I am so isolated, why she rejects my ideas, she is not involved in my PhD That this is probably my fault. My self-esteem is at an all-time low. Yet I publish quite well on my own. I got the best academic position among her students, by far. Everyone in the department thinks we get along very well. I can't say anything, or complain. I want to tell her what I think but I can only rely on her for letters of recommendation due to the lack of collaboration during grad school and no co-supervision. The worst part of this mess is that I really like her as a person. I don't want to be a problem for her by making drama at the end of the phd, but this situation is mentally draining.

As written this is more of a list of grievances than a question. I'd advise to clarify (and shorten).

There may be rather rational explanations for much of the things listed. She may not know suitable co-supervisors for your topic, as she apparently is not a strong expert for it (which doesn't mean she "rejects" your ideas). Not sure why she became your supervisor in the first place, was this clear from the start? "Others are skipping meetings quite regularly without any comments from her." You may not know whether they get comments. Was her role clear for the paper you suggested her co-authorship? Maybe she feels that she can't contribute that much so that she wouldn't deserve co-authorship?

An indication about your field of research might help, especially because publication practices vary widely across disciplines. In experimental physics, it would be exceptional to publish a paper without the advisor as coauthor. A student’s first draft would also be very likely to contain glaring errors, big enough to be detectable even by a non-expert advisor. (I assume "soc-scientist" means sociology but "lab meeting" sounds very STEM-y to me.)

Maybe this is a bit of a frame challenge, but I suspect that she doesn't co-author your papers mostly because you are doing fine. Generally, as a supervisor, taking a step back and letting students work on their research alone is a sign of trust, not a criticism*. That is, I doubt she rejects your ideas because she doesn't like them, but rather because other students need her help more (and if she is closer in topic to other students she might also feel that she can help those students more). It's similar for competitive funding - if you can get funding on your own, her money is better spent on students who cannot (with the side effect for you that acquiring your own competitive funding is good for your CV as well as a good learning opportunity).
Of course, feeling isolated is a big problem. However, maybe what you need are more and better collaborations with other people. I think this is the conversation you should have with your supervisor - how can she help you set up more collaborations (not necessarily with her, just with somebody)?
Edit: that said, if you have a good working relationship with your supervisor, bringing up how you feel is always a good idea. It can be hard for us to assess how happy people are with their current supervision, and it's certainly possible that she simply does not realise that you are unhappy. Just be open to other fixes she might propose (e.g., finding other collaborators). And it may also be good to raise that she seems to have much higher expectations on you regarding things like attendance of lab meetings than for other students - these things sometimes happen unconsciously, and if she is aware of it she can work on it.
* Ok, it can be a sign of criticism. If a project is going really, really poorly a supervisor may also take a step back because they consider the project effectively unsalvageable (or because they have made the learning experience that the student doesn't listen to them anyway). A halfway ethical supervisor will have multiple serious conversations with the student before that point, though.

I'm sorry to hear that this is mentally draining. But it'll be over soon. Especially since you like her as a person, just leave it at that. You may try and matter-of-factly ask her if she wants a more central role in your research or if she's likes it the way it is now but don't spin it into too much of a thing, especially if she doesn't show any awareness of it. It might also be a topic she's not as good at or keen on.
Even when you change advisors for your postdoc, you might want to collaborate with your former advisor in the future and it doesn't pay to burn bridges, especially since the gain for future PhD students would be minimal and your personal gain will only be release (which feels good for a day). In my experience, advisors do not change.
Several labs at my institute had issues, we all came together and talked and tried to formulate guidelines for a better flow of communication between PIs, postdocs and phd students. In the end, when we talked to all the PIs, the PIs who were problematic didn't listen, brushed everyone off as being "thin skinned and just not tough enough", while the ones who are great and supportive PIs tried to help everyone and actually listened.
In your case, showing collaboration on papers beyond your supervisor/lab is amazing for the CV, as is the acquisition of third-party funding. In my lab we are not allowed to collaborate with outside labs on the lab's time unless our PIs are also involved, so the opposite of your problem.
If you are considering staying on as a postdoc, you can really have an honest talk with your advisor about your role and her involvement. That is something that you can do better once the pressure of finishing a PhD is not on you anymore.
Good luck!

I find your post similar to my situation… but I am in my 2nd year of my PhD and not finishing yet.
You can talk with someone trusted at the department or faculty. Maybe some representative of PhD students to highlight the situation.
I am really sorry that this happened to you. Please don't sabotage yourself and do not make this situation be responsible for your self-esteem and mental health.
What I can advise you and what I also do (not to be very stressed in any situation) is to switch off emotions and be an observer of a problem. I usually remain emotionless even if the situation is stressful because I kind of switch off my emotional state. It does not influence me on any level.
It would be good to finish your PhD as it is now, not making any drama. You are about to end your PhD journey soon - maybe it's better to remain as it is but try to search for scientific opportunities on your own.
Do you want to stay at the department when you finish your PhD? Maybe it would be good to leave academia after you graduate…

I was in basically the same position during my phd. My supervisor completely ignored me and had no interest in working with me. Talking to him about research was always frustrating; he didn't show any interest and was never helpful, sometimes he was even actively hindering me.
All the while, other students worked with him. In hindsight, I was as good as any of them.  The frustrating part therefore is that the favoritism seems arbitrary.
Looking back, I should have said something halfway through my PhD, when it mattered.  Nowadays, there is no point anymore.  If it won't help you, just keep quiet. If your supervisor is not actively working against you, no point in saying anything.
My life really improved when I realized that talking to my supervisor was, at best, useless. So I just stopped talking about research with him altogether.  I suggest you do the same.


text:
Will declining a research award be problematic for me, or other people?
I recently received an offer for a research award for early-stage scholars producing outstanding research in my field. I have verified the award and the association are genuine and I have colleagues who have won the prize previously.
The problem is two-fold.
The first problem is that I don't think I deserve the award. Not wishing to blow things out of proportion, the award is good to have but won't make you famous. Yet, having looked at past winners, some of them are professors and all of them had a higher h-index than me when they were awarded. Comparing our research, I simply think there is no comparison, my research is not as good as past winner's - although I have an upcoming paper that may have some impact (colleagues seem to think so). Some of the past winners are my colleagues and co-authors.
The second problem is that the award seems to be won by nomination, typically by colleagues, who would have forwarded the nominee's website and CV. I don't want my colleagues to look stupid by declining the award, which would, of course, be a strange thing for most people to do.
I feel that I have been misjudged (too positively) and it just would not sit right to accept the award. On the other hand, I do not want to ask colleagues what to do since they have already been quite kind in accommodating my anxiety (I think), in general, and recently they have been quite generous in other regards.
Although the award is not a big deal my question is: will rejecting it harm my colleagues or me in some way?
Minor point: I would also have the option of giving a talk, I'd rather not, but I do have some work to talk about. Wondering if declining the offer to give a talk is a problem too.
Update: Thank you for those replies that answered the question. Kimball's ("awards are not about deserving"), xleitix's, and Dan Romik's (right to decline) answers were the most illuminating. It seems like I should accept. I think perhaps I was unclear since some are replying as if I come from a position of arrogance, my main motivation is to not embarrass myself or others.

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

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/70866/10646. Different outlook on the award in that question, but some of the discussion is still relevant.

Will declining a research award be problematic for myself or other people?

It's problematic in the sense that it would very likely be a mistake, and undermine the goal that the award is trying to achieve, to the detriment of yourself (mainly) and to a lesser extent of the scientific community you belong to. In a system that is supposed to function as a meritocracy, each time a talented person or their work does not get recognition that they deserve, everybody is hurt a little bit.
As for why it is likely to be a mistake, the main point to keep in mind is that it is a very rare individual who has the capacity to assess him/herself as objectively and accurately as he/she is assessed by others -- almost everyone suffers a bias in one direction or another in how accurately they perceive their level of talent and achievements. In many people this manifests itself in the direction of thinking they are smarter than they really are and that their achievements are more significant than they really are - this is the Dunning-Kruger effect, tied to narcissism and egotism. In other people one sees the opposite effect where the person thinks they and their achievements are less worthy of praise than they really are, a phenomenon known (at least in certain contexts) as impostor syndrome, and sometimes associated with issues of depression and low self-esteem. Both of these effects are well-known examples of cognitive biases.
Now, we don't know whether you suffer from any of these biases. But the general principle is that people are untrustworthy judges of their own worth. For this reason, when we finish papers and grant proposals we send it off for other people to critique, and accept their judgment of how good the work is. The same principle goes for awards; people who are more senior and established than you have considered possible candidates for the award and decided that you are the most worthy among them. You don't have either the information that they had of who they were comparing you to, or the ability of the committee members to look at you and the other candidates objectively (or at least more objectively) without being influenced by the very common biases I described above. The logical conclusion is that their judgment that you should receive the award is much more likely to be accurate than yours.
Anyway, good luck no matter what you end up deciding. Although I have an opinion on what would be the better choice, I do think you have a full right to decline the award, and disapprove of the "get over yourself" sentiment expressed in this answer (which I downvoted) linked to from Stella Biderman's answer (which was excellent and I upvoted, along with xLeitix's also excellent answer).

@Mindwin If you’re asking why it has fewer votes than my answer or xLeitix’s answer, I suspect that’s a timing thing. Generally when an answer gets above 10 or 15 votes it’s because it was a featured answer, which tends to attract a lot of people who read the top answer and then leave. This question got hot right after I posted my answer (at that point there were three answers and xLeitix’s had something like 4 upvotes and me and Hendrik has 1). SE reputation can snowball in weird ways sometimes.

@Mindwin as someone who upvoted some of the other answers, this one was not here yesterday and did not get a vote.  I'll fix that now...

@StellaBiderman yes, i noticed it was more recent, but I wasn't thinking a 4-h window would make that much difference.

Thanks guys. Honestly I feel like my answer isn’t as good as some of the other ones, so maybe that’s another reason why it doesn’t have as many votes. And thanks to OP for the green check mark / accepted answer award. Even if I may not deserve it, I accept it with humility ;-).

Dunning–Kruger really encapsulates both directions, or rather make the claim that people with little knowledge go in one direction and people with more knowledge go in the opposite, such that they can actually cross and the person who knows more estimates himself as knowing less than someone who knows less estimates himself. It’s not really an appropriate label for just overestimating your skills and/or capabilities (and narcissism and/or egotism could certainly lead to that, but I wouldn’t label everyone who makes that mistake a narcissist or egotist!).

This may be the most balanced answer and I like it most. It kind of leaves the decision to the asker.

Don't give in to Imposter Syndrome!
Both your reasons are fundamentally not sound. Somebody nominated you for an award. The awards committee thinks you are deserving. You should not refuse the award simply because you think others may be more deserving. It's the task of the award committee to establish this, and their decision was you.
Rejecting the award will probably not "hurt" your colleagues, but it will probably hurt you. First, you won't have the award, and when you finally realize that your work was maybe in fact good enough to warrant decoration it will be too late to change your mind. Second, you will presumably not get nominated by the same colleagues again for something because they will assume you are not interested in awards. Third, people will look at this as strange behavior, and it is certainly possible that you get flak from your administration or senior professors for refusing what essentially amounts to free marketing for your department. Maybe you are tenured and senior enough that you don't care, but, truth be told, very few people are actually distinguished enough that they really don't need to care at all about what their university thinks about them.

Minor point: I would also have the option of giving a talk, I'd rather not, but I do have some work to talk about. Wondering if declining the offer to give a talk is a problem too.

I think it's less of a problem to decline a talk than the award itself, but even that is prone to raise some eyebrows, mainly because giving talks is such an inherent part of being an academic that people will wonder why you do not wish to partake in it.

+1 for It's the task of the award committee to establish this, and their decision was you. They know what good research is. They usually are experts too. Let them do their job and be happy about it.

Excellent answer. I would add that there is high benefit in giving the talk and in taking the award for your CV: future funding, job opportunities, etc.

Taking the award can benefit your future students, in that your letters of recommendation will carry a bit more weight.

I see so many cases of impostor syndrome on this website, it's really sad and needs to stop.  If you are offered it, then just take it.

@Trunk Letters of recommendation are indeed about the student's merits. Nevertheless, readers can legitimately take into account whatever they know about the author in assessing how much weight to give the letter. For example, some faculty are known for consistently overstating students' merits; others for consistently understating them. When I know such things about authors, I take them into account when considering their letters. The same goes for other information about authors. If Terry Tao says you're great, that counts (and should count) for more than if I say it.

You should not refuse the award simply because you think others may be more deserving Grigori Perelman did this. Perhaps incorporate into answer?

@Allure I will not. Exceptional cases by famous people do not apply to 99.x% of people looking for advice on Stack Overflow, and I do not believe that going on about how Perelman, Ramanujan, or Zuckerberg did something that would not be smart for the vast majority of readers is doing a service to the community.

In a comment, you say

The problem is I worry that accepting might shine a light on my research not being quite there just yet and people would look at my bibliometrics and think poorly of me, if I hadn't accepted then I'd just be yet another researcher, if that makes sense. I'm not using the bibliometrics as a yard stick for research quality, but rather perceived research quality. The actual research quality comparison I am basing on papers published.

With all due respect, this is a terrible reason to decline the award. I strongly agree with all the reasons that xLeitix list for why it is a bad idea for your career. I further think it's rude to decline the award.
You don't get to decide who gets the award. I mean that quite seriously; you don't sit on the committee that hands out the award. Your opinion on who is or is not deserving of the award is entirely irrelevant to everything. Turing down the award is rude because it says, both to your colleagues and to the committee, "I know better than you do who deserves this award." You wouldn't dream of writing them a letter telling them that they chose the wrong person if it was anyone else who was honored, right? So don't do it here. In this example it's all the worse because you're doing so in a blatantly biased capacity as you have a close relationship with the awardee.
Also, awards exist so that communities and organizations can praise their members, hold up examples to junior members, and give the community a chance to highlight important work. See the comments to the effect here. When people turn down awards the community very frequently feels hurt or slighted.

The negative consequences of declining is that you (more or less) publicly question the decision making skills and procedures of the committee. Thus, whereas your desire is to appear humble you actually give out the impression to know it better. That does not project good on you. Also, creating a fuss where it is absolutely not necessary (i.e., in such a situation) will be perceived negatively. You will look like a trouble maker.
My advice: Just take the award and be happy they consider you worthy of it, even though you might not yet. Only the future will tell whether the committee or you were right in judging your quality as a researcher.

It seems to me that most of other answers to this question are basically saying something like: other experts are better at determining whether you deserve the award then you.  While these answers make some good points (I upvoted at least 1), to me this seems somewhat off the mark because: awards (like gifts) are not about being deserving.
Think about the following points:

Given two researchers/research profiles/papers, there are no good objective measures of who is better.  Yes, in many situations there will be a clear consensus that one is more impressive/useful/fundamental/beautiful than the other (and note these are all different metrics), but in many situations there won't.
Consequently, award/grant/job selection processes tend to function more like random selection (though with a non-uniform distribution, or maybe an initial weeding-out process).
Unless you were on the committee, you probably don't know what their actual criteria were for selecting someone for the award.  Maybe they found your work more impressive overall than other nominees'.  Maybe they wanted to highlight your work for some reason.  (E.g., it's no fun, and rather pointless, if 1 person wins all the awards in a field.)
In the end, the committee selects whoever they want for whatever reasons they want.

Thus, my suggestion is: accept the award for what it is, a gift, which you neither solicited nor expected.
As to your specific question (which has been addressed by others, but for completeness): Yes, declining the award can hurt you in material ways (make it harder for you to get future awards/grants/recognition/jobs---most obviously by not having that line on your CV, but also people thinking you are strange).  Getting the award may also help your colleagues/department some, so turning it down would be harmful in preventing that.  Also, some people get offended when someone does something out of the ordinary.

To be blunt, I see two valid reasons to decline such an award:

Your publications are based on willingly faulty, faked or illegal research. If this was the case, you would have more problems than a non-deserved award.
The award nomination is based on nepotism, bribery or otherwise severely influenced voting. It would help if you had an established standing in the community and a tenure position to make a point by refusing that award.

In other cases just let the jury decide who deserves that award, like it was detailed in other answers.

Rejecting an award is usually considered an insult toward the organization handing out the award and anyone who accepted that award in the past.
It means you do not respect the organization which hands out the reward, that you question their agenda and the process by which they select award receivers. You also give the message that you do not want to be associated with the people who received that award in the past. When people reject awards, it's usually not because they think they are unworthy of the award, they do it because they think the award is unworthy of them.
When you believe that you don't deserve the award, this is pretty much the opposite of the statement you want to make.
My advise would be to accept the award, but be humble about it and use the talk as an opportunity to thank everyone who supported you and to give praise to your idols.

Yes it can be problematic.
Role models and inspiring figures are important to motivate the young. How good you as a person actually are does not matter much in this context, the important effect for any society to achieve is to have some inspirations and role models get the young to want to work hard to become great in the future. Not everyone is inspired to work by awards and glory, but many kids are very motivated by such stories, especially at a time in their development when catching their curiosity for the sciences and/or arts makes a great difference as to if they put their effort into developing their skills (or not).

So try and not focus on you as a person, but try and see it as you are doing society a favor by trying to help kids to want to work hard to become great.

I would add to other very good answers allready posted.
You are not the only one awarded. Your research group, your students, if you have them, your advisor, if you have one, your faculty and your university. Declining the award will affect not only your name but all I have mentioned above.
The comitee agreed on you deserving the reward and only they are qualified and entitled to make the decision.
You argumented by having lower h-index than past awardees. I think it may be simillar to world records in an athletics. You have to beat the actual world record to claim being a recordman. To publish you have to bring something new, which is going constantly more difficult.


text:
Is it possible for the paper to be accepted in this case?
I am a computer professional. I submitted a paper to the top conference in our field.  I just received comments from reviewers. Now is the rebuttal stage.
There are six reviewers in total. 2 Accecpt, 2 weak accecpt, one weak reject and one reject.
The reviewer who gave the reject comment obviously had a problem with the conceptual understanding of the paper. The remaining reviewers think the idea of the paper is interesting, but the evaluation is not good.
How should I reply? Is there any chance for this paper?

What does 'voted...top meeting' mean?  Whether a paper is accepted depends on the 'cut-off' or the number of papers that a chair wants to have in a conference.  For example, he/she may need some number of papers to break even.  You may have more useful feedback if you name the conference you submitted your paper to.

Thank you! I just corrected it.

Based on the scores alone, yes, there might be a chance. But it depends on the nature of the feedback and on the strength of support for the paper (for example, if the positive reviewers are experts). That is impossible for us to answer without knowing all details.

As long as you don't receive a "reject" decision, it's possible for your paper to be accepted.*
You reply the same way you do with any revise decision - make the changes you think are an improvement, rebut the suggestions you think do not help, and clarify whatever it was that caused the last reviewer to have the "conceptual problem".
*Technically it's possible for even a rejected paper to be subsequently accepted, if you appeal the decision.

I think that this answer doesn't apply to the question: during the rebuttal stage in CS conferences, one doesn't revise the paper. The rebuttal phase is also not a "revise" decision.


text:
How should I write rebuttal?
I contributed to a conference. I just received feedback from reviewers. I need to write a rebuttal. But I am limited to 800 words.
Three reviewers pointed out some writing problems. For example, the picture did not explain clearly. The layout is unreasonable. But they all give a weak accept.
A reviewer completely misunderstood the concept, and he directly gave me 1 point for all items. The other two reviewers asked a lot of questions and gave Accept and weak reject respectively. How should I organize my rebutal?
If I answer the questions one by one, it seems that it cannot be limited to 800 words at all. If I only answer part of it, would it seem disrespectful? And some reviewers asked the same question. How should I layout?
Can I directly point out that the reviewer misunderstood?

But there seems to be some misunderstandings here.

Does this seem disrespectful? The reviewer who misunderstood the concept mistakenly regarded the two advantages of the paper as major flaws.

You probably need to clarify your question.  Is this for a journal article?  'My master', means? Is this your supervisor or Master degree?  You don't need to give a point-by-point response.  E.g., 'We have addressed all writing errors' or 'We have revised the paper to improve its presentation'.   Misunderstanding is normal, especially if your English is weak.  Just note that the reviewers' comments relate to misunderstanding blah.   Then simply point reviewers to the corrected/revised parts of the paper.

Thank you! I corrected it.

Maybe have a look at this blog post - it was helpful for me to get an initial understanding. Only as a comment, as this is not mine, thus copying is out of the question, and just a link is no actual answer.

Disclaimer: I have not read the linked blog post, that may contain better advises than mine.
I pretty much always structure my answers the same way:

Thank the reviewers. Honestly. They spent time reading and assessing your paper, take the time to thank them for their comments.
Rephrase. They generally show they understood your paper by re-phrasing its abstract, do the same. Briefly restate what the reviewers thought of your paper. It will help them gaining confidence in the fact that you actually read and understood their comments, which is important.
Answer some questions. If they asked questions, answer some of them briefly. If they are vague, simply defer to point 5.
Get the easy to fix out of the way. If there are discussion on presentation or typo, briefly comment on how you plan on addressing them. If you have a pre-print on-line, you can even update it to prove your good faith.
Discuss the difficult points. Address the genuine concerns that your reviewers raised. If there are misunderstanding, apologize for not having written your paper in a clearer style, and clarify the difficult points precisely. Don't hesitate to "play the reviewers once against the other": if R1 claims that Theorem 1 is wrong but R2 defends it as ingenious, explain that maybe R1 missed the argument and could consult R2's comment to get a better perspective.
Thank again. Explain that you value the feedback and that they will make your paper so much better, that you regret not answering all their questions (if you did not) but that they will help you make a better presentation / paper / future research.

I would start by writing down everything you want to say, and then edit it until you reached the word limit.

OP also asked how to respond to a reviewer who clearly misunderstood something (while the other reviewers did not complain about it ); well I think the options are:
(1) Apologize and clarify:  "I apologize for any confusion; I should have been more clear on the ... ".
(2) Straightly saying "There seems to be a misunderstanding about ...".
(3) Or a combination of  (1) and (2): "I am sorry for the confusion, there seems to be a misunderstanding about ..".
Some may argue that apologizing here may mean admitting that something was indeed missing, which can be viewed as a weakness of the author.  However, I would use (3).

"Some may argue that apologizing here may mean admitting that something was indeed missing": well, clarity may have been missing…

@Clément For a rich paper; many authors run into the space limit, so they use their best judgment to omit some of what they think is obvious to the reviewers (even if that is not so obvious for the typical readers).
So, clarifying everything may not always be possible.

Avoid specifically "I apologize for any confusion" because it is a common phrase in AI generated answers.  Say it in your own way instead.

There is a PLoS Computational Biology paper (Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers) by William Stafford Noble (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730) that contains excellent ten easy to follow "rules" (note that they are not rules per se). I will list the points from the paper here (and a one sentence summary) but would recommend reading this short article for more insight.
As with most things, take your time to go through these and formulate your own thoughts about it. While these are general markers that can help along the way, this is not a rule book (don't get misled by the word "rule") and not everything works/applies in all situations.

Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews

Provide a summary of changes, along with new data, additional figures, etc, followed by interleaved comment+response.

Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all reviewers

"Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough." - enough said!

Rule 3: Accept the blame

"In general, even if the requested change seems unnecessary, it is usually better to go ahead and revise with the goal of showing the reviewer that they were listened to and understood."

Rule 4: Make the response self-contained

Try, for example, a tactic like original and revision comparison style

Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by the reviewer

"In some cases, the reviewer may disagree with your response, but you should not try to avoid a difficult point by simply ignoring it"

Rule 6: Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response

I find it easy to color code the comments along with keeping the comment in a fixed width font while my responses are in regular Times New Roman black

Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised

"Your goal is to show the reviewer that you took their comments seriously, and you should quickly convey what you did in response to their critique."

Rule 8: When possible, do what the reviewer asks

"If the reviewer asks for 10 things, and you say that 9 out of 10 of them fall outside the scope of your work, then you are not likely to satisfy the reviewer."

Rule 9: Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version

" In your response, refer explicitly to the previous and revised versions of your manuscript and explain what changes have been made."

Rule 10: If necessary, write the response twice

"In practice, it is often helpful to write the "venting" version of the response first, wait a while, and then begin working on the "real" response several days later, perhaps after you have done some of the work to address the critiques raised by the reviewer."

Edit
With respect to fitting it all in a given word limit, try and see if multiple reviewers have similar comments/concerns; then you could answer them together rather than individually replying to all. Additionally, in this case, summarizing all changes in the response document will clearly not work.


text:
What is the page limit for the Camera-Ready version of the paper?
My paper was accepted by a conference. The paper is limited to 11 pages at the time of submission. But now when I add author information, the paper becomes 12 pages. But I did not see the page requirement of Camera-Ready version. Is the page limit of Camera-Ready the same as when it was submitted?
The website of the conference is: https://hpca-conf.org/2022/camera-ready-instructions/
The reason I asked this question is because I found that a paper last year was 12 pages. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9065598
And I just heard someone say that the Camera-Ready version is often one page longer than when it was submitted. I'm very sorry.
I sent an email to the conference party in the morning, but there is no accurate reply yet.
Thanks!

In most cases: just stick to the limits and do not bother others: just remove a few words, I'm sure it is possible.

Even if the page limit was 11 pages in the previous year, it could have happened that changes made by the editorial team pushed a 11 page "camera ready" submitted by the authors to 12 pages.. I have seen this happen with Springer -- the paper created using the camera ready template was not the same as the final formatted paper after Springer's edits. The expectation was that the length while submitting was within the limits, even though the formatting done afterwards pushed it above it.

Nobody can know more than what the website says. You'll have to make a professional decision what you think is the right number and how much you want to argue with them if you submit 12 pages when they were expecting 11.
That's part of being a professional: Sometime you have to make decisions with not very much guidance.

... or, you ask for clarification.

As a general rule, the page limit for camera-ready papers is the same as that for the initial submission. It's quite typical that one has to add things to a paper in response to reviewer feedback -- not only the author header --, so one often has to compress parts of the paper anyways.
However, one can always ask the program chairs if an additional page would be OK. In several situations, I have received a positive response to such a request. It's advisable to ask such a question as early as possible, since the program chairs might need some time to make the decision (including communication with the publishers).

This answer is not wrong, but note that most of the time there is abosolutely no need to ask for additional pages: it is up to the author and part of their job to respect the limits. I suspect that most conference chairs and editors would be rather frustrated / annoyed if everybody started asking for exceptions to the rules. Except in exceptional cases ;)

@Louic Conversely, virtual ink + space is cheap and conferences often have some flexibility with granting extra pages. It may take them a brief mail to sort this out -- potentially a much smaller effort than trimming down a paper to comply with the somewhat arbitrary page limits.


text:
Is it normal for professors to hold their graduate students "hostage?"
I'm currently scheduled to start graduate school next semester. I've been going to the lab that I'll be working in for the past few months now. I had a question regarding graduation after talking with some of my seniors from the lab.
Just for some background info, I'm currently attending school in South Korea. I'll be pursuing an MS/PhD integrated degree in computer science. The lab that I'm working in is a lab that does research on machine learning and deep learning methods.
My initial plan was to go to the US after finishing my undergrad, but I figured that with my specs I'm not going to get funded and probably won't be able to get into a top program. Also fortunately enough the aforementioned lab's research coincided with mine and I would be getting funding so it seemed like the wiser choice.
I wanted to complete the requirements for a master's and then apply for PhD programs abroad. My supervisor advised that it'd probably be better to just get my PhD here and apply for post-doc positions in the US (or anywhere else) but he said he's also open to the idea of me quitting halfway.
The reason why I'm posting this question is because in Korea (I can't speak for other Asian countries but I heard Japan is also very similar) the professor who runs the lab is basically a "king" in that lab. Pretty much everything is according to his/her will and they also get to determine if they want to "let their students graduate." It's one reason why many people are reluctant to pursue graduate studies here if they had the choice.
Fortunately, my professor seems to be nice and at least considers his graduate students to some extent alongside his own personal interests.
I'm curious though, is this kind of thing also normal (or at least prevalent) in other countries in the Western world? The impression that I get for those countries is that graduate students are pretty much independent researchers/students and their supervisors are just that - supervisors. Does one's graduation also depend on their signature?

"My supervisor advised that it'd probably be better to just get my PhD here and apply for post-doc positions in the US" Bad advice.  Rightly or wrongly, many Americans believe that a PhD from the US is better than a PhD from Asia.  Many US academics won't know the difference between KAIST and KAUST.

That's also the thought I had, and even in Korea it's generally accepted that a PhD from the US is better than a PhD from Korea. The concerning thought is that if I decide to quit halfway into my integrated program, I'm just not sure if my advisor would be happy to provide me with a good recommendation letter.

If your supervisor won't support a perfectly sensible career strategy because he's afraid to loose you, then you need to find a new supervisor.

That's true. Fortunately enough he doesn't seem to be completely against it. I guess as of now I need to take his advice and get some output in (e.g. conference/journal submissions). He did advise that if I want to go abroad then I need to make sure I stand out and if that happens then prestigious programs/labs/companies will likely get in touch. According to him that also makes the lab look good too.

For a more concrete counter-example, think of Yann LeCun, he's had a quite successful career and he doesn't have a US PhD, but a French one. Not sure if many US profs know the University where he did his PhD. In the end what matters is your research, not where you did it.

Another counter example I always am reminded of is a Korean researcher known as Cho Kyunghyun. His name is quite well-known as well. He did his undergrad at KAIST (one of the most prestigious universities in Korea) and got his master's and PhD at a Finnish university. Inspiration is truly everywhere.

There are lots of counterexamples to the incorrect belief that US PhDs are superior to non-US PhDs. That doesn’t make the belief go away.

"Superior is a word that leads to false dichotomies. A school in a given country tends to be the best preparation for a job in that country for a range of reasons. Having said that, the US system tends to favor leadership and "winners", so you may be better off being a superstar in a small pond elsewhere with lots of accolades on your CV, versus being just yet another smart person in a highly-competitive school in the US.

I'd note that in the US you may very well find yourself working for a supervisor who immigrated from Asia and treats students exactly like they do in in the country the supervisor is from. I know multiple people like this. If the rules do not explicitly  support this they will find other forms of leverage such as your Visa.

Pretty much everything is according to his/her will and they also get to determine if they want to "let their students graduate."

This is how it works in the U.S. also.  However, the proper behavior is for the supervisor to have a collaborative working relationship with PhD students.  I think Germany is similar.
In Australia, and I think Canada, the award of the PhD is decided by an external committee.  Members of the committee all work at other universities.  This substantially reduces the power of the supervisor.
Practices vary by region, and even among universities.  For example, some U.S. universities require a committee to approve the PhD thesis, with one member being from a different department.  At other U.S. universities the committee does not have this external member as a check.  Generally the committee does what the supervisor recommends.

Austria also has external awards (at least the university of Vienna has).

In Germany, the thesis is submitted to the faculty board, where all professors are members. You could submit over your prof's head, I believe.

Depending on the country and even institution, academics have varying amounts of accountability to their universities. In the UK where there isn't such a thing as legal tenure, an academic who behaves unreasonably towards their students runs the risk of being sanctioned or sacked. Of course, this doesn't mean the university can't turn a blind eye (as can be the case if they are a bit of an academic celebrity) but it does mean a complaint to the institution about an academic carries a lot more weight.
You generally have the option to change supervisor if you feel there is a good reason to do so. Though whether you need the permission of your current supervisor in all cases will again depend on the institution.
The way laboratories and equipment are managed may also make a difference. In my school the majority of equipment is managed by technical staff and experimental officers (a kind of halfway role between academic and technician), not academics. So it would be hard for an academic to prevent students using that equipment and other resources.

It's pretty similar in the USA, with the PI being king.
What you want to do is be selective about who you work with, within the department.  In general, pre-tenure is bad.  As are recently tenured profs running slave labor camps.  Older profs near retirement tend to be better--even the ones who used to be unreasonable will have mellowed out.
In addition, you can just ask and find out typical graduation times by group.  7 years is bad, 4 years is good (in the US).  You may get some blabla about "it depends", but just ask for the last 5 students and what their duration was and then do the math yourself.
Caveat emptor...

Why, in general, would pre-tenure professors be especially bad?

Age has nothing to do with it.  Mistreating students is just a sign of incompetence, which can occur at any age.  If a research group in the US tells you their typical graduation time is four years, they are very likely lying.

Concerning the following quote:
' professor who runs the lab is basically a "king" in that lab '
I don't have much experience in western world of academia. Yet, I feel it is more like person by person basis (even in Asian countries). I have seen both "holding hostage" type and "open" type.
Since your professor already told you that he is open to you quitting half-way, I guess yours is the latter type. After all, the rate of quitting worldwide is around 50% so ... any smart professor won't feel too much of their students quitting (otherwise, they will feel very bad 50% of the time).
Good luck.


text:
Condition for "COPYRIGHT AND CONSENT FORM"
I have a conference paper which is indexed by IEEE by a copyring with the following terms. My paper is an extented abstract without any proofs and details. Now I want to submit the same paper with all proofs and details to a journal. Can I do it

IEEE COPYRIGHT AND CONSENT FORM
  To ensure uniformity of treatment among all contributors, other forms may not be substituted for this form, nor may any wording
  of the form be changed. This form is intended for original material submitted to the IEEE and must accompany any such material
  in order to be published by the IEEE. Please read the form carefully and keep a copy for your files.
Paper NAME
  Author's NAMES
  Proceedings of 6th Iranian joint congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Systems
  COPYRIGHT TRANSFER
  The undersigned hereby assigns to The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (the "IEEE") all rights
  under copyright that may exist in and to: (a) the Work, including any revised or expanded derivative works submitted to the IEEE
  by the undersigned based on the Work; and (b) any associated written or multimedia components or other enhancements
  accompanying the Work.
GENERAL TERMS
The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this form.
  The undersigned agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IEEE from any damage or expense that may arise in the
  event of a breach of any of the warranties set forth above.
  The undersigned agrees that publication with IEEE is subject to the policies and procedures of the IEEE PSPB
  Operations Manual.
  In the event the above work is not accepted and published by the IEEE or is withdrawn by the author(s) before
  acceptance by the IEEE, the foregoing copyright transfer shall be null and void. In this case, IEEE will retain a copy of
  the manuscript for internal administrative/record-keeping purposes.
  For jointly authored Works, all joint authors should sign, or one of the authors should sign as authorized agent for the
  others.
  The author hereby warrants that the Work and Presentation (collectively, the "Materials") are original and that he/she is
  the author of the Materials. To the extent the Materials incorporate text passages, figures, data or other material from the
  works of others, the author has obtained any necessary permissions. Where necessary, the author has obtained all third
  party permissions and consents to grant the license above and has provided copies of such permissions and consents
  to IEEE
CONSENT AND RELEASE
ln the event the author makes a presentation based upon the Work at a conference hosted or sponsored in whole or in
  part by the IEEE, the author, in consideration for his/her participation in the conference, hereby grants the IEEE the
  unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable permission to use, distribute, publish, license, exhibit, record, digitize, broadcast,
  reproduce and archive, in any format or medium, whether now known or hereafter developed: (a) his/her presentation
  and comments at the conference; (b) any written materials or multimedia files used in connection with his/her
  presentation; and (c) any recorded interviews of him/her (collectively, the "Presentation"). The permission granted
  includes the transcription and reproduction of the Presentation for inclusion in products sold or distributed by IEEE and
  live or recorded broadcast of the Presentation during or after the conference.
  In connection with the permission granted in Section 1, the author hereby grants IEEE the unlimited, worldwide,
  irrevocable right to use his/her name, picture, likeness, voice and biographical information as part of the advertisement,
  distribution and sale of products incorporating the Work or Presentation, and releases IEEE from any claim based on
  right of privacy or publicity.
BY TYPING IN YOUR FULL NAME BELOW AND CLICKING THE SUBMIT BUTTON, YOU CERTIFY THAT SUCH ACTION
  CONSTITUTES YOUR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE TO THIS FORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNITED STATES LAW, WHICH
  AUTHORIZES ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE BY AUTHENTICATED REQUEST FROM A USER OVER THE INTERNET AS A
  VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITTEN SIGNATURE.
Information for Authors
AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES
The IEEE distributes its technical publications throughout the world and wants to ensure that the material submitted to its
  publications is properly available to the readership of those publications. Authors must ensure that their Work meets the
  requirements as stated in section 8.2.1 of the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual, including provisions covering originality,
  authorship, author responsibilities and author misconduct. More information on IEEE’s publishing policies may be found at
  http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/authorrightsresponsibilities.html Authors are advised especially of
  IEEE PSPB Operations Manual section 8.2.1.B12: "It is the responsibility of the authors, not the IEEE, to determine whether
  disclosure of their material requires the prior consent of other parties and, if so, to obtain it." Authors are also advised of IEEE
  PSPB Operations Manual section 8.1.1B: "Statements and opinions given in work published by the IEEE are the expression of
  the authors."
RETAINED RIGHTS/TERMS AND CONDITIONS
  Authors/employers retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
  Authors/employers may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work, material extracted verbatim from the Work, or
  derivative works for the author's personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the IEEE copyright notice are
  indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies IEEE endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the
  copies themselves are not offered for sale.
  Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party
  requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.The IEEE Intellectual Property Rights office must handle all such
  third-party requests.
  Authors whose work was performed under a grant from a government funding agency are free to fulfill any deposit mandates
  from that funding agency.
AUTHOR ONLINE USE
  Personal Servers. Authors and/or their employers shall have the right to post the accepted version of IEEE-copyrighted
  articles on their own personal servers or the servers of their institutions or employers without permission from IEEE, provided
  that the posted version includes a prominently displayed IEEE copyright notice and, when published, a full citation to the
  original IEEE publication, including a link to the article abstract in IEEE Xplore. Authors shall not post the final, published
  versions of their papers.
  Classroom or Internal Training Use. An author is expressly permitted to post any portion of the accepted version of his/her
  own IEEE-copyrighted articles on the author's personal web site or the servers of the author's institution or company in
  connection with the author's teaching, training, or work responsibilities, provided that the appropriate copyright, credit, and
  reuse notices appear prominently with the posted material. Examples of permitted uses are lecture materials, course packs, e-
  reserves, conference presentations, or in-house training courses.
  Electronic Preprints. Before submitting an article to an IEEE publication, authors frequently post their manuscripts to their
  own web site, their employer's site, or to another server that invites constructive comment from colleagues. Upon submission
  of an article to IEEE, an author is required to transfer copyright in the article to IEEE, and the author must update any
  previously posted version of the article with a prominently displayed IEEE copyright notice. Upon publication of an article by
  the IEEE, the author must replace any previously posted electronic versions of the article with either (1) the full citation to the IEEE work with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or link to the article 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 article
  in IEEE Xplore.
Questions about the submission of the form or manuscript must be sent to the publication's editor.
  Please direct all questions about IEEE copyright policy to:
  IEEE Intellectual Property Rights Office, copyrights@ieee.org, +1-732-562-3966

It would be better to write to IEEE (they have an email address at the end), but I do not think you can republish this work, based on this part:

Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests
  for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.

Normally the same paper cannot be published twice. To give the paper and yourself more visibility, your options are: (1) present it in a workshop without proceedings; (2) prepare an extended version that has additional content and publish that in a journal.

My paper in the above conference is an extented abstract  Without any proofs and details. Now I want to submit the same paper with all proofs and details. Can I do it?

@vector I think, yes. When filled with details, proofs, examples, extra experimental results, etc, it stops being the same paper.


text:
Why aren't faculty applications peer-reviewed?
Research articles are peer-reviewed. Funding is based on peer-review. Academic dissertations are somehow peer-reviewed (external examiner).
Everything is based on peer-review in academia. I wonder why the faculty applications are not peer-reviewed.
Disclaimer: I know peer-review process is rarely used in some systems, but my question is why it is not as common as letters of recommendation?

Why would the hiring decision of one entity be subject to the opinions of any other entity? Not everything is based on peer-review in academia, nor should it be.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "peer-review" in this context.  Do you mean why do applicants get to pick their own letter writers instead of the school soliciting letters?

@JonCuster: You might as well ask why the tenure decisions of one entity should be subject to the opinions of another entity - but they are (external letters).  I think here it comes down to practicalities: the time frames for hiring decisions are too short to solicit external letters.  Tenure decisions are much slower and there is plenty of time.

In some academic system there are external members in hiring committees and/or external reports are solicited.

@NateEldredge - yes, input from external peers are requested for tenure decisions, yet tenure committees also have other factors to consider from the perspective of their institution alone. External input on hiring is usually requested as well, but apparently does not meet the definition of "peer-review" in the question. Perhaps we need a clearer definition of "peer-review" in the context of hiring from the OP.

Aren't faculty applications peer reviewed by the hiring committee?

I would continue to question the assertion that 'everything is based on peer-review in academia' - teaching assignments, classroom performance, salaries, fringe benefits, faculty club privileges, and any number of other benefits and conditions of employment are not peer-reviewed.

They are.  Applications for faculty positions are typically reviewed by a search committee, which is made up of academics.  This is a form of peer review.
It is true that sometimes the applicant and search committee may be from the same institution when a job application is reviewed, while funding agencies and journals often do not permit that situation.  The reason is that it is not feasible to eliminate all potential conflicts of interest.  In other words, it is hard to obtain external reviewers for something like a search committee.  Also, the members of the search committee know more about their institution's needs than an external reviewer does.

@NajibIdrissi No, peer review means review by fellow experts.  It does not mean review by academics of the same rank or status.  Peer reviewed journals and funding agencies use peer reviewers who are a different rank from the author (typically at random).