text:
What is the best procedure to exit academia as a postdoc?
I'm a postdoc based in Europe working in a theoretical/computational field with a background in physics and am considering leaving academia. There are various reasons for this, but most importantly I have not made as much progress as I had hoped and am pessimistic about my long-term chances of getting a tenured job.
Now I am close to 2 years into my postdoc, and my contract runs for another full year. I have an individual fellowship that has allowed me to work flexibly and start various collaborations, but due to a few setbacks none of these projects has been published yet.
My plan would be to work in industry, perhaps as a data scientist or to work on AI/machine learning. I already have some skills that would be directly relevant for such a career (Python, R, machine learning knowledge), and have some experience applying these to data in my research. But I have no experience outside academia at all and don't have a clear idea of what working in industry is like.
Unlike for PhD, there's no clear endpoint for a postdoc. So I am considering what the best exit strategy would be.

Should I stay longer (perhaps until the end of my contract) and try to finish my projects and write up the results?
Or should I try to leave as soon as possible?

Arguments in favour of (1) are:

It would be more responsible and less problematic for my supervisor and collaborators.
I would have a sense of accomplishment if I manage to get a few
papers out before I leave.
I could use the spare time to acquire more skills relevant to e.g.
data science without pressure of immediately delivering anything.

Arguments in favour of (2) are:

Another year in academia would potentially make me less attractive to industry.
I am afraid that my supervisor might lose interest in mentoring me if I tell that I will leave academia.
Better compensation in industry (though I am satisfied with my current postdoc salary).

As for my personal situation, I'm in my late 20s and am unmarried and without children, so from this perspective everything should be relatively uncomplicated.
Do you think these are fair and valid arguments, and what would you do if you were in my situation?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

I don't understand what is unclear about my question. I'm asking for feedback for making an important decision.

You present two option:

Should I stay longer (perhaps until the end of my contract) and try to finish my projects and write up the results?
Or should I try to leave as soon as possible?

I would take a third approach based upon the answer by toby544. I would figure out what type of industry job you want and what skills are need for that industry job and then work as hard as possible to develop them while still working as a post doc.
The best time to apply for a job is when you already have one! I would even consider starting to apply now and keep on applying as you build your skills. You will keep on building your marketability.
Ideally, you could double dip and learn the skills during your post doc. For example, maybe you see that the industry jobs you want you to use machine learning with R. Figure out how to do a project that helps your postdoc mentor while learning those skills. Also, some industry jobs such as research positions, favor publications, but many if not most do not. There are other posts on that topic on this site (e.g., https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=industry+publishing).
Also, checkout posts on imposter syndrome (such as How to effectively deal with Imposter Syndrome and feelings of inadequacy: "I've somehow convinced everyone that I'm actually good at this"), you probably know more than you think.
Lastly, check out resources like Build a Career in Data Science.
I suspect this book has resources that will help you on your journey.

Find out more about jobs in industry. It will be very helpful to have some idea what it is like when you apply for jobs.
Could you get an internship in industry for a few months? If not, there are probably many other ways to find out about these jobs.
I don't understand the point about your supervisor losing interest in you. I don't think you need to tell your supervisor that you are leaving academia until you get a job.
If I was you I would start applying for jobs now. If you get interviews, you will find out about the culture and get more idea what industry is like. If you don't get interviews, you will know you need to improve your applications in some way, and you will be glad that you started applying soon.

Thanks! I personally feel that it would be better to coordinate my departure with my supervisor. In my previous lab, I witnessed a conflict arising over a student who suddenly quit his PhD without prior notice. But at the same time, I fear that there might be a stigma against people who have already decided to leave academia but are still around.

@Postdoc_temp - the job of a postdoc is to get a permanent job. You've been there 2 years, whether applying for industry or academia it is time to be applying.

There is a clear endpoint for a postdoc - the end of your contract.
You can search for a job and set the start date to the end of your postdoc contract. Six months before the end of that contract is a nice time to start: it takes time to conduct a job search, then to schedule interviews, technical tests, and whatnot. Then when you are asked when you can start, quote the end of your postdoc contract.
Should you leave right now? That's up to you. There shouldn't be anything special about leaving now that can't be foreseen: you tell your supervisor (how they react you will know better than most people), you trigger the exit clause on your contract, and you search for a job. Ideally you leave your postdoc only when you have a job lined up, because job searches can take a while. But you can also leave without having a job lined up - you just become unemployed for some time. The major difference would be that you start doing something different sooner rather than later, and how valuable that is to you only you can know.
One suggestion: job searches can be scary if you've never done them before, so talk to people you know who have. Your peers who did undergraduate studies with you and are now in the industry are a good candidate, as are your parents, family friends, etc. You should also make use of is your university's career center, if there is one - they can offer a lot of practical help.

While it's plain sad to say things like that... Leave asap.
Time is precious. Every day you spend on something you think is a dead end is a day not spent on something better.
Sit down with yourself, think long and hard about what you actually want out of your life, then go after it. No job title is ever a goal in itself, it's just a shorthand for some other things you value. Think about things that excite you in this moment. Think about things that are likely to bring you joy and comfort as you'll be looking back at those years. Weigh your options, be also wary of the midlife crisis possibly looming over you.
These decisions are probably the hardest in life. But if you have firmly decided to quit, just quit.

Why quit without something new lined up? How is this person to pay his or her bills?

@Dawn that's fair but not what the question was about. In the question, the choice is between finishing the current project vs not: it's detrimental to wait before even starting to seek offers IMO.


text:
How to name introductory statement for a research paper?
I have written a research paper and was told that I should include a preamble at the start explaining who had the idea for the project, who my supervisor was and the name of the company.
My question is how should I name this small section and where should I put it is with respect to the title page and abstract page?
I have already written an acknowledgments section and put it at the end of the paper, but that is separate.

I think you've been given incorrect instructions.

In my experience (pure math, so usually not a company but a university), the most common place for this preamble information is a footnote on the article's first page.  The second most common place is in the acknowledgments. In either case, he usual formulation is something like "The results in this paper are from the author's doctoral dissertation, written at University X under the supervision of Y."

Yes, something on the order of a footnote is about right. No compulsion to have it be any sort of "named section" in the paper itself. Though, still, a similar sentence (as in @AndreasBlass' answer) at the end of the introduction, as a small separate paragraph, would have the same function... e.g., if footnotes are not acceptable in whatever style guide you're using.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Failed the capstone project
I have been given a second chance for completing my capstone project. I went to the director as well as the professor and discuss what I'm going to include in my report and they agreed the data I'll be including in my report. I worked upon it and given my best in making the report as discussed with the director of my department. Now after I submitted the professor failed me again this time giving the excuse that he was not able to understand the report contents and data even after I discussed and taken the approval for my report. I explained him in the mail that what I actually meant in the report and he replied that you wouldn't need to explain me here and you should have explained it in the project. Now they have dismissed me from the University by doing the unfair behaviour with me. I know since it's my second chance even the Dean won't be able to help me and pass me and let me graduate. I paid a huge amount to the university as my fees and they are returning me this unfair behaviour. What can I do if the professor wouldn't able to understand what I wrote in the report that's not my mistake. Please suggest me what action I can take against the professor and what can be done to get graduated. I'm shattered and broken from inside since I'm an international student in United States and I took a loan from Indian Bank to pay the fees. Please suggest me where can I appeal for this wrongdoing happened. I'm in a huge financial pressure

It isn't clear, exactly, how this is unfair. The money you paid is irrelevant. Only your performance is.

The professor failed me even after we discussed how I'll be working on my project. And I made the project according to the discussion only. Now what else I would have done?. What is the reason to fail me?. He replied that he couldn't understand what I wrote. Don't you think that this is unfair?

What can I do if the professor wouldn't able to understand what I wrote in the report that's not my mistake. It's incumbent on the writer to make their report understandable. I doubt it was so complex your professor could not understand it. It seems more likely it was poorly written and presented.

"What can I do if the professor wouldn't able to understand what I wrote in the report that's not my mistake."  Is there anyone else who can understand what you wrote in the report?

"I have been given a second chance for completing my capstone project."  Students who were not given a second chance would probably say that that is unfair.

Can you give a suggestion what action can I take against the professor. I can't afford to take the professor's behaviour which is unfair which I think. I'm fully confident what I presented in the report. I'll present the concerned authority what I have done in the report. If still they wouldn't agree, I'm ready to accept the dismissal

Have you had a third party (friend etc.) read your report before submission? What may be clear to you may not be clear to a third party (which is the position a prof would take as a reader). If you haven't done it before submitting (which is the safe practice to do to avoid an outcome like yours), please do so now and let people give their unbiased opinion about your text. Do not induce them to affirm you; you must be neutral - you nee objective, unbiased opinions before taking formal steps. Good luck.

Yes I showed it to one of my professor and he said that it's a good report. I previously worked under him and he gave me A-grade in that project. I sincerely gave my best in my master's program and succefully completed all the semesters and secured above 3.5gpa in all of them and in first semester my gpa was 4.00. I can't afford to get dismissal just on a report. What should I do now?

I'm sorry about your situation. Unfortunately, there is nothing much to do here. It isn't clear that the professor acted incorrectly here; it sounds more likely that you just did not do a satisfactory job on your capstone project, according to his standards, and they (being your professor and the University) do set the rules here. It is up to them to decide whether your performance was good enough.

I explained him in the mail that what I actually meant in the report and he replied that you wouldn't need to explain me here and you should have explained it in the project.

He is right: like it or not, you are judged based on the report, not on emails you send afterwards. It is  his job to evaluate you and he did not understand your report, so he can't give you a good grade.

Please suggest me what action I can take against the professor and what can be done to get graduated.

Don't take any action until you are absolutely sure that your capstone project was satisfactory. If it wasn't, then you can't take any action. You seem to have assumed your report was good enough, but it is not clear.
If the professor really has wronged you here, and failed you for no good reason, then you should reach out to others at the university to discuss your situation. Talk to a different professor about it and get a second opinion on the report. Talk to the dean or to your academic advisor.

+1 for the friendly tone (which is a rarity on this site).

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


text:
Is finding answers and paraphrasing cheating?
Sometimes I have trouble coming to conclusions on my own sometimes and I really do love learning but...
I sometimes scour the internet looking for answers to homework questions and then paraphrase them. I honestly retain and understand better from this, although I know I'm avoiding penalties by doing it.
Do you think this would violate an academic integrity policy? I am never copying the answers, strictly putting them in my own words, and often shortening them to the main points.
Thanks!

I honestly retain and understand better from this. Hmm, this sounds like a rationalization. One of the skills that doing homework is supposed to help you develop is to have ideas on your own and figure out how to explain them. You’ll never develop that ability by paraphrasing someone else’s answer. All this stuff about academic integrity policies is a distraction. If you love learning and want to become a smart, articulate person, you’re going to want to start weaning yourself off of using search engines for homework help.

See also this answer (specific to the context of studying math, but a bit related).

I guess what I mean to say isn't that it makes me feel better to do it, just that I feel that it helps me realize things I wouldn't otherwise. This is specifically regarding fast-paced courses where there isn't much time to ask a question before things are due (in my world). I don't mean to replace my own learning, just not to flunk out because I really do study and try to pass my classes by my own merit

I see what you’re saying, but consider the possibility that you’re stuck in a vicious cycle where because you have neglected to develop your independent problem-solving ability, you take longer than you should (and have a very hard time) solving problems on your own, which leads you to feel pressured into looking up answers online, which leads to you not getting better at independent problem-solving, and so on ad infinitum. I’m not saying that’s your problem, obviously I don’t know you and don’t know what subject you’re studying. But it’s definitely a thing that happens to some people.

@DanRomik, make it an answer. Please. You've caught all the right elements.

@Buffy I appreciate the suggestion, but I haven’t answered OP’s actual question, which is about academic integrity. I’ll leave it as a comment for now.

Nobody can answer this question except your instructor.  Academic integrity policies vary wildly from one course to the next.  Some instructors explicitly allow consulting outside sources; others explicitly forbid it, even with proper citation.  Which policies are appropriate, and in which contexts, depends on the class.
If you find yourself unwilling to ask your instructor, for example because you think even asking the question might get into trouble or subject your work to additional unwanted scrutiny, that's an excellent sign that you believe it's cheating.  But if you think it's cheating, you're not going to do it.  (Right?)  So you have nothing to fear by asking the instructor.

The advice in the last paragraph seems to be people- and location specific. (Are you in the US, by any chance?) I knew a few old school profs who belived their policies on that matter would be universal - asking them would make them mad because in their view, you should know the answer from your high school education.

Yes, I'm in the US. This might be a yet another example of Ask Culture vs Guess Culture, or in the context of teaching, There-Are-No-Stupid-Questions culture versus That's-A-Stupid-Question culture.

I will be a bit more direct than the other answers.

Do you think this would violate an academic integrity policy?

Most likely, yes, this is considered cheating.
JeffE is correct that it depends on course policy. However, for most courses, looking up the answer to a problem and then paraphrasing it in your own words is not allowed. Especially without crediting the source. So check with your instructor, but unfortunately, you are already in the gray area of probably violating the rules.

I honestly retain and understand better from this

Are you sure this is true? It does sound like you are rationalizing. This depends a lot on the subject, and probably on the person, so we cannot judge for sure. However, it is very common to feel like one is learning by reading / paraphrasing the answers, and to not actually be learning; then you only find out a few weeks later when you are presented with an exam problem (or try to solve a problem without internet aid), and find you are stuck on the very basics.
It also depends on how much effort you put in before looking up the solution online. If you are articulating exactly where you are stuck and actively involved in the learning process, this can be effective. But if you are only passively involved (only trying to find the answer, rather than to grasp and discover for yourself the underlying concepts), then this is not effective.

If you are citing your sources, it's not cheating, although you should heed the advice given by Dan Romik in the comments.
If you are using, including paraphrasing, the words or ideas of others without giving appropriate credit, that's plagiarism, which is a form of academic misconduct.

Agreed, but the instructor gets to define "cheating". It can go beyond things like  plagiarism.

I agree with this, but note for the first point that just because it's not cheating doesn't mean you'll get full points for it.

@NateEldredge  Yes.  If, for example, the assignment says, "Your own work only; no outside resources," and you cite your outside resources, you'll probably get zero points, but you will not have committed plagiarism.  "Cheating" is a broad term, and for that reason, I like JeffE's answer better than my own.


text:
I had an argument with my professor, and I feel like I was disrespected. Was I in the wrong?
I do not want my professor to know that I wrote this question, since that would just escalate the situation further, so I will not be very specific about certain details.
I am in a research course that has weekly meetings. There is a software that the research group that I am in uses, and that is where the argument was had. Some further background is that my professor, and some other guy (call my professor B and the other guy T) said that we should all have a meeting to discuss something. As a result, I went on to the software to list all of time intervals for which I am available to have a meeting. A couple of days later, I get a message from B that I didn't show up for the meeting that I set up (it turns out that both B and T attended the meeting that I allegedly set up). But that's false, all I did was list my available times. So I responded with first saying that I didn't set up that meeting, and that I didn't even get a chance to see their responses until now (after I had posted my available times, both T and B agreed to have a meeting at a specific time, and B asked me if that time would work, but of course I didn't see that until after the meeting they had).
After I posted my reply, I expected B to, in some sort of way, to politely acknowledge that there was a miscommunication between me and him. But instead he replied with (paraphrasing him), "Look at the messages, you gave us your availability, we responded. It is not our fault that you didn't look at the software again."
I felt disrespected after reading that message. Because I did not want to escalate the situation further, I just apologized for not looking at the software sooner. I felt like I was disrespected mainly because it seems my own consent was disregarded, while theirs was valued over mine.
Was I in the wrong? Was my professor in the wrong?

Where were you when the meeting took place? Were you reachable by phone when the meeting was supposed to start? (In these days, everybody carries a cell phone, right?)

Is T a fellow student or a TA or....? Also, do I understand correctly that you said (in your list) that a particular time would work for you, then didn't check your messages until after that time had passed?

What are you trying to achieve with this question?  On this site, questions that are based on opinion or that are not specific to academia are off-topic.

Hmmm usually if you send list of available time, it means that you are truly available in that time. I'm sorry I think this is your fault

This basically boils down to "how frequently should I be checking my messages". If you use a piece of software to list your availability, it is reasonable for them to respond using the same software. It's up to you to make sure you monitor it for their response.

A short answer, you are in the wrong because you are supposed to check the reply before your first available time. Obviously, you did not.

You should have checked to make sure you met the times you provided - you are at fault here.

@scaahu, yes, I was reachable by phone when the meeting was supposed to start.

@cag51, T is another person in the research group, and yes you understand that correctly.

We need a better timeline of the events.  When did you send the email?  When did they respond?  When was the earliest time that you offered?  When did the meeting actually occur?  If they responded immediately before the meeting began, that's a different problem.

I have had experience with certain software of this type being misinterpreted.  You're supposed to state your availability and then the meeting organizer is supposed to look for intersections where everyone's available.  So you go ahead and mark off, say, the entire day Friday.  Then, o frustration, the organizer asks you why you scheduled yourself for an eight hour appointment.  Is that what happened in this case?

Every time I've ever filled out one of those polls of available times, I was informed via email (not through the poll software) of the selected time, and the email came several days in advance. Until I read some of the comments here, I assumed that this is universal practice, so if I were in the OP's situation, I would also have missed that meeting.

Was the software the official tool to setup meetings? If yes, why didn’t you check to see their answers? Has this happened before? I have a PhD student that always has communication issues. There outlook was not working, they thought it was at a different time, their Skype was not working at the last moment and didn’t check their email, etc.

Was I in the wrong? Was my professor in the wrong?

We are steering deep into the realm of Interpersonal.SE, but this is absolutely the wrong question to ask. There was clearly a misunderstanding. It happens. It does not matter whose "fault" it was (if anybody's, really - in most misunderstandings nobody is doing anything terribly unreasonable). They were displeased that their time was wasted, you apologized. Case closed, moving on. As you say yourself, there is no reason to escalate a tiny hiccup into an actual conflict.
One thing I suggest is to use this as a learning opportunity to improve your processes for future meetings. In your case, I strongly suggest that going forward you send a meeting invite to all participants after a date has been agreed upon (and also to check your scheduling software after sending out a scheduling link - at the very least a reasonable amount of time before the first slot you suggested).

Was I in the wrong? Was my professor in the wrong?

It doesn't matter who's right and wrong. It matters that you both make amends and move on.

The situation is complex enough to apply a general rule:

assume the other side knows something that you do not know
that could even be a wrong assumption

It is complex in terms of who knows what during which time spans, having which expectations and expectations about the others expectations.
You can simply assume confusion instead of malice, and forget the situation as
probably irrelevant.

There are other generic approaches to it: professionalism
See it as a work situation. You want to be productive in what you do. You cooperate with others, but that is not a relation on a personal level, it is on a professional level.
Let us assume somebody has even directly insulted you.
That feels bad, and needs some time.
The professional approach is: Ask yourself what you need to do to be productive. Ideally, you just ignore the situation and continue to be productive.
The idea is: The other person did something wrong, unrelated to you as a person.
The effect was that it caused a loss in productivity for you (The time and energy for handling it), and there is no reason to waste additional resources on it.
The same idea, described differently:
Imagine you stack stones with another worker. He drops a stone on your foot.
You do not know whether it was accidental or negligent or even malicious.
Now, somebody caused very real harm. But what should you do to get the work done? Just continue working. Somebody else did something wrong, unrelated to your person. Even it it was intentional, it may be because he was angry about something.
Again, the same idea, described differently:
Shit happens.


text:
Transcript error, college unresponsive - how to handle?
I applied to graduate school this spring, and discovered that my undergraduate transcript has a substantial error: it omits one of my majors.
I contacted the university registrar, who indicated the omission was caused by a "system" issue that prevents listing a 3rd major if the student thas one. (They said their new system won't have this issue in the future, which doesn't help me at all.)
The registrar also pointed to a note on the bottom of the transcript that says I was "approved to pursue" the three majors. But, the comment is dated 2 years before graduation, and "approved to pursue" doesn't mean "completed," so I don't think this is sufficient, especially given the conspicuous blank spot next to where the third major would be listed.
Since replying to my first email right away, the registrar hasn't replied in weeks. They have not indicated that they plan to correct the issue.
How do I get the college to correct my transcript, preferably soon enough to submit to the graduate school?

You contact them: Dean, Head of Dept etc etc , we cannot help.

What is the extent of the error? Is only the name of the major missing, or are the courses you took for the major also missing?

@GoodDeeds The courses are there. The name of the major is missing. There's a slot for "Social Sciences" where a major would normally go, but it's just blank.

I'd suggest including your third major in your CV with a footnote quoting (verbatim) the registrar's email about the system issue. Anyone who wants to verify it can check with the registrar or ask you to forward that email.

One might point out that it is likely that the registrar is working from home which may impact their ability to try and mess with the system. Is the 3rd major the primary one for you graduate school application, or not? If not why does it really matter - they can see that you took a bunch of courses in the area. From many colleges that might at best be listed as a concentration, or not noted at all.

@JonCuster - The unlisted major is relevant for admission. (One of the listed majors is not.) To make sure I understand, are you saying that some colleges don't list majors on transcripts? I'm not just talking about a collection of courses, but a formally defined major that I have.

@MPJ - Many only allow one major. Some have the concept of minors or concentrations or certificates in addition to one major. Some allow multiple declared majors, and may or may not have minors or concentrations or certificates in other areas. Some (St. Johns) only have one major for everyone. It is a weird world out there.

A couple of suggestions. First, I think that having three "majors" is pretty rare, so a system error omitting the possibility would be easy to make.
Second, I doubt that if you are good enough, then the third major isn't going to put you "over the line" in any application when two won't. (Caveat below)
Third, just explain it somewhere else in your application materials, such as your CV or cover letter, and also ask that the registrar will back you up if asked. Alternatively, have a faculty letter writer make it clear on your behalf. It is best if someone else, rather than yourself only, makes the statement so that it gains credibility.
Caveat: If that third major is your specific field of interest in graduate school, then you may need to have a letter from the registrar as part of your materials. Though, if you are in the US, even that probably wouldn't be essential as it isn't an absolute requirement that you continue in grad school in the studies you did as an undergraduate. Other places are a bit more strict, perhaps.


text:
Creating video recordings of R Studio and R console
I am teaching a course of Methods in the Study of Animal Behaviour and, of course, a large part of the course is dedicated to Statistics and R scripting. COVID-19 emergency and lockdowns are pointing the finger to deliver our teaching using video recordings or online streaming of lessons. I've used various popular apps like Zoom, Skype, and Webex, to give lessons online. I have also been recording my screen using QuickTime and other software. Still, I've never been fully satisfied by the quality of the results when it came to recording the R studio interface. With the perspective of having a semester of full courses online, this worries me a lot. I was wondering whether someone more experienced than me would be happy to share good practices for teaching students using R and R studio via videos, possibly including video editing or the use of different programs for screen recording. Thanks in advance.
Stay Safe!

If you have a Windows 10 operating system you can record anything with the Game Bar. Simply hold the windows key and press the "g' key to open the game bar. With the Game Bar open go to captures and unmute the microphone. I also recommend increasing the font size of text in Rstudio: Tools > Global Options > Appearance > Editor Font Size.

OBS Studio (https://obsproject.com/) worked well for me for another statistical analysis program. For the very basic editing afterwards (cut the time that the kids ran into the room out of the video, join videos together) the video editor that comes with Windows was enough for me.
Also see: I need help adapting my academic workflow to the COVID-19/coronavirus crisis – where do I start?

I was going to give the same answer. I've been recently making videos on OBS with Matlab but I think it would work equally fine with RStudio. It works great when you want to show your face, Matlab screen and some pdf, although it might be a bit of overkill if you only want to show RStudio and record your voice.

Thanks a lot! I will try it asap. Regards.


text:
Can oral tradition be used as a reliable source in scholarly papers?
If I wanted to write a scholarly paper on, say, Native America wars, would I be able to cite oral traditions as reliable sources of information?
As a made-up example, "the war lasted exactly seventeen days, with 3,000 men on either side. The enemy had initiated the rebellion by capturing one of our women," (Native Tribal Chief). Obviously terrible citation grammar, but the point remains, I suspect.
Can one use oral traditions as legitimate sources in scholarly papers, or is it more supplemental in nature? Or just illustrative of something else?
Can you please cite sources showing this as viable citation? Thank you.

Do you have an advisor or professor you are working with?

@AzorAhai No, I do not.

@Beliod You almost certainly need one, and especially in an area like this, if you lack prior training...

@BryanKrause I'm not writing a paper. I'm interested in practices within academia for my own personal knowledge.

@Beliod You might want to adjust your question to show that, then.

@BryanKrause I think I did. I used the hypothetical "would," and went on to make a "made-up example." If you'd like to edit it, feel free to.

I don’t think this question is quite suitable for this site: it’s a matter of research methodology in specific fields (history, anthropology, etc), not really about abstract scholarly practice.

@AaronBrick Thanks :)

For some things you have no options but to take what information is available. If a community doesn't have a literary tradition then oral histories is all that can be managed. The option is to simply let such things die - a sad fate.
But you need to be careful. First person interviews are very valuable, but are obviously colored by the life history of the one interviewed. This is generally recognized.
Two works that I've found valuable come to mind. The first is The Ten Grandmothers by Alice Marriott. A group of scholars interviewed members of the Kiowa people of Kansas. Some of those interviewed had been children before the destruction of the buffalo culture of the plains. There was little else in the way of information available.
The other is Nisa: the Life and Words of a !Kung Woman by Marjorie Schostak. The title character was a San woman from the Kalahari as their lifestyle started to be overcome by the modern world. Again, the San have no written tradition, so oral interviews is all that was open.
There are many other examples, of course, including the work of Margaret Mead.
But all such works need to be honest about sources. The data is influenced by the lives and views of those interviewed. But it is also necessary to assure that assumptions made by the interviewers don't color the story. Missionary observers of the Hopi People, for example, made many very serious mistakes of interpretation and caused a lot of damage.

Oral tradition is at least as unreliable as any other single source. In general, you need to confirm very single piece of important information using as many independent sources as you can. Any single source can serve as guide when looking for other sources, but it can rarely stand on its own.
In the case of a war involving native Americans, the war might very well be documented by several independent explorers, hunters or missionaries who passed through the area during the conflict. Knowing the oral tradition is useful as it will allow you to narrow the search for other sources.
When citing oral tradition, I would clearly identify it as such, i.e., "According to Navajo oral tradition, see Refence [xyz], the war starting during the summer of [year]" and then state whether or not this information is consistent with other sources.


text:
Guidance with publishing a conferences paper alone
I'm going to try and make this as concise as possible. I need to recap my education quickly. I finished my bachelor's in EE 2012. Between 2012-2016 I was a journalist and learned to code and started a software company. I finished a one-year CS conversion master UK 2017 and now I'm doing a CS masters in NYC. I'm trying to do research in NLP and focus on low resource languages.
I'm trying to publish a paper or two in a conference but no idea how. I tried contacting professors in my department and they don't seem to be interested in working with master's students. I'm trying to apply for research internships in the States but it is very competitive and just got rejected because my background is very different and lacks research experience as I didn't have any chance to do any research in my undergraduate because that just doesn't happen where I come from.
That is why I think my only option is to publish things by myself. I can come up with solutions to problems that are interesting to me after reading a paper and I can implement some of those solutions. The way I do this is I read a few papers about a specific problem see what they recommend for future implementation and try to see if I can do it or if I have another idea.
What I would like to get advice on is:
How would you go about writing the conference paper? It seems to me that there are many different requirements for each different conference. Should I try to publish a conference or journal? Is there a way to quantify a significant finding? Would be easier for me to do a review paper or build a new dataset? Is there another way you think I should approach writing a paper as in how do you usually find a problem and solve it? Would you advise against doing this and try and find a supervisor somehow?
My goal is to research in NLP whether alone (not preferred), in academia, or to do it my Ph.D. but it seems like my profile is lacking big tech or research experience in comparison to students from Europe, States, China, and India.
I hope that there is someone who can give me some sort of guidance here.

I think it's almost impossible, if not truly so, to do your first publications without assistance (assuming those publications are to be in legitimate, reputable venues). You say your only option is to publish by yourself without guidance; my advice is strongly to say that path is not likely to be fruitful and suggest that you reconsider your other options.
I don't know what you have to do or can do to get an advisor at this point, but do that. If you were an undergraduate looking for a graduate program, I would strongly advise that you choose a program that shares your interest in doing research, and make sure you will be supported in that research. Since that choice is in the past, your options are limited, and you'll have to consider what makes most sense for you...
It might mean working through your program's staff to help connect you with someone if people aren't responding on their own.
It might mean reaching out to professors who teach courses you take and asking them for advice, if not on your research directly then on finding an advisor.
It might mean rethinking the specificity of your research interests and instead working on problems someone else finds interesting. Only tenured professors have the most opportunity to choose their own problems.
It might mean finding a collaborator outside your institution.
It might mean changing programs.
Things in most places are pretty messed up right now and these do not qualify as ordinary times, especially in NYC; your best options might include some patience and waiting for things to return to a more stable setting.

Too many possibilities and too many unknowns/factors specific to you and your current institution to give any specific answer, but the process of research, not just the contents, are difficult enough with help. This is not a good time in your career to venture out alone prematurely.

This makes more sense. I found that student advisors aren't that helpful in these matters. I think I'll delay a semester to have extra time during this master's. I think reaching out to professors outside the school is probably my best bet at this point and I haven't done that. Broadening my research scope is something I'm working on. I can also give more information about my specific situation if it will help?

There is a path, but it isn't short or easy. You have three main problems. The first is to know what has already been done. There is a vast literature. What you study in a masters is mostly what is well known, though a bit advanced. But to get started with a journey to the edge, you might pick out an annual conference that appeals to you and select within that conference one of the specialized tracks. Read all of the papers from the previous couple of years in that track and go through their bibliography, reading more, until you get a sense of things. Doctoral students do something like this (and more) for their literature search. It isn't good to try to publish something that is known.
The second problem is learning to write your results in a comprehensible way. The literature search can help you with this if you get a sense about how things are presented in that field. What level of detail, etc. Perhaps your masters work has given you some sense of this already.
The third problem is having something that is both new and significant. That is hard to judge until you are deep into the study of a specialized area and can take experience. But, if you think it might be good enough and you've done the other two things, then you just submit to the conference, usually through their online submission system. You will get feedback and for a first attempt it may be disappointing feedback. If you have really missed the mark then you won't get much help, just a quick reject. But if you are close to measuring up then reviewers of your paper will give you some detailed feedback that can help you even if you ultimately get rejected. But whether your work based on readings and musings measures up to the required quality will, in the end, be measured by others.
If you have the funds, you can also attend a conference. You don't normally need to be a presenter to attend and you will have the opportunity to hear about a lot of research. You can get a sense from this whether your own ideas are of a similar quality. Can you follow the presentations? Is what they present something you might have thought of?
Another option is to take an advanced course at one of the universities in your village (NYC, I think you indicate). Many universities will let you take courses without being in a degree program (in the US, anyway). Take the most advanced course you are prepared to handle. And use it as an opportunity to meet some faculty, though waiting until we see the end of the pandemic would probably be necessary for any real contact. Your masters may provide this opportunity now, in fact.
As Bryan Krause noted in a comment, it is very hard to get into the game without a guide.
And, what I've described is more or less what a doctoral research student will do, though with the help of an advisor. But some people are self directed enough to work with minimal (occasionally no) help from the advisor.

Thank you for your answer. I understand that this is a significant task but the goal of this isn't to produce an amazing result just get a paper published in a reputable conference as Ph.D. programs or research labs to look for research potential. I'm in my first year the second master's in a university in NYC and I'm already taking advanced courses.
I think I'm taking very advanced courses for my background and still doing relatively well. I'm also attending some reading groups to see their presentations. I can go to conferences but I don't see the point besides networking.


text:
Getting a first grant post phd
I have a good research idea and practical plan how to do it. I don't want to stay in my PhD lab and have found a group where I can do this but I prefer to be on my own grant/fellowship (and they also do as they are short of funds) of which they are supportive and would write with me. My question is how realistic is it to get a post- PhD grant and if successful do grants usually take a long time to be finalised? I've never written one before
this is life sciences field .
it's a new group in a great environment so I feel it would be a good career move and give me autonomy with my research.
I prefer it to doing an advertised post-doc but I want to know how feasible and if this is actually a good idea
****In the UK.
thanks

What is your position. It doesn't sound like you have a post-doc or a permanent position. You say you don't really want a post doc.  Are you still a student?

I can give a lot of specific advice, but knowing the exact position you are talking about (e.g., a staff member, like a research tech, vs. a postdoc) will require very different advice.  There is also the matter of what country and what type of institution are we talking about.  Are you at a state university, small college, etc.?  The policies vary greatly, and I will just say from the get-go, you are unlikely to be eligible for much funding if not in the right position.  You need to research PI rights to know if you are even allowed to receive a grant with the job title you seek.

thanks all.I'm in the UK. I guess the job title would be post doc or staff research scientist withing a hospital research team. I am still a student. I am wondering even if the title and job are more post-doc, if it's my idea and funding I will have more autonomy to guide the project. I've seen some first stage grants which include even hiring staff ..

Hi there are a number of ways of doing this.
For the most independence apply for a research fellowship. There are quite a few research fellowship available in the UK from the different research councils or from universities (if the university you want to be based at has that). The only thing is that you often need to be awarded your PhD degree already and have a solid track record of publications.
If you don't have that it would be best to talk to the PI you want to work with and discuss regular research grants. You will help the them write the grant, they will be the PI on the grant and you will be the named investigator. This will be your proven contribution as most research grants you can't apply for without being a permanently employed academic. This option tends to take a bit of time so it's good to plan in advance.
Depending on the university, the university might also award smaller, short term grants that will be quicker and easier to get (they might e.g. have a commercial focus). Depending on the requirements you will probably have to be a named investigator on this too.

Presuming that you are in a US university and are administratively allowed to submit (which you will have to find out), I will give you some rough estimates:

Internal grant (within university)will take 3-4 months to be reviewed and approved. If you are in the right cycle you can probably get the money flowing as soon as 4 months. The probability of success is typically higher (30-50%) and some preference is given to new PI
Regional Grants: 3-4 months proposal submission to decision. If you are in the right cycle,these might be quick as well but the chances of success do drop to 25-30%. In some cases they give preference to young and new PI.
Federal grants- usually these are toughest to crack. 10-20% success rate. Very few of them give preference to new PI. The proposal submission to money flowing can easily take 6-9 months.

Federal grants can take a full year to be awarded, particularly with NSF.  DOD can be as short as a couple of months.  NIH Is the only one with a regularly published schedule.  Published funding rates are also closer to 15-30%.  Overall, I would say 25% is a good estimate without knowing sponsor or program/directorate/IC.  But in general, this assumes the person knows how long it takes to prepare a grant. Having trained dozens of PIs on their first submission, I can tell you "how long it takes" is much longer than everyone imagines. The administrative portion tends to come as quite a surprise.

thanks this is helpful! so realistically I should get a different job straight out of phd while working on this grant otherwise will have a large gap of unemployed time..

I don't know about UK submissions. I would edit your question to focus on the UK and your specific position.  In general though, writing grants is not easy or quick. It's a very long-term and sometimes draining investment.

Fairly unrealistic I'm afraid, unless you published very well in your PhD (i.e. 3+ papers including 1 C/N/S). I've just got my first fellowship off the back of 7 years of post-doc with 10 publications, and was turned down for another as not competitive enough just 1 year ago.


text:
How easy is it to leave academia after being a PI?
I've always been uncertain about staying in academia since my PhD. Now I've been offered a PI position, which I'm considering to accept, however I would like to know if this will close me other career perspectives if I eventually decide to quit at some point, considering I'm mostly a data scientist.

Why would functioning as a PI close off other career opportunities? That means you would be operating as a, well, professional technical person.

@DanielHatton - undoubtedly there are people who make unusual hiring decisions based on random biases. Partly depends on what 'working in academia' means, particularly since grad students and postdocs get paid.

@JonCuster The usual argument is that people from academia have difficulty fitting into a corporate environment: in terms of respecting hierarchy and deadlines, in terms of committing to a workable solution today vs. a perfect solution some time in the future, etc. In other words, the qualities of an independent researcher, which are prized in academia, are not necessarily considered valuable in industry... But there is significant variation with the size of the company, and whether it is a production, research, sales, consulting or some other activity.

It depends on how you are planning transitioning to industry. There are several scenarios that come to my mind:
Jumping into the job market
Essentially, you quit or wait for the end of your contract, and start applying for positions in companies or even launch yourself as an independent researcher/consultant. What needs to be kept in mind here is that the more specific your skills are, the smaller is the demand for these specialized skills. In other words, e.g., there are plenty of positions for bachelor or masters graduates who know some machine learning, but there are a lot fewer positions for some specialized kind of method that you perfected during the PhD studies. In fact, many specialized research fields are not represented at all outside of academia, so you would have to fall back onto your bachelor/masters background, which would mean that even the years of PhD studies were largely a waste of time (in terms of the specific skills gained and age, but not in terms of experience - which matters.)
'Friend' option
Another common approach is that you know somebody already in industry, who will help you to get a job in their company by recommending you or even hiring you into their own research team. In many cases this is a peer who did studies together with you, but left academia earlier. Even if this is not the case, there are will be people around who fit this profile. This implies two things: a) your training is likely not needed for doing this job, that is falling back to bachelor/masters level; b) there may be some resentment between you and your colleagues (or even superiors) due to the disparity of education levels. Note that it goes both ways - I have heard of PhD's in industry being called "pretentious", "arrogant", etc. A human resources person once confided to me that they even don't call the candidates with PhD indicated in their CV, since these cannot fit in the dynamics of a company, although their ambitions are high.
Research labs
If you (or your group leader) are an outstanding person in the field, there is a possibility of being hired to a research lab - e.g., I have seen biology PhDs/Postdocs from a well-known group to be hired directly to a research lab of a large pharmaceutical company, which was using the same organism. This also may work, if your University has close ties to companies, which use the University as a pool of potential candidates. Also, I have also known a renowned PI moving back and forth between leading groups in government research institute and companies - this obviously involved personal connections and having a name in the field, making him the best candidate for leading a specific research direction. (It is not uncommon for companies establishing a new research activity or reorganizing to invite managers from outside, but usually it means hiring people from other companies.)
In my experience, a PhD (especially with a post-PhD later research experience) easily gets interviews for positions in research labs of such big companies (such positions are few, but not nonexistent) - it takes just a bit of preparation to pass the HR interview... but then one is usually stopped by the mismatch between the actual and required domains of experience or by a too academic an attitude (not being sufficiently pro-active, goal-oriented, etc.)
Note also that skills mean different things in academia and industry - in industry it is not what you can learn quickly, but what you can start doing right away.
Disclaimer: this is not intended as an authoritative answer, but rather as sharing personal observations about academia-industry transition.

"in industry it is not what you can learn quickly, but what you can start doing right away." I am not sure about this

@toby544 what I mean is that in academia it is relatively easy to switch to another subject, e.g., when moving from masters to PhD or from PhD to a postdoc position - what matters is having a record as a smart guy/girl, who can learn new things quickly. In industry they do not want to pay you for learning new things - they'd rather hire somebody who already knows how to do them. Though in big companies there may be less pressure to do so... while in startups they often want a single person who could fill several positions at once - a five-legged sheep as they say in France.


text:
Single first author vs co-first author - what difference does it make?
I have a little dilemma to resolve. I am about to submit the major paper of my current post doc after working for 3 and a half years on this. This was a major collaborative effort involving people across two labs so the paper has 9 authors, currently myself as first author and two equally contributing senior authors. I have spearheaded the project since funding acquisition (I've got a Marie Curie grant for this research) and it will really be the major paper with which I would ask for new fundings and try to potentially start up my research group.
The paper is finally ready for submission and I was asked yesterday by one of the senior authors if the current second author should be upgraded to co-first (I would still be first name and corresponding author together with the two seniors). If one looks at mere contribution (i.e. time spent working on the various experiments and data analyses), I've done way more work than any other person (it has always been  my project so others helped but I worked 90% of my time only on this), and all of the project coordination, but the second author has contributed very important analyses and is helping substantially in manuscript writing. He has always had a super nice collaborative attitude and we worked closely for several months on the main experiment (main because it gave the coolest results, not because it involved 90% of the whole project, although it was still 4 months of solid work just to collect these data), but I do feel it would have been different (more work load on him also for this main experiment and more requests to work together also on different components of the study) if we had decided this at the beginning and not now upon submission.
Anyways my question is, does it make any difference for my future career or how this will look like from the perspective of an employer or for the community of researchers working on the same topic, whether we are co-first or not? Because if it does not change anything to me then I do not see any issue, but if it somehow would give the idea that I was not fully independent on this (in terms of developing the ideas, coordinating etc), then I would be a bit more reluctant as I am trying to establish some "leadership" recognition in the field with this work. What different thoughts the two scenarios would prompt on someone looking at the publication list on my CV for example?
Thank you all for your answers!

Don't imagine that your "career" will be based on author position on one paper. This is a constant but, IMO, foolish concern. You are looking at the world through a microscope.

Sure, that may have been misunderstood. I am not saying my entire career will depend on a shared co-first authorship or not on a single paper. But my near future one surely will depend on this paper as we are all confident it will have a big impact, so I am just asking if it does make any difference at all :). I certainly know of people getting an ERC grant or a tenure track MOSTLY because of a single Nature, Science or PNAS paper for example, apart from the fact that the research was great of course!

These questions depress me. Your work depends on the contribution/collaboration with eight other people, without who's help you would probably fail. Collaboration should mean just that and generosity rather than stinginess leads to further collaboration and further success. Sorry to be yelling at a new user, since you don't really deserve the abuse, but there is far too much of this. Let's all fight now.

I am sorry Buffy but this is not my question. I agree with you the whole thing is silly and depressing, just as it is depressing that a career can fly based on how famous a journal is or not. My question is given there are these biases, does it make any difference? And yes, if deciding on this would damage my future collaborations then that would be much more important to me than an asterisk on an author list. I am in the position where nobody will be annoyed with me whatever decision I make, so that is out of the equation.

Also, generosity doesn't mean much, you would not give authorship to people who have done nothing for a study just to be generous? That is also unethical in my opinion, the author list should reflect the real contributions, at least to a certain extent.

I apologize for venting on your question. It isn't about you, but about fields that make this an issue. Those who drive this sort of thing are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves. Working in a field (CS) in which alphabetical listing, and name something like Buffy rather than Zircon, I never gave author order a moment's thought, even when we occasionally deviated from it. We were just happy that we had the opportunity to work together toward something positive. Each of us made important contributions in the eyes of all of us.

"author list should reflect the real contributions". Inclusion in the list should reflect contributions. But the "biggest" contribution doesn't mean the most "effort" or the most "time spent". It is about intellectual contributions to the whole.

Sounds great and that resolves a lot of silly issues. Unfortunately it is not like this in biology and the fierce competition for grants means a paper can make a difference. But I agree the difference I am discussing here is minimal, I just wanted to collect some opinions on whether there is a difference at all. Maybe someone else working on natural sciences should reply then.

"It is about intellectual contributions to the whole".
Sure and in fact all authors have contributed in this regard and they are included because of this. The question is whether there is any difference for me of being or not the only first author

Finally, and sincerely, good luck in your future endeavors.

Maybe the question should not be "what would be the potential impact on my career?" but rather "does the co-author deserve to share the first authorship, given the work they have done". That second question is the only relevant one.

Yes Louic but that was not the point I was interested in or having doubts about. Nobody else except me and my advisors can judge if his contribution was enough for shared first authorship. It is a border-line case so I would like to know what the difference is to me before making a final call.

None.
There will be no difference in your CV. There is no space for such level of detail in the CV. If you spend precious space of your CV to describe how much formal contribution every author has given for each paper, you soon end up with pages of useless content.
Regarding "it somehow would give the idea that I was not fully independent on this (in terms of developing the ideas, coordinating etc)" you just state explicitly what each of the author contributed, I have seen such a disclaimer in many recent papers.
This paper has a lot of value for you (3+ years of work!), but an external reader would just look at the order of authors and think "the first author is the one that carried out the majority of the work". However, please clarify with the unnamed person that asked you to promote the co-author to co-first author that things would have been different for you "if we had decided this at the beginning and not now upon submission."
My final suggestion is that you are a postdoc, you are independent, you can politely refuse stating "he/she fully contributed as planned at the beginning of the work, he/she will be a co-author as planned at the beginning of the work".

Thanks EarlGrey. Yes, there is no obligation for me to accept this at all, I was in fact politely asked and I can definitely refuse. But if you state that it does make NO difference whatsoever, then I do not see why refusing. I do not want to be spiteful and if that is beneficial for my friend and colleague who helped a lot and will in the future, while it does not change anything for me, then why refusing?

There is no space for detailed contributions but usually one marks the shared authorships with an asterisk, at least in my field, so there would be the publication record with an asterisk and written *shared first authors, or *equally contributing authors. Anyways, I know this is all silly I just want to understand better what differences there are

+1, fully in line with my experience. One remark: "you just state explicitly what each of the author contributed" probably aims at the CRediT system which is widely adopted by various publishers.


text:
How to deal with poor final semester as undergrad
I'm an undergrad at a top 20 school in Computer Science in the US. I'm applying to top 5 programs for PhD/Masters and have been told I'm top 1% of interns at FAANG companies, to establish background.
I currently have a 3.8, which although not amazing, is something I'm relatively proud of. This semester, I had a grandparent and a friend pass away due to COVID and thus have had a very hard time with school. I've gotten 2 Cs this semester (my first 2 ever) and I'm not sure how to deal with this. It will probably drop me to a 3.7, which is beyond some cutoffs and drastically lowers my percentile rank
Given this is Academia SE, I'll focus more on the academic concerns - is there any way to add an addendum to the grad school application explaining this? Is there any value in doing this or is it more along the lines of "everyone has issues, deal with it"? I'm also concerned about showing a bad GPA on my resume - is there any way to get the two courses marked as pass/fail or something along those lines that I should ask the school about?

Likely duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/180292/75368, and probably several others.

As a side note, such a narrow range of applications is likely to bring sorrow, not joy.

@Buffy - I understand, but my main research advisor is very against having many applications (something that we disagree on), so my application to lower tier schools would be significantly worse to the point where I'm not sure I'd want to go to those schools

You are the one at risk, not the advisor. Good luck. There are lots of great schools in the top 50 in the US. More elsewhere. You are probably going to one of them.

@Buffy - because of the GPA issue or just due to statistics of getting into top schools?

I don't think the GPA is much of an issue anywhere as I said in answering the linked question. But if you are rejected by one of a small range of schools (for whatever reason) you can face the same fate at other very similar schools. And the total number of slots is also fairly small.

The top 5 CS programs in the US could fill every slot in their PhD programs with only those applicants with perfect 4.0 GPAs.  This is especially true of the competition in hot areas like machine learning. They don't admit only 4.0 students because that's not all that matters.
But if you're in the 3.7 range, you're going to need some exceptional LORs, some publications, something to make your application stand out against all those 4.0 people.  If you don't have enough to persuade one of them to admit you, you may not have enough to persuade any of them.
You might consider pleading your case about the impact of covid in your personal statement but I'm not convinced that will be helpful.  I think most faculty are already aware of how covid has impacted students' lives and that "senioritis" is a real thing that happens even to good students.  And most people aren't that interested in reading excuses.  I think your transcript is what it is.
A better plan would be to sprinkle your applications across a wider set of schools.  There are 137 R1 universities in the US.  Someone will take you.  And it could be one of the top 5.  But that's not the way to bet.


text:
Indicating undergraduate authors on CV
I have noticed that in some fields, it is common to indicate in your CV (with italics, asterisks, or other symbols) if a coauthor is an undergraduate student. I have even seen similar practices for indicating grad student coauthors. I can imagine three reasons for doing this:

Emphasize one's own contribution by suggesting that an undergrad or graduate coauthor did not contribute as much to the paper.
Emphasize the undergrad/grad student's impressive feat of contributing to a paper so early in their career.
Emphasize one's own dedication to mentorship and involving students in research.

Personally, (1.) is not something I would wish to convey on my CV, while (2.) and (3.) are points that I would like to convey on my CV.
In my field (mathematics), I have seen some CVs that indicate when a coauthor is an undergraduate, but it doesn't seem to be as common as in other fields. Perhaps one reason for this is that authors are frequently listed alphabetically in mathematics.
Question: In mathematics, would indicating which coauthors are undergraduates convey a positive message about the undergraduate's contribution to research, as well as my involvement of undergraduates in research? Or would this downplay the undergraduate's contribution?

It may be a better solution to have a separate section on your CV where you talk about mentoring students. However, this is opinion-based so I am voting to close.

This does not seem opinion-based. It is asking a specific question about the conventions followed in a specific field.

My guess for the primary reason this is done more often in mathematics is that it is so much more significant and rare in mathematics for an undergraduate to be involved in publishable research, and thus for the vast majority of mathematics academics, this reflects more positively on their teaching and mentorship skills than it would in many other fields.

Indicating undergraduate coauthors on a CV doesn't seem to be common practice in math. I have seen it occasionally, but not as often as I have seen it in other fields. I would hope that it would reflect positively on my coauthors (as well as on my teaching and mentoring), but I'm not sure how this would actually be perceived since it doesn't seem to be common practice.

I'm not in math, but I would understand that as #3 completely.

What I have come to understand is that in research your position, your affiliation, your status must not matter. The quality of your work cannot be overpowered and overshadowed by what or who you are.

In terms of the question you ask at the end of your post, I would say that the annotating of undergraduate authors in your CV would generally be seen as a positive and not a negative remark on the contributions of the undergraduate. This is, of course, a guess as to the opinion of the hypothetical readers of your CV.
However, I think it is worth taking a minute to explain why someone might be noting undergraduate authors. Based on my experience working as a professor at selective liberal arts colleges (SLACs) in the United States, it usually is your suggestion (3) -- that someone is trying to show how they can have productive research collaborations with undergraduate students. In many SLACs it often viewed very positively, if not expected, that a professor can involve undergraduates in the their research. When reviewing candidate CVs, I frequently encountered such annotations and would almost always have an interview question about how the candidate might involve undergraduates in their research.
Personally, I would not expect that someone would make these annotations to either indicated the quality of an undergraduate [(2) in your question], nor would it be related to any sort of author ordering. And while I can imagine the attitude of people seeking to highlight their contributions to a paper [(1) from your question], I cannot imagine those individuals calling out undergraduate co-authors in their CV. More likely, they would either fight to keep them off of the author list during publication or simply list the publication in their CV without an author list.

It's unethical to "list the publication in their CV without an author list." It amounts to falsely claiming to be the sole author.

@AndreasBlass - Agreed. My hypothetical CV writer that is trying to denigrate the accomplishments of their undergraduate co-authors is not a great model for ethical behavior. :-D


text:
Recommendation for a journal for an amateur to publish a biblical archaeology article in
I have a theory about the chronology of the Exodus. I am in retrospect neither a Minimalist, a Maximalist, nor a supporter of the New Chronology. I'm not a believer in actual miracles, but nonetheless have studied the problem for many years. I have been unable to elicit even a few minutes of time from professional archaeologists so as to present it to them. When I say I don't have suitable degrees but have a revolutionary Exodus chronology, I quickly get cut off. I can sympathize somewhat, since I've come across many chronologies by amateurs in my studies most of which are evidently pretty off-base. Yet, many breakthroughs by non-academics have been made (e.g. the Wright Brothers, the Longitudinal Prize, private industry, etc.) In the mean time, I have updated a book I wrote about the subject with a number of better-researched topics and latest findings. I would like to publish an article about it, to establish scholarly priority, and to hopefully elicit scholarly interest.
I know there are journals one can pay to be published in, but they are of poor repute, and not peer reviewed. Were I to publish in one, it might be poorly received, as rather dubious content appears in such journals. If I could publish in a peer-reviewed journal, no matter if the referees liked it or not, I hope my theory could stand or fall on its own once it gets sufficient attention. My basic question is to ask for advice on how to proceed. Specifically, can anyone recommend a journal that an unpublished scholar without the usual degrees might submit a paper on biblical archaeology and have a hope to be published in, and be judged more or less fairly by its content?  I would hope for a journal that would fairly entertain a chronology that has an Exodus in the late Nineteenth or early Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt, and is not too dogmatic nor dismissive of the biblical narrative but uses it as one of many sources - all the while prioritizing the archaeological evidence where suitable. (When I say it's a chronology, I mean one which proposes to identify biblical characters with historical counterparts and events across various cultures.) Otherwise, should I be leery of publishing a book without going through academia? Some scientists who have held a press conference to announce their discoveries without publishing in a journal seem to have been given short shrift as if their publicity stunt invalidated their science. I wish to offer scholars a chance to look at it before publishing. I don't want to just upload it to Academia.edu or such, since it might go relatively unnoticed.
Here are the choices that come to mind: to publish it in a journal you might recommend, to publish in some un-refereed journal (which I hope you would suggest), to self-publish a book without academic involvement (as publishers have responded similarly), to upload a paper to Academia.edu or the like, to keep up the search for two scholars who will give it a hearing, to hold a press conference without academic involvement (probably not), to wait and earn a Ph. D in a relevant field, or other?
Note: I should point out that I did submit a proposal for my book to Brill Academic Publishing, and an editor responded he would publish it if I could find two scholars to support it. I don't really know if he meant two scholars who thought it was probably right, or two which only thought it was interesting enough to deserve publication for scholarly evaluation. I'm not sure if it is an especial honor for Brill to have made the offer - but I will say that while they too didn't comment on the content, it does seem the fairest of the responses, and the only sign of possible interest whatsoever. However, it's hard to find two supporting scholars when only one would condescend to hear as much as a few sentences of it.  I could easily come up with over a dozen journals to submit an article to, but I think it highly likely that it will be rejected by virtually all the ones I could think of off the top of my head due to lack of specific degrees and superficial problems.  I am hoping for ones with relatively low bars to entry, but still peer-reviewed.

Wait, you write a proposal for a book, but you have not yet even published a paper? that's putting the cart before the horses!

Good thing it is not a philosophy paper, otherwise it might be putting Descartes before the horses! (couldn't resist...).

One word of warning: The vast majority of journals, even reputable journals, are more or less write-only; no one reads them.  Publication in a journal would establish scholarly priority, but it's unlikely to elicit scholarly interest.  It's more or less the same with books; most books are hardly read by anyone.

EarlGray: If I mask that it's about the Exodus, then in losing specificity, then it loses exactly why it is so peculiarly hard to publish.  I'm unaware if this needs to be of general interest to other readers, or if it can be about a peculiarly difficult topic to publish on.  There really are a LOT of attempts to sort this out on the Web, and a lot of very dubious ones; including a lot with information gained "in the spiritual sense" but little in the way of better sources.

Requests for journals, grad programs, etc are all considered off-topic shopping questions here.

Then you're so generic as to be fairly useless.  This seems more like a meta-academia question site.

You may want to check out our [help]. We have a very specific role: we are a site for academics, but we only take questions that are of reasonably general interest. We just don't have enough (or any) Biblical historians here for us to discuss that subject specifically. FWIW, I think Earl did give you a good answer -- if you write a good paper and your results are as good as you say, then you should be able to get published. Still: it's worth recognizing that the odds are against you; the VAST majority of papers written by amateurs are not publishable; many are "not even wrong." Good luck.

I suppose "fairly useless" is an exaggeration I made in the heat of the moment, and unfair, but it does seem to cut out what might be a significant area of discussion: that of specific journals and subject matter.  Imagine if StackOverflow didn't allow discussion of specific languages, compilers or software!

Problem: "When I say I don't have suitable degrees but have a revolutionary Exodus chronology, I quickly get cut off." Solution: don't say that you have "a revolutionary Exodus chronology". Make a smaller and more specific claim. Ask for feedback on some particular, well delimited, manageable aspect of your work. Be open to that feedback. Avoid ascribing too much importance to your own results.

Don't think of it as: here is my revolutionary theory, how do I get someone to read it? This is off-putting, people can sense it, and will try to avoid getting embroiled in an interaction like that. Think of it as: here is a theory, how can I get experts in the field to subject it to proper academic scrutiny so that I can learn what its weak points are? This is the kind of interaction experts will perhaps be more open to engage in. Perhaps paradoxically, the less importance you ascribe to your theory, the more the experts might be willing to engage with you.

@CodeLurker There are lots of programming-related questions that are off-topic on StackOverflow. That's one reason the rest of the network exists, though some other families of questions were determined to not be a good fit network-wide.

@CodeLurker there are many subtopic, in various fields of our knowledge, that are peculiarly hard to publish. In your case is the Exodus, for Darwin were his biological discoveries, for Wenger was the plate's theory ... none of them found an easy publishing path, but they were ready to discuss it at length with their contemporary state-of-the art promoter. You do not want to convince the others about your discoveries, your discoveries must convince the others (without your intervention). Good luck!

Specifically, can anyone recommend a journal that an unpublished
scholar without the usual degrees might submit a paper on whatever
topic of interest of that journal and have a hope to be published in, and be judged more or
less fairly by its content?

Any reputable journal will do that. However, the burden is on you: you need to know "how to write a paper" and how to make your arguments clear. That's why lot of people attends doctoral schools, universities, courses: they want to be able to convey a message and to properly defend it.
You know the topic that interests you, you have to find the journals that have your same interests.
A starting point is to know department and universities that offer degrees at least tangential to your interests. If you go through their site, or if you contact their librarians, you may get to know which journals they subscribe to. Afterwards, it is up to you to look for these journals, to find out if you are interested in publishing with them.

I have studied the field enough to believe that I can express the matter clearly enough.  I understand journals may decide the copy in not suitable for their journal, but I'm happy to update the parts that are weak.  Shall I make the scholarly world wait years to know while I take the classes?  I also have a medical problem that would make that an issue.  Shouldn't academia's right to kn ow, and my need for scholarly priority obviate that?  I have found some mediocre research using some of the same sources as mine.  I do appreciate the advice about finding appropriate journals.

@CodeLurker You don't need to express the matter clearly enough for you, you need to express it clearly enough for everyone else.

"Shall I make the scholarly world wait years". Exodus happened sometime ago. The (scholarly and not) world can wait some more years, no rush.


text:
Crisis during PhD but pulling through - how happy are you with your decision?
Introduction
I know there are a lot of questions about quitting a PhD and I'm sorry for bringing this topic up another time but I really need some input and would appreciate every answer!
Background
I am pursuing my PhD since about 1.5 years in a research institute in germany and I am really not that happy since about autumn last year. I know its normal to have some sort of crisis during this time but I really can't motivate myself any more to continue working. My advisor is not very helpful (but at least very nice) and I have a really hard time to feel included with the colleagues. Partly because most of them work from home, partly because there is no lunch time together and maybe even because most of them have a physical / chemical background. (My background is electical engineering). I am working alone most of the time and I am really, really sick of it. The topic is doable, but to be honest doesn't interest me very much.
Since personally I am very insecure I have a hard time connecting with other people in the institute and I am someone who asks a lot of questions when handed a task. I wonder if pursuing a PhD is a good idea for me at all. Right now I feel left alone and feel like it's just too much self-organisation at this point. (I have reached out more than once to my advisor asking for help and regular meetings, it helps a bit, but not very much).
Question
I really doubt that working in academia will be fun for me later because of this experience, but I am curios to know how it felt for someone in a similar situation. Like you do not really like the topic, have a crisis and think about quitting. For anyone who has pulled through despite heavy doubts: Are you happy with your decision? Did you find a job you like? Or do you regret not quitting?
Edit 23.06.22
Thank you everyone for your comments and answers! It gives me a lot to think about and I think expecially the answer from @cag51 is very solid piece of advice!
TBH I am leaning towards quitting though because while thinking about the possible solutions I feel like I may not have the drive to pull this through, visit different groups or change enough so that I have fun at work again. I would like to update this question then, if it'll still be possible.

Ask your advisor to visit another group working on similar topic (do your homework, try to find 2-3 groups beforehand) for a couple of monhts. Since your background is different than your colleagues, use that as a leverage.
It may help you to have some fresh air, to understand your possible contributions and to get additional feedback on your work.
And stop working more than 40h per week on your PhD!

Welcome to Academia.SE. I added an answer; I hope you find it helpful. That said, we actually don't take "survey questions" like "are you happy with your decision?", only "answerable" questions like "how do I X given Y?" So, you may want to rewrite your last paragraph to avoid your question being closed.

Hey @cag51, thank you for your comment. I understand, but I find it really difficult to rewrite the last paragraph since this is exactly what I wanted to know...

I don't think I've had a "crisis" as you describe, but I may have some thoughts.

I really can't motivate myself any more to continue working...The topic is doable, but to be honest doesn't interest me very much.

Two pieces of advice here. The first is that research is more fun when it's moving quickly and you're getting results. If you get into a cycle of procrastination, it will seem less and less interesting. So, resist the temptation to slack off: work 8 hour days and be as productive as possible during those hours.
On the other hand, there is some flexibility with how you spend those eight hours. It seems like your advisor is giving you a pretty long leash, so I would recommend you exercise your academic freedom. Follow your interests where they lead you, even if they're not directly related to your assigned tasks. Anything that could reasonably be considered "work-related" is fair game. This could mean studying a new domain, or learning a new computer language / software, or building a new widget to improve some process, or developing statistical techniques for interpreting your analysis. If you take the time to build a new hammer, you'll find lots of nails you can use it for, and some of these might even be related to your main work. And if you pursue several of these avenues over the next few years, you'll get a better sense of what you like and what you don't.

Since personally I am very insecure I have a hard time connecting with other people in the institute....I wonder if pursuing a PhD is a good idea for me at all...Right now I feel left alone and feel like it's just too much self-organisation at this point

I would suggest there are two different issues here that we should try not to conflate. One is the "job of research," the other is your "degree of isolation." These are largely orthogonal: there are plenty of research jobs where you do work in teams. So, I would avoid making decisions about your career trajectory based on your current feeling of isolation.

I'm accepting this answer because I think this is very solid piece of advice! So thank you!

Not sure this answers the question, but at least I think I can provide some food for thought:
Your description of the situation sounds to me as if it may be substantially worsened by Covid regulation first asking and in many places still suggesting far more work from home than previously.
(I may say that this disconnect from colleagues has also affected my performance during the pandemic (whoopee, we have conferences again, in person) - but compared to you I do have the advantage that my PhD is long over and I am sure for myself that it is not a general crisis towards my work.)
(Also, I've made some experience in several groups from which I learned what amount of interaction with colleagues is good for me: having a more-or-less single place in a lab, but regular coffee break with the colleagues if I liked to; when I was "promoted" to my own 1-person-office abroad, that wasn't enough connection with the people there - they also had no space for coffee together - I moved into a 2 person office, and that was very good. 3 people with back to the open door - no good. 7 person office, no good at all, I went for lots of WFH...  I've worked a lot online already before Covid, but I learned that I do need some amount of offline interaction as well, and I've sorely missed the random professional discussions that happen e.g. at conferences in person, but are extremely rare online)
The additional separation due to Covid may add up with the "disconnect" you describe by having a different background and the general stess of a thesis. While all three together may very well be too much, so something needs to be done, I wouldn't be sure from your description alone that quitting is the right step for you. This is something that should be considered carefully.
OTOH, it is possible to move away from public research and back into academia later on. (In particular, universities of applied science (FHs) like to see their staff, including professors, to have industry experience)
Now, in my experience, some groups are more "connective" than others, but I think with the substantially increased WFH it has become more difficult everywhere.
There are surely groups that are still more including with Covid regulations around than others have ever been. I cannot tell from your description whether your group is particularly unincluding or not.
More thoughts:

Will you be attending a conference this summer?
This is not only a great way to connect to people - and if your direct colleagues are not so connecting for whatever reason, you may find a group there that is more welcoming and including.

You can also try to find out how things work out at their "home base" and try to identify a group you may visit for a small "sub-project".
(You write your supervisor is nice - ask them to help with this)

Is there someone or a group of people with whom you could put in some  holidays? (already 1 or 2 weeks can do a lot of good, as employee in Germany you have a right to take at least 3 weeks in a row once per year.)

Do you have a solid peer group outside work? It cannot completely substitute the lack of connectivity with your research group, but it may help sufficiently to get you along.

For anyone who has pulled through despite heavy doubts: Are you happy with your decision? Did you find a job you like? Or do you regret not quitting?

Let's put it like this: the application problem of my PhD thesis was not something I thought would "rescue the world" - although the topic [cancer diagnostics] was sold like that - what a PhD project could do (and what improved diagnostics could do to survival) was definitively oversold there.  OTOH, there were "side aspects" that are much less fancy (and much less able to get one a grant) which I still hold as very important (rather basic statistics on model validation and dealing with ever-too-small sample sizes). My heart was more in that (and after I had told my professor for 3 years that I think this important, he started to say that at conferences, too ;-) ), and I learned and developed things that I still use in my everyday work now.
I also wasn't sure whether those two letters would be really that much needed. And in a way I was right: I got a job offer and moved on before handing in (many of us did). I did like science, and I stayed in research, though.
I handed in my thesis years later at a different university. I'm still not sure how much that PhD "title" helps me (though I do suspect that other people look at it more than I do). (But it's not a question that bothers me one way or the other - nor was it bothering me as much as others [institute directors/professors who paid me post-doc wages without me being a proper post-doc] when I hadn't yet handed in)
But the research experience gained is definitively valuable and important for my work.
I found a job that I like: I stayed full time in research for some 10 years, then started my own business which is still very close to research.
I don't regret anything.
I even got myself a (part time) contract again at a research institution a year ago due to the described disconnect caused by Covid rules: employees could basically choose to go to the lab, but the same institutions would not allow (or strongly discourage) contractors on premise. So I decided a side job as employee (at a research institute) would be good, and it is indeed.
No regrets :-)

Most PhD students have some sort of crisis. Mine was different from yours, but I worked through it for almost two years. I am proud to have finished my PhD. I left academia right after my defense and found a job in industry that makes me happy. Industry jobs are different, less lonely and other people are relying on your work as you have to rely on work of other people. The feedback cycle is much shorter and you depend less on successes that cannot be planned (science is difficult to plan). It is more just do the work and everybody will be happy.
I am looking back and would not like to miss my time as a PhD student, but I enjoyed my work and my group. I don't regret to have invested the two difficult years.