text:
I think I am failing my master's degree, is this going to have a very bad impact on my future academic career?
After experiencing serious academic burnout, personal health conditions, and some family situations, I think I am not able to pass my overall assessment for my master's degree. I think I'm basically failed (the actual final result won't be available until July).
A bit of background about myself, I am currently approaching the end of a 9-month master's degree in physics at a very top UK university. Before this, I obtained a dual degree in physics and mathematics at a US university with very good overall grades (3.95/4.00). I also have 3 academic papers with my undergraduate professor.
I actually did well in some modules I took in my master's course. An additional reason for my poor overall performance in the current program is I'm taking modules mainly in a new area of physics that is significantly different from my undergraduate study and research, which really takes extra time and effort.
I'm very frustrated with my current situation. I studied and worked really hard, but the result is not rewarding at all. I'm pretty sure I want to be in academia in the future and study for a Ph.D. in physics because I'm passionate about what I've been learning and doing, after all.  My biggest concern is if I'm trying to reach out to potential supervisors or someone in academia and seek collaborations, my current experience will make them reluctant to work with me. I will definitely move on from my failure, but how this bad experience will affect my future career in academia, and how can I make this impact as small as possible?
Thanks for the help!

As in professional sports, passion is a sine qua non, it gets you in the door. Talent and luck figure into the mix too. How do you see yourself stacking up against your future competition?

My first post here so pls be kind and don't take things too literally.
I am a 6th year post doc in Neurobiology at Cambridge, UK.
All of these words are my reflections - I am not wearing any special truth-spectacles. Choose to take a moral high ground. I find that explaing how to game the system is despicable and a reason to why science is as in-efficient as it de facto in these times.
Here and now
First things first, Don't worry about things that is currently out of your hands. See what the result is, and meanwhile talk to colleagues about your feelings and worries. They will be the type of people who gets you through this underappreciated type of work.
Still, I absolutely get your position and the accompying feelings. I am in 6th year as a post doc and feel im about to "fail" yet again ;)
Its natural to get scared or emotional about things that we are passionate about, it's a good sign! But do not let that fear control you. Planning ahead in this state is usually pointless. And if you do plan, use a best/worst-scenario type approach - find the 'lagom' middle scenario.
Failings? Control, authoritism and independent thought
It is essential to define what YOU mean with "about to fail". Is this your view? Does you supervisor, mentor, colleagues also agree you are "about to fail"? Find the likely scenario an come up with some alternativ career paths. Having a backup plan, regardless if that is a similar field or becoming a gardener. Plans do not have to be used. Backup plans ensure that you don't feel your life depends on this one result.
Most of us instinctively feel that if we don't ace things we are failed. (evo-theory would say its because our fear is evolutionary coupled to a very real risk of death).
These feelings seem to be particularly strong in those who tend to be hard on themselves, often people who ace:d undergraduate education. If you had to pay for uni, and relatives stepped in. Talk to them about your fears, as on some level you will be doing this for them.
"one who is in debt, is not free".
Being judged right or wrong by others is what teachers do in school, or if you have a contractual commercial boss. Not in science. In science you have mentors, collaborators and colleagues,- not bosses (despite this culture always tried to nestle it's ugly face in).
This fact has been of fundamentally importance to me. It puts me in control and is the fundament of independence and independent thought.
No one can order me what, when and how to work. It's all up to me.
If not I wouldve blamed others and left bitter and disillusioned. Now I fight on!
Naturally tho, clever people take advice from senior or trusted colleagues - but not before thinking it through and making the decision themselves.
What is Science? Novelty? Publications, goal or tool?
IMO Science naturally has a flat hierarchy. Either you establish something or you don't. Seniors do not sit on any absolute knowledge or skills.
If a professor has assumptions you can't get on board with, their whole argument hurts and there is no meaningful collaboration.
Therefore a professors word does not weigh heavier than a students (as long as thorough discussion takes place). This critically depends on both parties humbleness and asking yourself what you do know and what you don't.
As such, I if you think science is a competition you are missing the point.
Competition is a technique some people use to motivate themselves. There are better ways where if you "loose" you are not a looser. Say - actual interest in finding something out. Then negative results are just more data.
Neither is it about being first. Those are merely the people who did a large contribution and as a reward got an entire ecosystem attached to their name that we then remeber. Similar to how we remeber pharaohs but not the people building the pyramids.
Its not even about curing a particular disease or inventing a useful tool. Those are all potential products from doing Science. Can't and shan't be a goal.
Science is discovery, exploration and arguably the only way we can know anything in this world. First about convincing yourself. Then deciding if it is worth to communicate to peers who can independently confirm or disagree.
Instead of togheter discovering patterns in nature and increasing our understanding of the world around us. It is a common misunderstanding that science is about getting publishable results or ones theory being correct.
Publications is what we (unfortunately) are quantified by in lack of other organizational principles - but don't mix up publishing with doing science - something published is not automatically true. (requires a lot substantial repeated confirmation).
Science is not an umbrella term defined by what scientist choose to occupy their days with. Many people have long CVs or are good at writing self-similar grant applications (useful for a scientist) . But they are means to the end of doing science not the science in themselves. (chatgpt will tear these people a new one:)
Happy go lucky.
Like everything in life we usually don't (really) understand what we are getting ourselves into beforehand. Who was not surprised at all what their new job actually showed to be? What young adult actually grasps what scientific work is before experiencing it?
Remember. You learn different things from different projects, different PIs. It's about getting the collection of experience you require. Therefore personal advice like this forum is always better than (commercial) "10 common mistakes PhDs do"-sites.
With the shitty situation for (most) academics, many understandably do not want to sacrifice their entire lifes and leave.
I usually turn this around in my head to:
"Whoever leaves the room last gets to be Professor".
Final advice (slightly lower moral highground:)
I would recommend you already now start to contact people who are doing science. Remeber you are the 'essentially-free' workhorse that they have the opportunity to hire/take under their wing. Its a relationship.
Focus on making contact with scientists you like rather than aiming for a PhD in a specific field or university.
Any contact point that is personal is preferable to "open" applications.
You avoid competing with the rest of the world in the sport if writing CVs and doing official interviews.
Very often open positions are already earmarked anyway.
Potential collaborators (pi, proff, postdoc) that are appealing to You are all good people to email. Those who don't answer don't, re formulate and move on. They won't even register you exist.
However WHEN you find a good match, a position might very well materialize out of thinn air. And if they truly want you there is no problem in asking them where to apply for money.
Offering (for them free) summer internships or course-projects there are as many ways as there are Universities.
Hope some of this may penetrate through your skull, deep into your brain and there lodge itself to fester. :)
Burnout is basically part of today's academic education. Unfortunately. Everyone end up with it sooner or later. The earlier you can find a way that works for you instead of trying to fit the mold, I the better.
Sincerely, Staffan

Thanks so, so much for this answer Staffan! It really helps!! :)

[Perhaps as much of a comment than an answer, given that the post does not really contain much of a question that can be answered in a concise way...]
Well, yes, you are right: This will reflect poorly on you to whoever you apply to next. But that's not the part I'd be concerned about. If you found yourself burned-out from the Master's experience, what makes you confident that any PhD program you want to go through will yield a different experience? What I don't see from the post is some serious introspection about what made this particular situation a poor match for you, and how any other program would result in a better situation.

Thanks very much!!

I think that you need to do some soul-searching to determine why you struggled. You will not succeed in a PhD without answering this for yourself. If there are external factors at play, you need to learn to manage them. If you have academic or research weaknesses, they need to be addressed.
Practically though, failing your overall assessment will reflect poorly on you. The only real way to overcome failure is to show that it not indicative of your true ability. I do not subscribe to the idea that certain people inherently can't handle challenging advanced academics. But you should decide if you want to continue down this path because it might be harder for you than others. If you choose to proceed, I have some advice:

Identify why you are struggling. This is the most important step. You need to address whatever is causing you trouble. You have to be honest with yourself here.
Find a way to show future programs/advisors that your trouble was an anomaly. How you do this is situation dependent. You may take more classes, extend your degree, or find a research job that allows you to form relationships with potential mentors. Ideally, you should target your weak areas and strengthen them.
Don't fixate on failure. Acknowledge it if brought up, but do not draw attention to it. And show evidence that you have moved past it. Steps 1 and 2 will allow you to do this effectively.

Good luck!

Thanks very much!! :)


text:
Do researchers make more mistakes as they continue to work in a discipline?
I am a PhD student and try to work each and everything in detail. I am facing a problem right now as I am making lots of silly mistakes. In the first year, I made fewer mistakes. In the second year I made more silly mistakes and now in the middle of my PhD I am making lots of silly mistake during presentations and meetings with my supervisor. I think it is due to the fact that I am now reading and understanding things more deeply.
Question:  How can I better avoid silly and annoying mistakes in my PhD? I am actually surprised to see that in the first year I use to make very less mistake although I use to read more material. Actually right now I don't read very much material I focus on one or theorem, but it appears to me that I am making more mistakes. I don't as these mistake's will be reduced with time or not. One example of a mistake is many times I assume that it is easy to verify but when it comes to verification many times I fails and I have very much difficulty in proving trivial statements ( may not be trivial for others ).

What kind of mistakes?

@ Mark Mistakes in the defintion, proof etc.

as time goes, you will start not to care a lot. dont worry

I think it's not that you're making more mistakes (not that I know 100%, to be honest) but that you are becoming more aware of the subtleties of your field, and are therefore becoming more aware of the difference between, say, a well-studied, published researcher and yourself.  As you learn what is and isn't important, you start to recognize that you need to be more precise and rigorous.
The best advice I have for you is to take note any time you make such a mistake.  Why was it made?  Was it because you just wanted to write something down andget through it?  Was it a genuine misunderstanding?  Was it because you understood exactly what you meant, so you assumed that others did too?  etc.  Then, address the individual causes.
One of my biggest issues was the latter - I knew what I meant to say, so I didn't bother to be careful defining my terms or the context.  It was obvious to me, so I forgot that I had spent months figuring it out and therefore it wasn't obvious to anyone else.  I took a long time to remind myself that a proper setup  is extremely important in selling the relevance and impact of my work.  I still make that mistake sometimes, but I'm at least more aware of it.

+1 Also, don't try to fix everything at once. Just work on preventing the type of mistakes you make most often. When you stop (or nearly stop) making that type of mistake, move on to the next type of mistake.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it a good idea to apply to the same professor again after having been rejected the year before?
Is there some kind of academic norm that says "when I reject an applicant, I don't want anything to do with him?"
edit: If a professor is reading this, personal experience from himself and colleagues will be really helpful!

Also possible duplicate of Can I apply to grad school twice?. I'm voting to close as duplicate.

It very much depends on why you were rejected.
For example, a year ago, it's possible the professor couldn't fund a student. Or there were limited spots, and someone else urgently needed a student. Or they were just getting a project going, and didn't want to add another person into their lab.
All of those are circumstances where it might be possible to revisit your application.
If you don't know the reason, you might still try. After all, if you don't apply functionally the answer is "No".

I recently had a similar experience, and after (me and my advisor) consulting with people at the graduate schools  my answer is, no, there's no such norm.
Basically, some of the faculty said they couldn't recruit me not because my application isn't strong but rather because they simply aren't recruting any graduate students this year. Others said my application was great but somehow it just didn't make the cut this year.
So, it might not be a bad idea to consult those people and ask them what happened to your application. Maybe it was simply because someone couldn't recruit one extra student. In that case, you're going to have a very good chance, aren't you? Odds that a research group doesn't recruit students in two consecutive years is probably quite low.
After all, I assume you'll be spending the rest of this year doing stuff and potentially strengthening your application,  aren't you? In any case, the case for you would be stronger by then. Even if your application is simply "not good enough" this time, it wouldn't be a bad choice to try again.

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


text:
Switch from linguistics to CS for PhD?
I have an undergrad degree in linguistics, and a masters degree in natural language processing from a department of linguistics. I would like to continue research work in natural language processing, but change fields to computer science. How can I make this happen? Many say its not possible, but I'm willing to put in the work and do what it takes! Although continuing my research as a linguistics PhD would be easier, I am not interested in taking this route.
More about my background:

I am 25 year old female.
I currently have 2 publications: one is a publication on software that I developed, the other is a somewhat random bioinformatics publication.

Many more publications to come in the next year! I have worked at 1 research institute (where I developed and published my software), worked in a CS lab, and now I work in government R&D and am affiliated with an R1 university.
I have been involved in A LOT of digital literacy efforts, volunteered to help at women's hackathons, etc. and have given a lot of Data Science presentations to the public.

My plans:

GRE & GRE Math subject test.
CS self-studying. I'm comfortable about data types and learning more about algorithms.

Questions:

Do I have to get another masters? I can't afford it :(
Would community college classes actually help me get in? I'm afraid they won't be taken seriously...
Other ways to obtain/prove I have the necessary prerequisites for a CS degree?

I know some universities will simply not accept someone without a CS background, but some explicitly state in their CS admissions that they will (e.g. UWashington, UToronto)

I have a bachelors and masters in a non-STEM field and am currently in a CS PhD program. I had a similar constraint that I could not afford a CS masters degree and wanted to go directly into a research PhD. You seem like you're in a good enough position to just apply now, but given my non-STEM background, here's what I did:

I took online courses such as Algorithms, Automata, Databases, and Machine Learning. I did all the assignments and took detailed notes. I'd suggest you look into Deep Learning since neural machine translation is a hot area.
I put everything I coded on GitHub. I made sure my code was clean, organized, and well-commented. This was primarily for employers—I'm not sure if grad schools care—, but I had to pay the bills while teaching myself on nights and weekends.
I held a couple of programming-related jobs, starting as a software developer at a startup and ending as a research software developer in a bioinformatics lab. The first kind of job is good for getting your foot in the door and the second is good for publications—you might already be set on the latter.
Because of the above job, I curated my application for ML + computational biology tracks in CS departments. Cross-disciplinary labs are nice because no one knows everything and everyone brings something to the table. For reference, one professor at another school told me that he wanted to accept me but was worried about my background. This lab was extremely focused, and the school expected me to start research in that area on day one. I interviewed twice but didn't get in. I think where you apply is probably the most important variable, provided you have a solid application.
I applied to 8 schools and was only accepted by 1. Just FYI.

Good luck.

Thanks so much for your reply! Its VERY encouraging to know! Per machine learning, I'm already comfortable using Keras and PyTorch :) Deep learning is a big part of natural language processing! For your online classes, did you pay for the Coursera courses certificates?

If you already know PyTorch/Keras and am comfortable with ML/DL, you're way ahead of where I was. I didn't pay for certificates.


text:
Is uncredited use of grad students' unpublished research by professors accepted/common practice in academia?
I'm a master's student, and over the course of my studies I've conducted a few independent studies in which I investigate specific research questions that I formulate on my own. Those independent studies have culminated in final papers, and I then use the material in those papers as part of articles I publish and presentations I give at conferences--am trying to build up a public profile on these topics.
Recently, a professor of mine asked to see research I had done for one of those studies, ostensibly to use as background for something the professor was working on. I'm not this professor's employee or otherwise under contract for a project of the professor's. I'm conducting independent research during classes that I pay for as part of my degree. The professor is in other words just my adviser and teacher.
I provided the professor my research and presentation materials, and then heard the professor use my work--word for word--in a subsequent presentation. The professor had not sought out my consent before doing this, and I was not cited.
The same professor again asked for a full, unpublished paper I had written to use as background for a different project the professor was undertaking. I declined to provide the paper because I did not know how it would be used (though I didn't say that).
Am curious about whether this is accepted and/or common practice in academia. And if it is, should I just send my paper to the professor?

I would publicly shame him (and anyone who still does this) on whatever social media he favors or Academia.edu.

There’s something I don’t understand: you say you’re not under contract for a project with this professor. But he’s your adviser. So: is your research performed under his tutelage? Is he advising you on this research? In other words: are you performing research in his group? Because this will change the answer to your question drastically.

@KonradRudolph Does this really change coauthorship and/or citing sources?

@JayFromA It changes whether it’s acceptable to present such results. It’s customary for group leaders to present (and thus disseminate and advertise) the results of their group. “I was not cited” sounds problematic but maybe OP was mentioned in the acknowledgements? If so, this is entirely OK and common practice (although I prefer when presentations mention individual contributions, but this is a lot less common). In fact, I’d even argue that it would be unethical for OP to refuse to share results in this case.

@KonradRudolph If OP is part of the group he deseves coauthorship, if he is not part of the group OP has to be cited. The only setting this could be overloked IMHO would be talks in a internal/private/non-official setting (and still at least mentioning OP, e.g. in the acknowledgements, would be the right thing to do here).

@JayFromA What is “coauthorship” for a talk? This isn’t a concept I’ve ever heard used. Nobody talks of their group members of authors of the talk. They contribute their research, and are acknowledged accordingly.

@KonradRudolph For the conferences I have been to it was always the case that you "apply" for a talk by sending in a abstract (including a list of authors). The talk is also always listed with all "authors" and often accompanied with a paper for the conference proceedings (of course with all authors). Same for posters. Setting is Europe (mainly Germany) with conferences ranging from CS to Engineering.

@JayFromA This is true for talks by “active” researchers (postdoc, PhD students, PIs talking about their own research). It’s not true for group leaders who give summary talks about their lab’s research (setting is worldwide, biological, medical and computer science).

@KonradRudolph The professor is currently advising an independent study of mine -- that I pay for as a class for my degree. I'm not part of a group. I sought out this professor to advise me on this given the professor's expertise. This professor was asking to see research that I had done in another independent study with a different professor. (And fyi--OP is a she)

@einpoklum Noticed my question was edited. I was more interested in whether this is an accepted practice in academia given grad students' position -- as in, something that lots of people do and that is kinda just overlooked. Not in whether this is acceptable in general -- eg, ethically or morally acceptable. Am very familiar with the concept of plagiarism generally (not because I do it, because I've taught others about it!) and was hoping to get at specific academic practices as I try to work out politics in this space.

@ResearcherBee: 1. Will try editing accordingly. 2. You can always re-edit yourself.

@einpoklum Happy to rework. As an editor myself, thought it best to provide reason for correction to avoid re-correction.

I can't say I know how often this occurs. But a fair share of the time it is reasonable that the professor pitched the idea to the student. If not the supervisor then one of the other professors or teachers. Some of the most awesome professors are adept at that: gently planting ideas into the students' heads. It is fascinating what drive a student can get to work really hard on something if they feel it's something they came up with on their own.

What was the presentation that the professor gave? Was it a teaching related presentation to educate students about some interesting facts of life, or was it an occasion in which the professor got to show off their research prowess. Questions of plagiarism hinge on an implied "I am the original author of the work that I am talking about" which is very different in those two scenarios.

No, this not accepted and/or common practice in academia. (Your use of the plagiarism tag was correct.) It is of course unethical and not right to copy other's work and not mention them.

It’s always a gray area when it comes to mentors using students’ data, but your case is clearly in your favor. This is not appropriate in any way.

This seems like pretty direct plagiarism to me. It is also all too common in academia.
In your case, this is a little more straightforward, as you never have been employed (i.e., received money) for your work under this professor. Your professor may feel that he or she has a "right" to your work because the professor believes he or she oversaw your work. (Some advisors thing they have tacit advisory privilege on all work a graduate student produces). What becomes tricky is when your advisor actually paid you to be a research assistant, yet contributes nothing intellectually to the project.
If you are still a current student, there may not be much you can directly do about this. At least in my experience, many universities will stand behind their professors unless given a heaping mound of evidence otherwise. I would defer any requests for your research as long as you can, insofar as it does not hamper your ability to produce a thesis, final project, etc. I knew of two students in my department where they had the choice of blindly handing their research over to their advisor and graduating, or standing firm on their intellectual contributions and being denied the chance to defend their dissertation. Their advisor felt he had "ownership" of their research because he had paid their stipends. Advisors usually have almost all of the leverage in these cases.
But, nevertheless, what you have described is blatant plagiarism. So, yes, this is plagiarism. And yes, it was common at my university. And it is accepted because departments do not want to admit that their faculty may be taking advantage of graduate students' work. This is why I got out of academia.

While I think we agree that such behavior is absolutely unethical and inappropriate, to say that it is "common" based on anecdotal evidence seems unjustified. For that matter, in my own observation (in mathematics, in the U.S.), such behavior is very rare.

I hope after you got out of academia you took steps to inform the jounals where these professors had published and the people who built on their work.

@paulgarrett Agreed. I have edited my answer to reflect this. At another university I attended, such plagiarism was unheard of. I misrepresented the general whole of academia in this regard.

@Vladhagen, good to not tar everyone with that same brush... :)

@Magicsowon that also happens in Mordor? damn

@paulgarrett My anecdotal observations is that this is highly field-dependent, with a strong cultural components.  In some very competitive areas, it is uncommon but not extremely rare.  In deferential environments where challenging the head of the group is not encouraged, it is also uncommon but not extremely rare.  Thankfully, in many disciplines it is viewed as positive to explicitly acknowledge the contribution of students, usually through co-authorships when possible.

Math is not competitive area, but in other fields, preatty common.

Your case is blatant plagiarism. I saw this many years ago (at Harvard), and it still happens. As the others have implied, though, it is partly a cultural phenomenon that varies by university and department.
One suggestion that might help you is that research donors, and journals, have gotten much more sensitive in the last 10 years about illegal behavior. I would confidentially go to the legal department at your university, and sound them out. It could be, for instance, that this professor has created a legal liability for the university with the professor's funding agencies, which the lawyers will either want to hush up, or go after on their own so that the university can claim clean hands. In the former case, if they are smart they would find a way to refund all your tuition.
What gives you some leverage is that you are in an MS program and don't much depend on this guy, or the department, in the future. But that depends in part on where you see yourself working in 5 years, and whether the relevant work/academic community is small, or large.
Another technique that may work better than in the past is to threaten to write journal editors. So far, he has not published anything that uses your work. But if he ever does, then depending on how important your material was to his publication, he could get seriously embarrassed. (And by then, you will have graduated.)
This is sensitive, and it might blow up depending on personalities and local culture. You may therefore want to work through an intermediary who keeps your name, and his/her name, out of it at first. But I encourage you to seriously consider complaining. That is necessary for academia to progress.

I would like to add:  Make sure you can prove your case.  The important thing is have a verified dated copy of the paper somewhere.

@StigHemmer e.g., committing LaTeX files to GitHub or using some online services such as overleaf or gdoc can be useful to proves dates.

Overleaf would be better than Github, since you can change a repo's history. Proof of Existence is another good measure. arXiv is another excellent possibility.

Stig's point is excellent. It's always possible that your perception is not going to be shared by others. (Thought it does not sound likely, since you have interacted with this person several times on these issues.) You should certainly run this past a few friends before you say anything to someone in an official position.

Regarding your final question (possibly provided in an update): DO NOT hand over a second paper to this professor. Or, if this is within disciplinary norms, you may want to consider posting it a respected repository (e.g. Arxiv or SSRN), thus time-stamping it and showing your priority. You could choose whether or not to then share the link with that professor: "I'm so glad you're interested in my work! I just posted a copy on Arxiv!"
As for the first paper: in a comment you say you wrote it in an independent study with a different professor. Do you trust that professor? Do you think that professor would be willing to help challenge the rascal? You may want to consider asking the other professor about these norms and how to navigate the issue. If the original problem happened in an informal setting (e.g. an on-campus talk), the other professor may be able to set the record straight there, in a smooth way. Or, if it was a more external venue, especially one where you're thinking of accusing the professor of plagiarism, then the other professor could be even more valuable in corroborating your account and suggesting politically wise options.

Warning: this answer may upset the vast majority of readers.
Many universities require students to agree that all work produced while being a student or member of staff be the property of the university (not the student). This is more clearly noted when doing funding research, but is also often the case otherwise.
If the lecturer presented the work as entirely his own then he has crossed a line by claiming ownership. However if he has presented the work as from his university/department (eg. A Study in the effect of Blah on Blah, SomeName University) then he may not have done anything wrong. It is sometimes rare (feild specific) for presentations to include a full list of coauthorship, the presenter often opting to give the details of a contact at the department. This is done for multiple reason, one of which maybe continuity - a lecturer may be the point of contact as they are likely to remain at the university for  longer than a student  - this is specifically important when the work is contributing to a larger overall discipline the university is working towards.
I would advise you to carefully consider the outcome of your actions before speaking to the legal department of the university as mentioned in other answer. Even if the lecturer has stepped over the line you risk getting a reputation as a non-team-player, not ideal if you want a future in academia (yes it sucks to say it, but whistle blowers rarely end up well employed). A better course of action may be to speak to the professor about wanting to present the work yourself, and asking for his direct assistance in this - where to submit the paper, possibly getting university funding to go and present etc.

I agree that great care must be taken to understand precisely the circumstances under which the work was presented before any action is taken.  In particular, it may be that, if presented at a conference, only one author (the presenter) could be acknowledged in the book of abstracts or the timetable of presentations.

“Many universities require students to agree that all work produced while being a student or member of staff be the property of the university” — I don’t doubt that this is indeed the case. But note that, in a “civilised” country this is quite simply illegal. Giving the example of Germany (since I am most familiar with the laws there), such a contract would be “sittenwidrig” and invalid. You cannot contractually forego authorship (usage rights are a different matter but OP is asking about authorship).

@KonradRudolph I wasn't trying to imply the lecturer can claim authorship, simply that the university can claim ownership of the research and thus decide when, where and how the work is presented. An example of this would be work done under and NDA often can not be immediately published but may be presented to sponsors by a senior representative of the university - clearly not the case in question but it's just a few steps away.

Simple answer: No. It is never ok in any professional (and especially in any academic) setting to present someone else's data or work without citing them. This is cut-and-dry plagiarism.

Doing so does not give credit where credit is due, and, worse, often leads others to falsely attribute the work to the person presenting it.

Unfortunately, this is a practice that is all too common in the STEM fields, especially between PIs and their professional "subordinates" (i.e., grad students, lab managers, undergrads, junior faculty, etc.). However, this approach to science is often a result of unbalanced power dynamics and there being no possibility for these so-called "subordinates" to challenge the PI in power. Not all institutions accept this behavior, and certainly, in many instances it is not a problem.
If you were able to effectively say "no" to additional requests from your PI without consequence, then good for you! I would suggest using the same approach moving forward and hopefully your PI doesn't implore further (to avoid that awkward conversation).
For those who are not so lucky, I recommend reaching out to your university's ombuds office (if you have one), DGS (director of graduate studies) or even to other graduate students or junior faculty to ask for advice.

The OP has a better-than-usual situation because/if they are  in an MS program and does not intend to remain after graduating> I am inferring this; it's not stated explicitly. It does make a difference to the risks of different actions.

If the presentation that your professor gave was one that might result in a publication--like a conference that publishes its proceedings--then you have a right for credited authorship on that publication. And if it's already gone out, then it's a cause for a published correction. You'd need to go to the organizers of the conference to get this started. Have no doubt, it'll be a big deal.

I think "credit to the author" is just one of several reasons why plagiarism is highly discouraged.

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


text:
How do I present an 'unfulfilled' degree on my cv for PhD/internship applications?
I currently completed a 9-month master's course at a UK university. Due to the academic intensity, I was not able to fulfill a passing grade for my course. However, the examiners allowed me to resit my exams next year, so if I can pass my failed units, I will still be able to pass the course and complete the degree requirements. As I am an international student, I will need to apply for a visa to come back and resit the exams, so currently, it is expected, but not guaranteed that I can complete my degree next year.
At the moment, I am thinking about applying for potential internships and Ph.D. programs. My question is how do I present my master's experience on my CV? The way I'm thinking is something like

2022-2023 [Course Name][University Name]

under the education section, without including the classification. Is this a reasonable option? Should I add another sentence to indicate the units I have completed, or add a note like

Coursework Completed: 2023, Degree Expected: 2024

to show I have not fully completed the degree requirement?
For the internship I am applying for, the eligibility says

Candidates may apply up to one year after the completion of a bachelor's, master's, or doctorate degree.

I do fulfill the bachelor's degree requirement (graduated in 2022 but slightly exceeded 12 months from now), but not sure if my master's experience could be presented in a way that doesn't hurt my application.
Thanks for the help!

You need something more like: program, dates, (in progress). For the internship, the note is not intending to be only for those who have completed degrees, but for those who are in school or have recently completed. So being in process of a masters would be fine.

@Dawn Thank you!

I usually see "expected completion date" in the date area for degrees not yet completed.

@Scott Seidman Thanks, is it reasonable to write 'coursework completed in 2023, expected graduation date in 2024' to indicate I am able to work for the internship full time?

@IGY - I can comment on how this is often shown in resumes and cv's, but have no creds to say what would or would not enable you to work full time.

Keep it short:
2022-now [Course Name][University Name] (expected length: n years)
In the now is implied all that you are saying: you did not yet complete the course, you are aiming at completing it, you cannot guarantee if and when.
To make it even more obvious, write in the one-sentence CV header "currently enrolled in Master course ...". You are applying for an internship. It is reasonable to expect you are still completing your formation.

Thanks so much!

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


text:
Does 'order' matter for authorship?
I'm wondering generally how can I identify the authorship of a paper? Some papers might have specific signs such as an asterisk or a dagger after an author's name, but for those who don't have any signs, is the name with first authorship usually listed at first also? Here's an example I found on PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.230404

Who is the first author, and who are the second of this paper?
Update: I'm asking this question because I want to know if the order of authors matters. Usually the first author is listed in the beginning, but if I want to assign all of my collaborators as the second author (there are 5-6 of them), do I need to worried about the order their names appear on the paper? Thanks for the help!

Why do you care?

@mmeent I'm new to academia and I'm planning to write my first paper. I want to know if I need to specify the authorship on my paper and if so how I can do that:)

This is field dependent. You should ask your advisor about the conventions in your field. For some papers/fields, you need to actually read a "contributions" section. For others, a footnote or such.

@Buffy Thank you!

I am confused by this question. The first author is the first one reading left to right, so Skov. The second is the second one, so Skou. What is the underlying question?

@Azor Ahai -him- Thanks, but could there be multiple first or second authors in this paper?

@IGY Shared (first) authorships are not that common. But, if the authorship is shared, this is typically indicated with a comment. However, the way in which this is highlighted depends on the journal.

No, but what are you really trying to ask?

I don't know any other procedure for showing who first, second,... authors are than the order in which they appear on the paper. At least in the field where I work there is no meaningful "official" meaning to "first author, second author". The authors are listed in some order, that's it.

@Azor Ahai -him- I just updated the question:)

"but if I want to assign all of my collaborators as the second author" This doesn't make any sense... the second author is the second one in the list. The third author is the third one in the list, and so on. In the field the paper you showed is from, usually this goes in descending order of contribution, until the last author, who is almost always the advisor / person in charge / person who got the grant funding.

It depends on the field.  So @knzhou may be wrong in saying "almost always".

@pbaer Shared first authorship is very common in biology, but it's always indicated with a footnote usually as "these authors contributed equally to this work".

There are many conventions and they are mostly field dependent. I'll try to list a few of them, along with a bit of the possible reasoning. I'll also give some personal preferences about such questions, but they are, perhaps, influenced by my own education and career.
In pure math and theoretical computer science, authors are generally listed alphabetically. The intent is to say that all contributed equally to the ideas, if not to the (quantity of) work itself. A seemingly minor comment in a meeting can lead to a big insight in a paper. My experience in those fields is that advisors don't add themselves to the list of authors, though I'd guess there are exceptions. Perhaps many. I'm very uncomfortable with a convention that the advisor is always an "author" even if they contribute very little.
My personal practice (math, CS) is that I won't be a co-author with a student on their thesis work, even if I contribute the problem and give them extensive advice along the way. The work that solves the problem is theirs. And while I prefer alphabetical listing of authors in work I contribute to, I've been on at least one paper that followed a different convention since two of the group were the clear drivers of everything in the work. And the person among us who actually put the words in place was not one of the "first" authors, just the best writer.
Note that collegial relationships such as I just described makes it desirable to work with those same authors on future work. So, while I might be a "minor" author on a work, those people are happy to work with me in the future.
In some lab sciences author order is considered very important but the convention varies. In some, the advisor is always listed last in order, but some people assume they did all the "real" work and just carried the other along. In some fields, the advisor is listed first, with the same idea behind it.
In those fields that list advisors on student works it is sometimes justified by noting that the paper may get more visibility if a prominent name is among the authors. The association with that person might also have some value. But such can also be indicated in other fields by having an acknowledgement section, thanking advisors or others who helped but are not authors.
In those fields in which the advisor adds themself by convention, it may make sense or not. If the field, such as a lab science fundamentally depends on grants written by and labs managed by PIs, it may make sense since many of the ideas developed in such a lab may flow from meetings in which the PI is a fundamental participant.
Note, however, that it should be the case that the authors are the ones that contribute ideas to the papers, not just "work". Someone can spend a lot of time and effort on a paper that is actually driven by the ideas of others. But I think that idea is not especially well followed, certainly not universally.
In those fields that worry about and fight over author order, relationships can be destroyed when people bicker over priority. It is, in my view, a selfish attitude.
However, having said all that, looking at a particular paper, it can be difficult to know from the list of authors alone who was the primary driver of the ideas. A few of the authors in a longer list might have been more or less equal contributors. Some fields will explicitly list "co first" authors if they feel it is important, though it may not be obvious from the listing and you might need to get the paper to see if it has a section or note on contributions.
It should also be noted that there are several papers with thousands of "authors". The list of authors is longer than the paper itself. CERN produces such papers, for example, just by the nature of the work there.

I hope I didn't go too far off-topic here, but these are things that I think a new academic should consider. Be generous with your colleagues.

That's extremely helpful. Thanks a lot for the comprehensive answer:)

One other consideration: authorship credit isn't just a credit. It's a de facto endorsement of the paper, or at least relevant parts of it, and that can occasionally be a liability if the paper has potential for controversy/etc. I doubt this is a big issue in pure math/comp sci, but in my biomed research days I had one senior colleague whose "generosity" with co-author credits extended to putting our names on content that we considered unsound, in a context where legal repercussions were possible. It got ugly. So giving somebody sole authorship is not always a kindness.

"Does author order matter" is one of those questions best answered "sometimes". There is variation between fields, and sometimes subfields. Since you're asking about a PRL, I will assume you're asking about conventions in physics. There e.g. high-energy theory tends to use alphabetical order, whereas e.g. condensed matter and AMO do not. You probably know what's the case in your subfield just from reading relevant papers. Assuming alphabetical order isn't used, as has been pointed out in the comments, and assuming no co-first authors etc., the author who's literally listed first (second, third, ..., last) is considered the first (second, third, ..., last) author. The first and last author positions are special - the first author is typically the author who's been the driving force in carrying out a project (often a student or postdoc), while the last author is more likely to be a supervisor or the principal investigator who may have proposed the project. At some point during a career you may transition from having mainly early author positions to more late-author positions.
So what about the positions in-between? Well, there are diminishing returns. Having first-author papers can be a big deal, so the concept of co-first authors (e.g. designated with a footnote along the lines of "these authors contributed equally") is fairly common. However, beyond that, the benefit or perceived difference between being second, third or fourth author is rather small. Often it's possible to pick out who made the second biggest contribution to the project, but further down the list it's hardly an exact science. As a result, physics has not developed any tendencies to listing co-second or co-third authors. (I'm told some other fields have.) Thus there'll be a range of middle authors, but they won't all be called second authors.
As a rule of thumb, junior authors and especially those who contributed most to the results tend to go early in the author list, and supervisors last. In between is an area for people who maybe contributed a smaller part. If you're writing a paper with 5-6 co-authors, and this isn't clear to you, it may be best to ask your advisor what they think the author order should be. Other times it can be useful to just propose an author order and see if people are happy with it. (Again, usually people don't care too much whether they're third or fourth author.) Of course, in reality there's sometimes various "political" pressures that can affect the author order too in ways unrelated to contributions.


text:
Is it generally possible to spend 2 years on a 1-year integrated master's program in the UK?
I am about to begin an integrated master's (MSc) program at a UK university (in STEM major). The course is very short (9 months), but the lectures/materials are very intense. I want to pursue a PhD at the same university after this program, but I think it would be hard if I want to get familiar with a professor in such a short period of time and ask for a reference letter.
I wonder generally, is it possible to delay a year to graduate in the UK? Can I spend an extra year on this program? Thanks!!

Have you asked the course leader or the course admin team? What did they say?

@Dmitry Savostyanov I just emailed them and waiting for the response. I was trying to find out if anyone have a similar experience :)

Generally speaking, UK universities allow students to defer their studies. Typically, though, it happens for undergraduate courses that span several years.
Rather then deferring, you may consider taking the course part-time. This is often a preferred option for a University from the admin point of view. Effectively, you will take half of the modules each term and then progress to the dissertation. This may be impossible if the second-semester modules all require all first-semester modules as prerequisites, but this is very rarely a case.
Your course admin team may be able to give a better advice. Ask them.

Thanks so much!!


text:
Co-authorship nightmare
When I was in my PhD program I started working with an Assistant Prof. X in the department. I collected a large and valuable data set and at some point X "borrowed" me two RAs to clean and to organize the data. X didn't provide any further help, I oversaw the data collection, managed the RAs and did the final checks on the data. After the data was collected, we agreed that we would share authorship in 2 papers involving the data. Then, if I wanted to use the data for any other projects I could use it without including X as a coauthor. X emphasised on several occasions that I didn't need to include X as a co-author in other papers that I started.
The 2 original papers got stuck, partially because X somehow stopped working on academic research and started taking other engagements (e.g. consulting, etc.). Due to this, X's tenure-track position is on the line as X could not make enough publications. I understand that this situation is bad and somehow X has grown "desperate" trying to pull the strings from here and there.
X came to know that I was using the data for a project that is in advanced rounds in a major journal. X started to emotionally blackmail me and other coauthor to include X on the paper. At the beginning we didn't give in, but finally one of the co-authors gave in and included X in the paper, although he hasn't contributed on anything in this project. Meanwhile, he kept telling others that I did wrong, etc. which isn't true given our initial agreement.
I don't feel good about this, as I believe one should provide meaningful contribution to deserve authorship. Now X has gone into a non-response mode for months and would not respond to any e-mails, messages, or any other form of communication. The original 2 papers were main parts of my dissertation and are still stuck as there is a lot of heavy lifting such as rewriting, revisions, etc. that I need to do alone. I am working on them, but I do not feel comfortable anymore about having someone in the paper who doesn't even reply.
At this point, I am not sure on what to do. The very straightforward answer will be to drop X from the papers, but is that correct? or should I just leave the 2 papers and move on into new things?, which may also mean to "loose" the data.
Added:
Thank you for your answers. I agree that gifting authorships is a wrong practice, although it is often difficult to convey to a group of authors who have very close friendship ties among them (that's what happened with the co-author who finally included X in the project). The main question now is whether I stop working in the existing 2 papers and put them in the drawer. They are interesting projects but given that they need significant work and X is gone (X and I knew this and that's why we decided to work together to "share" the load), it seems more practical and rational for me to move into something new (not using that data) with different people who are motivated to work.
On the more subjective side, X has gone around saying not very nice things about me, and this has somehow affected the professional and personal relationships that I had with others. Given that, I feel even less motivated to work on these 2 projects and "give free work" to X. Is it worth to give up the 2 projects? At this point I am still confused and this has generated a lot of stress both personally and professionally.

Did you consider sending X a mail along the lines of "there are still two papers with your name on it lying on my desk and it will take me months/years to finish them all on my own; if you want to see your name published, why not help here?" Of course sugar coat it a little bit, but maybe this will make him at least respond...

Responding to the added info- how necessary are these two papers to you? That would help you decide. Either way, I wouldn't suggest doing nothing if you are being bad-mouthed. If talking to X is an option, that would be nice. Otherwise, if you can finish these two papers, that could help you make a clean break. The alternative is that you let this negative talk die a natural death, and continue to do great work with others. I'd be more inclined to the first; personally I don't trust such people to stop talking trash.

Have you considered publishing the two first papers in a non-peer reviewed way, then cite them, along with thanx to X? E.g. you can publish them at your institutions white paper library....

That is indeed a messy situation. The bad behaviour notwithstanding, I think there's no reason to not honour the initial agreement.
You should retain him as co-author on the intial two papers, without doubt. First, he made the data available to you, and without that these two might not have happened. Second, an gentleman's agreement is exactly that; you don't default only because the other person defaults.
About subsequent papers, I think you should be firm and say no, but also convey and convince X that he is an integral part of the first two papers; that won't change.

It's also useful to convey the requirements for authorship across many countries and disciplines, i.e. you had to have made some significant contribution to merit authorship. I know gifting authorships can be prevalent in some countries or areas but it's an inherently wrong practice anyways. Agreed here, authorship only on the contribution of the initial data, or significant contributions therein.


text:
Tools for writing referee reports
When refereeing a paper, I usually receive a pdf version of a paper and then write my report separately in latex or a text file editor. When it comes to specific comments to the text, I like to include a page number and line number to specify the relevant position in the text, although counting the line numbers is pretty boring for long papers. I was wondering if there were any tips on how to speed up this process?

Ideally, I would like to edit comments directly in the pdf file of the paper, and then
  export the comments, along with the page numbers/line numbers, to a
  text file.

I guess this would only work in some cases, when it is possible to extract line numbers for the pdf. Is anyone aware of ways of doing something like this?
Thanks in advance!

I always send my manuscripts with numbered lines to facilitate the review. I thought that it was the norm.

Would be nice if it was! I've never received a paper like this, but I guess it depends on the field.

There are of course tools for annotating PDFs, but I don't think it's possible to extract the annotations with line numbers.  I don't think that PDF even has any concept of line numbers.

Not sure if this is what you want, but one thing I sometimes do is to add a column of numbers in the margin.  I can share tools for this if you like.  Even if they don't match up with the lines of the text, it's still a convenient way to locate text on the page without counting lines.

@TheDoctor: Depends on the field. In some fields, the norm is that manuscripts are required to use the official template of the destination venue, so there are no line numbers in there. I agree line numbers would be helpful in plenty of contexts, though.

I waste the trees and just print it out. It's important to capture the actual point first (by scribbling it down). I can handle the communication of the issues found later on, by using line numbers, for example.

@Nate: Yep, I think I'vee seen a script that adds line numbers - it would be nice if the same algorithm could be used for exporting comments Oleg: Yes, I also print it out at first - my question was precisely about this last part about addressing specific comments.

@byu: The tools I use are very simple and there's no "algorithm" - you just superimpose a pre-generated column of numbers on the page, with no regard for what else might be on the page.

I've just taken to returning two documents when reviewing papers:

One is my annotated PDF (created on a tablet) where I can use both margin notes if I want to comment on things, and handwritten notes if I want to draw into a figure or mark up typos. The notes in this document are the smaller comments specific to individual places in the document.
A text file in which I collect the more general, less location-specific comments such as when I discuss the paper's overall structure, how it fits into the existing literature, etc.

This has worked pretty well for me because it allows me to annotate the manuscript right away, and getting back to the bigger items when I've read it all. The only tricky part is that your PDF reader may leave your name in the PDF for all annotations (depending on whether or not you've set it up that way). If you care about your anonymity, you can always edit it out: My PDF reader puts my name in clear text in the .pdf document, and I can just search-replace it by some other string.

Thanks! My only issue with this is that the reports would get quite recognizable after a while, which might result in some loss of anonymity for the referee.

Maybe, but I suspect that's true regardless if you keep reviewing papers of the same people. I think that's the part to be avoided.


text:
Does it look bad if I apply to two very different fields for grad school?
I'm going to be applying to grad school (a combination of direct PhD and research thesis masters programs) this fall, and I cannot make up my mind between two different fields - machine learning (essentially artificial intelligence) and computer architecture (essentially processor design). They would fall under either the Computer Science or Electrical/Computer Engineering departments.
I obviously need reference letters to apply and I'm going to be asking professors I've done research with in the past. However, I'm worried that asking for reference letters for two very different fields reflects poorly on me; it makes it look like I'm not entirely dedicated towards either.
I'm afraid that the letters I get from the professors will be a lot weaker than if I only applied to one field, because in that case it would look like I'm extremely passionate about it, compared to now where it looks like I'm not entirely sure what I want to do.
I'm wondering if this is a valid concern, and if so, how I should best address it. I could obviously pick one field now, but I'd prefer to put it off till after I get offers, so I have more time to make up my mind.
Just for context, out of the three professors I'm going to ask, one of the professors worked with me on a machine learning project, one on a computer architecture project and the last one on a signal processing project (not directly related to machine learning or computer architecture).

Have you considered applying to schools that handle both machine learning and computer architecture in the same Computer Science department?

Does it look bad to whom?  And as opposed to lying about your interests?

Based on the title of your question, I thought you were going to apply for two really different fields like French Poetry and Algebraic Topology!  So, while I appreciate the difference between software design and hardware design, I certainly would not characterise machine learning and computer architecture as "very different fields".  Both involve understanding and using computers, and I'm sure there are many people with an interest in both fields.  If anything, your interest in both fields reflects a holistic interest in the field of computer science and would probably be interpreted as a positive.
Regardless of how similar or different these fields are perceived to be, I cannot imagine that it would reflect badly on you to have an interest in both, and to be willing to pursue either field at graduate level.  While academia tends to push professors to become hyper-specialised, it is not expected that we will have worn you down to this point before even entering grad school!

I did exactly this. When I applied to graduate school, i applied to multiple schools for both computer science and computational biology. My reasoning was that, while I loved CS and was interested in theory, my background was more oriented in biology, specifically neuroscience. Computational biology to some degree was the more logical step.
I got into good programs in both fields, so I don’t think the seemingly disparate fields shaped my recommendations in any negative way. Why? While it certainly helps to have a clear idea of what you want to do with your degree, I don’t think it’s always required. Sure, if you’re planning on being funded by a specific lab for doing specific research, you should definitely have a developed interest. But for a self-funded MS or a PhD with a more flexible funding structure, there will be a degree of exploration — and it’s part of the journey.
I ended up pursuing an M.S. in computational biology and doing research on the analytics pipelines used for genomic variant detection in cancer. Now I’m in a PhD program pursuing research in a very different direction, more akin to theoretical computer science and the impacts of computational complexity on certain  problems in biology.
Ideally, your recommenders should not just know you in terms of your academic performance. They should know you personally and be able to speak to who you are as an individual as well. If this is the case, regardless of what programs you apply for, they will be strong advocates.

No not necessarily. Data, information and knowledge is not divided up into mutually exclusive "boxes."
Some universities now offer double master's master's degree programs.  I seriously considered doing this at the University of Oklahoma. I already have B.S. in with a major in geography and concentration in physical, not cultural geography, and M.S. in geology from OU. I also have a B.A. with a major in American History and honors in history of science, and a B.S. in earth sciences/geology from Tulane University. I did not double major.
I would like to earn a master of library and information science from OU. I want to create or manage digital databases. I have no desire to mage other people's lives in any way. I've walked away from an MBA and MIS degree programs because they were the wrong degree programs for me. I did research and found that first I had to take 18 credit hours of courses for one master's degree before I could start taking courses for the other master's degree, then I found out I could take 9  credit hours of courses outside library science courses in the MLIS degree program. That meant getting an M.S. in computer science through the engineering college was probably not necessary for me. Now my only problem is my age (65) and a lack of physical stamina, which I can do something about. I am not sure, at 65 years old and counting, if I want to invest another  3 years of time into getting a second master's degree and be unemployable because of my age. Age discrimination does exist for common sense reasons. I might end up in assisted living  before I could graduate. That's why I gave up on going law school. No lawyer or law firm would hire someone as old as I am as law clerk or intern unless it was a "pity" hire.
Maybe you can find someone who is willing to advise you on an interdisciplinary masters and Ph.D. The one thing I would warn you about is getting "caught" between departments or schools and department like I did. All graduate students are pawns in the multilevel mental chess game that is college and university politics. My thesis adviser for the M.S was facing retirement in 6 years. I was his last graduate student. I specialized in geological remote sensing and GIS. I created  a digital database as my master's thesis. The one thing my adviser asked me when I first met him was did I have particular study area in mind. My answer was "no". He is an expert in the petrology of the Wichita Mountains. He was VERY understanding that the amount and type of field work I could do was somewhat limited because I have been type 1 diabetic since I was 2 years old.
Everyone "customizes" their master's and Ph.D. degree programs to a certain extent, but the real question is usually whose research are are you doing: your thesis dissertation chairperson's research, or your research; the type of research you want to do.

Hi Carol.  Welcome to SE.academia; I hope you enjoy it here.  I noticed you are using a lot of all-caps in your posts for emphasis.  In case it is useful to you, another way you can add emphasis is to use italics (put single asterisks around text) or by using bold text (put double asterisks around text).  See here for more details.

As others have pointed out, the fields that you've mentioned are in fact quite similar, and it is completely acceptable to apply for different fields. I applied to 4 different departments (actually even two different departments in the same grad school in some cases), as different as Biology and Informatics! I think it all comes down to how you handle your applications and recommendation letters.
If you're applying to grad schools in the US, this might be easier, as you can even address the fact that you're interested in both ML and Computer Architecture in your SOP, if the department has faculty with research in both of these fields (not necessarily the same professor; I mean it has professors working on ML, and professors working on Architecture). But you should handle this well. It is ok (at least in the US) not to be completely sure about what field you're going to end up doing your thesis on, since in Academia, interests are quite fluid and in fact the committee always knows that your interest might completely change and end up not working on any of these two as it is not uncommon at all (but that does not mean that what your write in your SOP does not matter, it just means they may not be as strict as you think about you being dedicated to your current field of interest). I can't tell you what is a good way to address both of your interests in your SOP, but I'm sure your professors could be a great help if you can go and ask them (and if not, you can ask this as a separate question and ask for advice from the community here in StackExchange).
If you are not applying to US schools, in many other countries (such as most EU countries), they expect you to have a relatively clear idea of what you are going to do before you start your Ph.D. In those cases, you may want to separate your applications into two disjoint groups and even if you want to mention both of your interests, you should use a language that puts more weight on one (I'd recommend you ask for a others' opinion about this case, as I know very little about it). You can also do this for the US schools if you are applying to a certain school and you know which field you'll be pursuing in that school.
The reason you may want to mention both of your interests even if one is not directly relevant to the program you're applying to is just for your SOP to match the recommendation letters you get. If you can't get 6 letters (to divide them into two groups, one for ML and one for Computer Architecture), then you should handle the language you use in your SOP carefully so your SOP matches both what your professors write in their LOR and your the field of research of the faculty at the department you're applying to and in particular your faculty of interest.
In any case, I think it is important that you show a draft of your SOP to the professors who are writing your LOR before they write it. You should also explain your interests to them (I think they should be fine with the fact that you are interested in two different fields, but I think it's better if you get the opinion of a professor here about that). That enables them to write a letter that leaves room for some flexibility for you in writing your SOP.
PS: I applied to departments in four different fields, and I got offers from 3, but I had only one offer from two of them, and all my other offers and even interview invitations were from the other one. I think that was because my SOPs (and probably also the LORs) ended up having a biased language in favor of the field I studied my undergrad in. Even though that field was (and is) also my preference for grad school, but I did not intend to write a biased SOP. So you would want to be careful in writing your SOPs and perhaps ask someone else to read your SOPs and give their opinion on whether you sound the way you intend to sound or not.

Are you kidding me? These fields are closely related, so much so that you have a bunch of machine learning talks in any hardware conference, and in some of them (like the GPU Technology Conference) it's, like, a quarter or a third of the whole conference!
I thought you were going to say "Computer Architecture" and "Medieval Heraldic Artwork" or something.
Even if the fields were further apart - the main points to be consider would be:

Can you find an appropriate research subject?
Can you find a good academic supervisor (and get him/her to take you on)?
Can you find funding?
Will you be able to leverage your results and/or your efforts later on, once you're done?

If the answers are mostly yes, then - go for it.


text:
How do I ask for a reference letter from a professor I do not want to work with?
I'm a fourth year undergraduate student planning on applying to grad programs this fall. I will mainly be applying to PhD and research thesis master programs in machine learning and computer architecture. They would fall under the computer science or electrical/computer engineering departments.
I did part time research under a professor this school year. It was something I initiated/approached him about, asking for something interesting I could work on. We eventually co-authored a paper together and successfully published it.
Because of this being a positive experience, I plan on asking this professor for a reference letter for grad school.
He was an incredible supervisor, and I really enjoyed the work, however I don't see myself spending my life working in his field, so I'm not particularly interested in going to grad school for it.
He's obviously not a kid and I highly doubt he'll take it personally, so I'm not worried about him being insulted. However, as I mentioned before, I approached him at the beginning of the year saying his work looked interesting. Additionally, he was happy with my work so he decided to pay me for it. My main concern is that he will be annoyed that I made him invest so much time and money in me only for me to then claim I'm not really interested in his work. I did find the work interesting, but not interesting enough to spend years working in it. His field is signal processing algorithms, so fairly different from the machine learning and computer architecture programs I'll be applying to.

How do I ask for a reference letter from a professor I do not want to
  work with?

You can write a short email along these lines:

Hi Bob,
As you know I am intending to apply for a PhD at X, Y and
  Z universities and was wondering if you would be willing to write me a
  reference letter for my applications?
If so, are you free to meet at [time/date/location] to discuss my
  application plans in more detail?
Thanks,
Farhad

If he says yes (which I am sure he will), you can give him more details of the places you want to apply to, the topics you are interested in and the people you are interested in working with. He may even be able to give you advice on the best places to apply for such topics.
Don't worry about hurting his feelings-- as you say, he is an adult. Furthermore, professors are very used to having students in exactly this situation, and it's perfectly fine for your interests to change over time. It happens. In fact, it's actually better that you have the maturity to recognise this change rather than working on a topic that doesn't interest you because you feel some kind of obligation to stick with that professor.
As for the investment of time and money into you-- if he really cares about you and your career I'm sure he'd be just as happy to see that investment paid off when you get a great PhD under someone else's supervision instead of his. If he doesn't care about you and your career-- well, you're dodging a bullet by leaving his supervision.
An addendum to describe my personal experience in a similar situation: I had a great supervisor for my Master's degree and would have been really happy to continue for my PhD with him. However, he encouraged me to apply to other places anyway and I was accepted to a bigger department at another institution with much more work going on in my specific field of interest.
He advised me to move rather than stay with him and he was right: working on a topic I'm really passionate about in a lively department is far better than sticking with the familiar in a small, inactive group, even though I got on with him really well.
Good luck with your applications.

if he really cares about you and your career I'm sure he'd be just as happy to see that investment paid off when you get a great PhD under someone else's supervision instead of his. - While I agree with your sentiment, I'd don't think this statement is 100% correct.  Advisors are human and it can be slightly disappointing to see someone really talented go work in another field or work with someone else if you hoped they'd work with you.  It's not that they'd hold it against you or take it as an insult, but they might not honestly be "as happy."

While I agree with @Kimball’s assessment, it’s important to remember that their happiness in this particular regard is not your responsibility and, tweaking @astronat’s answer, I’d instead say that if they cannot see beyond their own disappointment to support you fully, then you’ve dodged a bullet. Being disappointed is fine, but that’s their issue, not yours.


text:
Is it appropriate to invite professor/potential PhD advisor for a coffee?
I am an incoming master's (international) student at a UK university. A few days ago I sent an email to a professor who I really want to work with (if I can get into the PhD program there, to which I am planning to apply soon). He will neither teach a class nor supervise any master's student in the upcoming academic year.
I asked about the possibility to have a meeting with him online, and he replied it would be easier for us to meet after I arrive. I was wondering for my upcoming messages to request an in-person meeting, should I request to meet him at the office/department? Is it generally appropriate/polite to invite a professor/potential PhD advisor for a coffee, so that I would possibly have more time to introduce myself and ask for some academic advice?
Thanks!

I would say it's not inappropriate, but maybe slightly odd / unusual. I am also not sure why a coffee house meeting would give you more time to talk than a normal one - if it matters at all you probably have less time since your meeting time slot would also need to incorporate going to and from the coffee house.
That said, I don't think you even need to decide on the circumstances of your meeting - just let the person know that you are now here and if they are still willing to meet, and they will probably let you know how and when?


text:
What's the most respectful way to let my current advisor know I might have a different research interest later?
I am an incoming physics student at a UK university for a 1-year master's degree. I just completed my undergraduate studies at a US university and deferred a year for their PhD admission (currently planning to come back next year).
However, the master's program and PhD program have a completely different focus: the PhD program is in the same area as what I have been working with my undergrad advisor for 2 years. If I come back next year I will likely continue working with him in this area. The master's program, on the other hand, focuses on a different branch of physics in which I don't have previous experience, but I really want to learn something new to me.
A few months ago I posted this question, where I asked about the possibility to decline my deferred PhD offer and then reapply. However, I'm not sure if this plan is mature enough. I want to explore more about the new area that I'm about to study and then I think I will have a better idea of what I want to do for my PhD.
My concern is I want to be respectful to my current advisor and the department. I know in principle I probably should come back next year as I have asked (and been approved) for the deferral, but I still want to keep my options open, in case I really find the new area fascinating with me and change my mind. I don't know if it sounds convincing to talk to my current advisor I want to reapply to the new area in which I don't have enough expertise (compared to the current area I've worked for 2 years with him). I'm also thinking about spending a gap year after the master's program and then making the decision. In either case, I will need his support to write me a reference letter.
What's the most respectful way I can do to let my current advisor know I might have a different research interest, and ask for his advice?
Many thanks!

Actually, the most respectful way is just to be honest and direct. A sit down conversation about your future would be a good way to do it. No good advisor should expect that you will follow in exactly their path and should be aware that peoples direction can change.
It is also good, and an advisor should recognize this, that some breadth is a good thing along with the depth that comes from research specialization. In the US, for example, the preliminary/comprehensive examinations are a way to assure that a candidate has the necessary breadth.
A good advisor will support your goals, not limited by their own choices. But a general discussion about your future options and goals would be worth the effort. Among other things it will help them prepare to write you a good letter of recommendation, which is very important for US admissions.

I might wait until spending a month or two on the new area before committing to the shift.

That's really helpful, thank you!


text:
Can I decline a PhD offer after deferral, and how to communicate with my professors for reapplying other PhD programs?
I got a PhD offer from a US university (the same university I completed my undergrad degree), and I asked for a deferral earlier this year (as I'm planning to do a one-year master's program at a UK university) and the professor approved my request. However, in the past few months, I found myself changed my research interest to a relevant field, but it's very different from the US PhD program I deferred.
My question is would that be possible/okay for me to let my university know that I want to decline this offer (which is intended to begin in September 2023) and reapply to other PhD programs that fit better with my research interests? If so, should I do that as soon as possible?
I didn't sign any legal document for the deferral (just sent an email to the program director to confirm I want to take the deferral), but I would feel bad for not committing to their program and applying to others.

Additional information: If I didn't get accepted elsewhere I might still be interested in this position, so I'm not sure when would be a good time to let my professors know I want to decline, and if it's unethical to do that too late.
I might also be asking my professors at the current university for a reference letter if I reapply to other programs (since they know me very well and the new application cycle for PhD is starting soon), so I want to figure out how I can better communicate with my professors about my situation without burning a bridge.

Just be sure this is what you want to do, and that you will be happy with the decision yourself.  Also, what is your estimated probability of being accepted into another program?  If you didn't get accepted anywhere else, would you still want to decline this position?

@JosephDoggie Thanks so much for the comment! This is actually what I'm also worried about. If I didn't get in elsewhere I might still be interested in this position, so I'm not sure when would be a good time to let them know. I might also be asking my professors at the current university for a reference letter if I reapply (cuz they know me very well and the new application cycle is starting soon), so I want to figure out how I can better communicate with them.

I personally would wait till accepted elsewhere to decline, but this may not suit the University/Department as well.  In any event, have a plan for what to do if you have no academic landing spot.  I was in technology, which is easier to land a job outside academia, but of course, a lot of this is up to you.

When making the original decision, did you only apply to this program? Did you apply several places? You might have some conversations with folks you trust about your liklihood of being accepted at your "dream" schools which would be preferable.

Basically, I am trying to figure out - what is the probability of getting a better offer than the one you have now? Can you get a better idea of this figure before making any big decisions?

@Dawn Thanks for the comment! This is what I'm trying to figure out at the moment. The UK program is very short, so I'm planning to get in touch with some potential PhD advisors at that university first and get a better idea of the direction of my future research.

@Dawn If things work okay then I think I probably should let my current university know about my decision before next year as I also want my professors here to write a reference letter for reapplying other PhD programs.

Yes, you can decline, and should do so as soon as possible. Nobody benefits from you joining a program that you don't want to be part of. It wastes everyone's resources: time, money, space.
Declining ASAP might let another student fill the slot, though it would be a bit late now for the coming September. For a year from now it won't even disrupt anything, so another student will likely get the slot as appropriate.
No one will even be very surprised to see some students do this. Better to decline than to start and drop out later.
If an individual professor was involved, it would be good to apologize and explain, though an apology isn't really necessary, just polite. People change. Other people recognize that.

Thanks so much, that's really helpful :)

I've been there. I declined the offer and reapplied. I think it was a good decision—especially after hearing from Buffy, who might know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a broken deferral.

@Anonymous M Did you defer (or decline) the PhD at your undergrad uni, then reapplied to the same PhD program? I'm thinking about this possibility in my situation, as I think it's unethical to treat my current offer as a backup plan and reapply to others. I don't know if it makes too much of a difference for my current university if I do that, but I think it would be more respectful.

@Anonymous M Great, thank you!!

Thanks for sharing this! When you declined the offer, did you tell them your research interest has changed? Do you remember when did you make the decision to decline and reapply?

The fact that you have already deferred makes this all the difference here: your supervisor will hopefully be able to recruit another person next year, though they may lose some standing in their department, depending how big a deal it is to get a PhD studentship.
Also, the fact it is a long, presumably course-heavy US PhD rather than a short, specific, European 3-year project type of PhD makes a difference.
I agree it is a lot better to inform ASAP and switch now than to switch later. But I don't lightly suggest switching. PhD student acceptance processes are a big deal, a huge amount of time is spent on them, not only other students denied the place but also project and grant selection by the the supervisor may be affected by who is recruited.

You're in a tricky position, because you've made a commitment and now want to go back on that commitment.
It's like you have agreed to a date for the dance, but are wanting to check out opportunities for other dates while not losing the one you have if those don't pan out. Your original date can justifiably be upset by this.
By the same token, though, if you'd be unhappy dancing with them (ensuring neither you nor your date will have a good time at the dance), it's also a bit rude not to cancel on them, since they will have wasted more time and not had any opportunity to search for a new option themselves.
I think you need to consider carefully where you stand. The most respectful thing to do if you're certain you want to go a different direction would be to inform the program as soon as possible that you will be doing something else.
I think it's unethical if you were to try to have it both ways and keep them as a backup plan while applying elsewhere. Things are a bit different in this situation than in the typical job world.


text:
Payment for publication after graduation
I recently finished my PhD and later a paper of mine (resulted from PhD work) got accepted. There are some charges for publishing, and my supervisor now wants me and other research collaborators to contribute to the payment equally.
Is this normal?
As far as I know, PhD students are not expected to pay for publication, neither are research collaborators.  Any experiences with similar situations?
Thank you
Edit:  Regarding collaboration, my research was not part of a collaborative project. In fact, I had a scholarship from the university and was doing my research with minimal supervision. At some stage, my supervisor wasn't able to help me, and then I had to establish collaboration with other institutions. My research collaborators contributed to my research more than my supervisor did and I find it odd to ask them to pay.

Who should pay for the publication? In most cases, the money comes from the research project, or main research institution, i.e. in most cases the funds should be appropriated by the team leader or research supervisor. This typically means that the senior author is responsible for paying the article publishing fee.
If the research project was a collaborative effort with no specific funding, another option is indeed to ask all collaborating institutions (not individuals) to share the cost. This would include all institutions, not individuals, and probably only staff members — grad students or post-docs typically do not have their own independent funding.
This should have been clarified before the paper was submitted to publication. This is the best practice whenever submitting a paper to a journal that requires paiement (e.g., gold open access venue), to avoid surprises and disappointment from all collaborators.
In no case should you use you own personal money to pay for this publication! This is a professional cost, and it should be paid from institutional funds.

As long as your supervisor is corresponding author, I think F'x's (lol) point still stands regardless of who contributed what. I also think it's up to your supervisor to contact other people who he wants to pay and ask them whether their institutions can share the cost.