text:
Is it advisable to use non-scientific method to teach science courses?
This question is motivated after reading a pop-science book from a famous researcher about physics and some implications. I find the content very amusing but I was utterly frustrated at the lack of any scientific value.
In particular, the book is about some plausible explanations about some observed fact. The author tells a story as follows:
Event A *could* occur under some wild assumptions. If A occurs and a sequence of events B occur, then an event C has non-zero possibility to occur. So, A is potentially responsible for C.
I.e., if something could happen, let's write a book about it (about A => C) without absolutely any supporting scientific evidence for A or B. It doesn't matter if C could occur for a gazillion other non-related and more plausible issues.
Such exposition reminds me the famous argument that a rocket launch could (in principle) alter the rotation of the earth and a change on its rotation could alter the climate. So, if we observe a change in the climate together with any change in the rotation, we should blame NASA.
I wonder why, otherwise prominent, scientists follow such populist and counter-scientific way of exposition. Could this qualify as pseudo-science?
My question related to academic standards and ethics, motivated by the above incident, is the following:

Do the ends (of drawing more people into science) justify the means (doing so by an exaggerated non-scientific way)? This is not limited to a single pop-sci book.
Can this be applied to standard university level pedagogy? Is it advisable to teach any scientific topic using a non-scientific way with the hope that more students find it appealing?
Are there specific examples of such successful pedagogical method?
Is this a contradiction?

Note: Initially, this post created some controversy, and subsequently was voted for closing, for being very opinion-made. I tried to adapt the text and the questions to reflect more objectified answers related to ways of teaching in academic environment. In other words if it is OK to teach the public about scientific matters in a non-scientific way, could we do the same in class? Do you have any particular examples, successful or not, in mind?

Does the book (or its author) claim to make any prediction that C is indeed going to happen, rather than just describing a scientifically sound what-if scenario?

@O.R.Mapper It is not scientifically sound what-if. It is an attempt to explain (based on very little) that C could have happened because of A. The paradigm with NASA I provided summarized very well the point of the paper.  It might be a credible (and sexy) hypothesis, but is based on_zero_ evidence.

This question looks like a rant about a specific, anonymous book. In particular, I do not see any answer we could question here: 1) We cannot tell you whether your specific book is sound, because we do not know it. Even if we did, that question would be off-topic here. 2) We cannot answer you why the other wrote the book the way they did, because we cannot read minds. 3) Even if this is a general phenomenon (for which you do not provide any evidence), we can only speculate why authors are writing the way they do.

@Wrzlprmft If you think it's off topic, that's fine. Look my comment to the TheDarkSide below: do the ends justify the actions of such writers to present scientific material in such a non-scientific way? I think it's a well posed question, not limited to a particular book.

do the ends justify the actions – That’s still primarily opinion-based. At best you could ask about established ethical standards for writing a popular-science book.

@Wrzlprmft I rephrased my question to reflect a general phenomenon on  (1) Requirements and expectations of academicians
(2) University-level pedagogy. Hope this makes the question on-topic.

@Wrzlprmft I understand your point and I try to make my question as less opinion based as possible. If you think that my question can be rephrased in such a way so as to not generate opinion based answers, feel free to edit.  I believe it's a well posed and objective question about the standards in scientific expositions/teaching methods.

Since the question has been downvoted  I changed the content and the nature of my question to comply with the instruction given in the Help-Center. In particular my question now is clearly about (1) Requirements and expectations of academicians (2) University-level pedagogy and I tried to minimize opinion generated content.  I hope that it will be re-opened because I think this is a relevant academic question.

@PsySp - I saw your reopen flag, but I must say that I do agree with Wrzlprmft that this question will still necessarily lead to almost entirely opinion-based answers. I appreciate that your question is a good one, but it doesn't match the type of question we look for on this particular site.

@eykanal Thank you for your time and for your comment. I appreciate it. If you think that the question cannot be altered, then feel free to delete or close it (or make a suggestion to transfer to another stackExchange forum). Thanks again and I apologize for any inconvenience.

No worries, it can stay here closed. I don't know of another place on the SE network where this will fit.

As others have already expressed, I think this is hard to answer decisively because you have a specific work in mind whose perceived flaws you are describing in very general terms.  You write

Event A could occur under some assumptions. If A occurs and a sequence of events B occur, then an event C has non-zero possibility to occur. So, A is potentially responsible for C.
I.e., if something could happen, let's write a book about it without absolutely any supporting scientific evidence for A or B. It doesn't matter if C could occur for a gazillion other non-related and more plausible issues.

I think that I have read both good and bad books that fit this general description.  Whether it is good or bad depends upon the details: e.g. how interesting / novel / thought-provoking that A is potentially responsible for C even if it is not carefully argued for in any way?  Or, how potentially irresponsible / risky could such an allegation be?
I can however answer some of your questions:

Does this [qualify] as pseudo-science as opposed to pop-science?

A key hallmark of pseudo-science is that it claims to be science but does not follow the scientific method (at least not competently and in good faith).  A popular book written by a scientist is probably not science at all -- it does not claim to follow the scientific method, be published or not based on its intellectual novelty and scientific rigor, and so forth.  It is indeed not necessary to be scientific when one writes about science in a popular way.
I don't intend this as carte blanche: a scientist can certainly write a popular science book that is bad or even scientifically irresponsible.  If the author takes advantage of the "lowering of the net" in order to promote something as science that in fact has not been subjected to scientific standards, then the work could have pseudo-scientific aspects.

Do the ends (of drawing more people into science) justify the means (doing so by an exaggerated non-scientific way)?

Again, it depends very much on the work and how it is done.  But it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to be widely appealing and completely rigorous, and some of the most successful popular science books (where success is measured by drawing readers into actual science) have not met the highest standards of scientific rigor.

Is this a contradiction?

Again, no, because the popularization of science is not science.

Thank you for the answer. Since the question was voted down for closing, I tried to put the question in a wider, more academic, and less opinion-based framework limited by few pop-sci books. I think any pop-sci book should, at least mildly, be scientific on every aspect. Otherwise what is the difference with bribing students to follow science?

@PsySp: "I think any pop-sci book should, at least mildly, be scientific on every aspect." That's such a general assertion that I have no ambition to disagree with it.  "Otherwise what is the difference with bribing students to follow science?" Here you've lost me a bit: if I bribe you, I give you money; if you buy my book, you give me money.  So that's one difference.  But more fundamentally: getting someone interested in something is very different from artificially inducing them to do it.

For me, an example of a very influential popular book is E.T. Bell's Men of Mathematics.  For the last 80 years it has drawn a lot of young people into mathematics by describing the lives and mathematics of some famous mathematicians (one of them a woman; anyway, the title would certainly not fly nowadays) in an entertaining, flowery way.  It turns out that these biographies are often somewhere between embroidered and invented.  The mathematics is more accurate but not amazing.  Nevertheless it is a good popular book.

What I mean is that when you try to lure in a reader into science by a crudely non-scientific argument, this qualifies as artificially inducing them to because they would have a very distorted view on what science and scientific methods are.

The books I was referring to are good pop books also! I had fun reading them. I just cannot easily digest such a profound lack of scientific methods in books that want to "popularize" science.

"What if..." Is the bread and butter of science and mathematics. Making outrageous guesses and then checking them is part of the toolkit for professional thinkers.
In your examples, you say that the author takes the stance that one event only potentially explains another, which seems fine from a scientific point of view.
As others have said, when you popularize you often intentionally leave out some subtlety. This is really a function of your intended audience. I leave out some subtlety when I teach intro calculus.
As to whether or not the author you reference does this badly or irresponsibly, I can't form an opinion without reading what they wrote.

Thank you for your answer. It is not exactly a "what-if" scenario and it is not the case where the author just takes away the subtleties. It's a scenario along the lines: "Theory A is peculiar and weird. Theory B is also peculiar and weird. So let's use A to crudely explain B even if it doesn't make any scientific sense and is not supported by any evidence". How does this promotes scientific thinking, is beyond me but maybe I have a blind spot. Thus the question.

I agree, but with limitations. "we could see anything -> dinossaurs" for instance ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_N_IYi2c0E )

This is actually quite a grey area.
Please note that the very objective of a popular-science work is to popularize relatively-complicated scientific subject, into a simpler, more-palatable form which a non-technical or semi-technical audience can read and get drawn into. This is intended to (over some course of time) trickle down and bring more people into science. That's not a bad goal, to say the least.
Now the problem is in deciding to what extent you simplify the complex subject. Naturally, there has to be some simplification, otherwise the product may be too complex for the masses. But with too many approximations, the final product may not bear any resemblance to the actual scientific work at all. It is a difficult tightrope walk, erring on either side will be bad.
Different people will have different yardsticks for which side do they want to err on. More scientifically scrupulous gentlemen would prefer to err on the side of caution, so that even with the simplifications, no one reads badly about their scientific credentials. But there will always be a more extravagant variety, which will take the liberty of a popular-science theme to create an over-enthusiastic presentation of the subject that may dilute the science. Sometimes, people hold that against some of the more famed science-popularizers of our times.
However, provided one understands what someone is trying to accomplish with a popular science work, it is advisable not to take offense with these simplifications. Also please note that science-fiction and popular-science are actually quite distinct: the fiction part in the former is scientifically implausible (and that can be established). In more extravagant popular science, you are still dealing with a soft subject, which is scientifically honest in the sense that it is still a possibility, less probable as it may be!
Go easy on the poor popularizers :)

I am a big fan of pop-sci books, especially on physics, cosmology etc. I do not mind crude approximations on the scientific matters. What I mind though is a crude approximation on the scientific thinking. The exposition I described is far from how an scientist would think to derive conclusions and it might give a very wrong impression of the scientific thinking to the layman.

Another point: If a pop-science author wants to create a sci-fi scenario in the course of which s/he explains heavy sci stuff, that's actually awesome. But my concern is how the exposition is perceived by the non-scientist layman. Does anything plausible qualifies as scientific?

"the fiction part in the former is scientifically implausible" - I disagree with that statement in its general sense; hard science fiction is not scientifically implausible, it is just based on speculative elements. Even not-so-hard science fiction is not necessarily scientifically implausible; it is just based on quite a bit more speculation than the bare minimum required for the setting.

@O.R.Mapper - Yes you are right. That sentence came out harder than I envisaged. I'll probably go easy on that and revise it. :)

@PsySp - While it is difficult for me to make specific comments about the situation without knowing the exact details, my point is that the author is not even attempting a scientifically rigorous account. The idea is, if that approximate presentation suffices to draw people into science, the job of the text is done. While "anything plausible" may not "qualify as scientific", when you've drawn people into science, reading more scientifically accurate works about the same subject would happen eventually. When that happens, the reader would eventually look back at pop-sci, & deem it approximate.

@TheDarkSide I tried to make an as accurate as possible description on the content and the exposition of the book. I do not want to name it. But my question is whether such strategy promotes the scientific thinking. Do the ends (draw people into science) justify the means (exposition in a non-scientific way of -nevertheless- relevant scientific ideas).

@PsySp - Like I said in the answer, it is a grey area, and is very debatable. There can be no general answer to this question, having universal applicability. The stance that I'm advocating is - yes, in certain situations (as explained above). :)

@TheDarkSide Thanks. My opinion is that scientists should be consistent when promoting science. But that is just my opinion, and I am open to different interpretations (yours included!)


text:
How to list my former affiliation when it changed name (and character)
As the title suggests, the issue is as follows:

I finished my (4 year) Bachelor and my (2 years) MSc at department A. A few years ago, the department changed its name and also the character of its undergraduate studies. Now it's a department of Engineering (5 year studies) and it belongs to the Engineering division of the university, as opposed to the division of Natural Sciences where it was before.

Question:  Does it matter how to list it? In any case, what is the best way to list it on my CV?
The most obvious thing would be to list it as it was formerly known. But this department does not exist anymore and, moreover, it changed division so there is a chance some people would be confused. Another option is to list the former name/division and in parentheses it's current name, but it's way too long and I do not like it, not only for aesthetic reasons. The option to list the current name/division is out of question for obvious reasons.
Thank you in advance.
Note: There is a possibly relevant question about changing the name of the university. I am not sure if it is the same as my issue because I am talking about the change of the name and character of a department. The context is possibly different and could generate different answers.

Related question How to refer to a university that changed its name?

@scaaahu Thanks! I missed it while looking in the site. Shall i delete my question?

The one above is about the university changed the name. I am looking for the department changed the name.

@scaaahu I guess same answers apply to my case as well? If you think the question make sense as it is and can generate meaningful answers then let it be. Otherwise it's fine to delete it.

Why not just call the registrars office and ask them?

@MichaelC. Because they said that they do not have any transitional provisions for such matters.

Ah. Well from my experience. I graduated with a degree in Statistics. A few years later they changed it to Business Analytics (to keep up with industry terms). My peers and I were told to keep it listed as statistics because that's what our diploma and final transcripts show. You would want whatever paperwork affiliated with you to match.

@MichaelC. Yes, that makes the most sense. However, when listing the resume, it might be intentionally risky to list only the former name/division for reasons explained above. I am inclined to think that the parentheses solution is the most appropriate but I am not sure. I would like to see your experiences. Thanks!

List it as the degree you earned, as it was called at the time you earned it, because that is an accurate reflection of what you studied, and it's what your degree says (or what a verification would say).  If an employer gets to the stage of verifying your degree, you could let them know that the program changed name, but it's not strictly necessary (and they won't always tell you before doing a verification).
Programs come and go and change names, and whole universities open and close, but even closed programs/universities have alumni and their studies/degrees are still valuable for the knowledge gain (at that time) they represent.
Even in cases like this one, where credentials were called into question based in part by a school not conferring a particular type of degree claimed, the fact that they historically did (or didn't) could be answered by a simple question and there are opportunities to explain the name change.

This happened to me when the School that awarded my PhD changed its name after I received my degree (the larger university name is the same). I continue to list the School/degree title that it was when I completed it. The new name doesn't fully capture my coursework there. No one has ever asked about it for jobs, but if it came up I would explain to them that it changed.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I got a C in a core class. Should I retake it?
I'm a 3rd year aerospace engineering undergrad with an inclination to pursue graduate studies in dynamics and control (ultimate goal of PhD). Until last semester, I had a lazy attitude towards my studies which earned me 3 Bs over the span of my undergrad studies. Last semester, this laziness, personal over-commitment, and poor prioritization culminated in a 'C' and 'B' in two core classes--both of which were in my strong suits of structures and dynamics respectively.
This semester, I have the opportunity to  retake the structures course. Should I retake it?
My primary reason for retaking it is that I'm confident I can get an 'A' (I aced every quiz when I studied) and show mastery of a fundamental concept (FEA). However, my reasons against it are:

It'll take up time that I can dedicate to research for my u-grad thesis
I'm planning to take a more advanced structures course next spring (though this won't show on my transcript since I'll apply to schools next fall)
Retaking the course barely improves my GPA (3.817 vs. 3.811)
My professor suggested that I review and streamline his course notes for future classes

I'm not worried about the B dynamics course. I'm meeting with my prof this week to discuss a way to move forward (I think I'll be grading or providing mini-recitation lectures). However, I don't know what to do with the structures course.

Yes, you should retake the class.  Not because the new grade will look better on your application, but because you almost certainly didn't learn the course material properly. (If you're more worried about your grade than your mastery of the material, you should stay out of grad school.)

An easy answer, from the viewpoint of grad admissions, at least: iffy grades are a blot... but/and, also, a serious question is about the extent to which "bad grades" reflect you understanding ... of things that need to be understood, not just gatekeeper stuff.
Also, you'll be competing against people who have reasonably-good grades... for whatever that's worth... but/and grad admissions committees will not see much up-side to admitting people who "show" worse than others.
Also, btw, it's not so hard to get good grades in undergrad stuff, even if one isn't ultra-conformist. True, it's also not hard to get iffy grades even when one has a pretty good understanding. But/and (!) in these days when everyone on the planet hopes to make a living as a computer-scientist (for example), not being prey to the standard tropes/weaknesses may be the selling point.
That is, maybe retaking courses to generate better grades that will mask old, not-so-good grades, is worth your time... unless, on a different course, you can do "genius-stuff" ... which makes schooling irrelevant, ... maybe.

So you're saying I should retake the course because it will show that I understand requisite knowledge for my major because I don't foresee myself doing "genius-stuff". Correct?

No.  The C will still be on your transcript even if it isn't reflected in your
GPA.  Take other courses related to your major and earn grades of A.  The older the C is on your transcript, the less influence it will have.

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


text:
Good GPA at not so great school
I am nearing the end of my undergraduate career at a not so great school (UHCL for those who are curious). I have an excellent GPA and an internship with a stellar company. The catch is I will probably have to go to grad school in order to work at that company, and this company likes to get full time talent from "top schools." My study performance looks stellar but honestly I feel a lot of that was just because my school is so lackluster concerning challenge (that's how I feel, at least).
I'm wondering if anyone has been down a similar path, moving from a low tier college to a high tier graduate school and if so, what their experience was like and what advice they may give. Wherever I go, I would really like to thrive.

To be blunt, if you aren't in the Ivy's, then nobody cares. And those in the Ivy's tend to keep an eye out for each other. I've seen plenty of jobs that flat-out refuse to hire anyone not in the Ivy's. But, well, yea. Welcome to the real world.

@Broklynite Somehow I doubt what you say is even remotely true, at least in the precise formulation in terms of Ivy's. Plenty of the very top universities are not in the Ivy League.

@TobiasKildetoft perhaps we are simply in different fields, having applied to different positions. I have seen jobs advertised with the line "Ivy League graduates only" and sometimes even more specific (e.g., Harvard and Princeton graduates only).

@Broklynite Could you link to such an advertisement?

@TobiasKildetoft at this very moment? No. When I was fresh from grad school, I saw them aplenty, particularly in the area I was interested in.

@Broklynite Depending on the field, "Ivy League" could be a significant disadvantage. After all, why should membership a sports league have anything to do with job preparation?

@JeffE - I think "Ivy League" has more than one meaning.  Yes, it does refer to a collegiate athletic conference (and did you know, that none of the eight schools in that group offer sports scholarships?).  But it also refers to eight venerable, well respected universities.  (Of course, they're not the only well respected universities in the U.S.) // I have not seen that an Ivy League degree is a guarantee of employment, and I have never heard of job ads restricted to Ivy League grads.  I'd have to see that to believe it.

I switched gears in a radical way after several years working in my Bachelor's field, by taking the additional classes I needed, primarily at a community college.  Then I started graduate studies in a strong department in my new field.  The professors didn't distinguish between me and fellow students who had gone to bigger name schools for undergrad.  Chances are they didn't even know.  To them I was just another student, interested in learning, asking good questions, working hard.
The admissions committee members would have known, but I never knew which professors had sat on the admissions committee.  But even the ones who had looked at my transcripts (whoever they were) might have forgotten by the time I took a class from them.
I only had a problem with one professor.  He assumed I didn't know my stuff when he was grading a qualifying exam.  I think the root problem was that he was the one professor in my sub-field that I had not taken a class from.  So to him I was a nobody.  I found this out when I asked to see my exam and how it was graded.  I discovered that he had graded it rather subjectively.
Thus, the one thing I would do differently if I were to go through it all again would be to take a class from that one guy.  He only taught one class.  I sat in on a couple sessions at some point, and found his teaching deadly boring, with very little homework.  So I would have had to go to his office hours and really work to find something to talk about.
But that's what I would do differently if I could.  Note, that had nothing to do with the schools I had been to prior to grad school.
Note that as a former intern, you will be a known quantity to the stellar company.  That can be a real foot in the door.

I think the root problem was that he was the one professor in my sub-field that I had not taken a class from. So to him I was a nobody. -- This is much less about your undergrad background and much more about one professor being a capricious jerk.

@JeffE - The world is not without professors with various deficiencies.  It's good to learn coping skills.

Sure.  But that's not what OP's question is about.

@JeffE " I'm wondering if anyone has been down a similar path, moving from a low tier college to a high tier graduate school and if so, what their experience was like and what advice they may give. Wherever I go, I would really like to thrive." I have been down a similar path.  I had a good experience.  I shared the thing I would have done differently if I could have done it over again.  Those are the elements I have to contribute to this question.  I hope they will have some measure of usefulness to the OP.

Your ambition is going to be far more important than your transcript.  UH-CL is a fine school, and the UH system is known as being good...  anyway, you just have to believe in yourself.  (Technically, the curiccula should be fairly similar across universities in the US that are accredited.)  What is your field?
If you need to go to grad school, then apply to the best grad schools.  Get your best professors to write solid letters and try to ace the standardized test(s) (i.e. GRE) since that will essentially 'level the playing field' when admissions tries to decide who to admit.  If you have a 4.0 from an OK school but you have great recs and a solid GRE (not even stratospheric), you are all set.  I went to CU-Boulder for undergrad then UCSF for PhD (2013), for the record.

I think this advice is naive, although it may be field-dependent. I think it would be very difficult for a CS major from UHCL to be admitted to my department's graduate program, even with a 4.0 GPA. In particular, recommendations are much less credible coming from faculty who don't have experience either supervising top graduate students or sending undergrads to top graduate programs. Applications from stellar students at lower-tier schools are viewed with suspicioun, because we've seen such students flounder in the past.

@JeffE - Is there anything positive or useful the OP could take from this comment?  I would encourage you to be careful how you write up your judgment of a proffered answer, and consider how the OP may take it.

@aparente001 What makes you think I haven't been careful, or that I haven't considered how OP may interpret my comment? It is an unfortunate fact that students from lower-ranked departments are at a significant disadvantage applying to top PhD programs, at least in computer science.  Pretending otherwise is neither useful nor positive.

@JeffE It's always good to apply to a stretch school, a safe one and a medium one. Are you suggesting OP should forget all about applying to a stretch school? The question doesn't even ask for applications advice. I don't understand what is gained by your comment. The keys to thriving in a big step up school, I think, are to work hard and believe in oneself.  Your comment seems to seek to sabotage the self-belief part, and I can't figure out what your motivation might be.  If you think you are doing OP a service by honestly pointing out the challenges that exist... it's not necessary, or kind.

@aparente001 You are offering much more reasonable advice than this answer, which suggests only applying to the best schools, and that self-belief is sufficient for success ("...you are all set"), which is dangerously wrong.

@JeffE - I can't disagree with that.

@JeffE  I still think ambition is the most important thing here, and to have ambition, you gotta believe in yourself.  a rejection letter is one thing, but not applying is another (that is self-rejection and defeatism).  you guys are getting way ahead of yourselves with all your department-specific stuff... generally, aiming high is a good idea.  And self-belief, in many cases, is sufficient for the beginnings of success, and by then you've learned a lot anyway.  And if you are self-assured, it will be easier to adjust your expectations on the fly


text:
Introducing yourself to potential thesis advisor you didn't attend any class with
I'm studying CS and I'm really interested in a particular topic. There will be a course covering this topic in the next semester. The professor of this course never saw me but I will have to attend the course next year.
Since I am starting to think about the thesis, I thought this is a good time to find an advisor, and I believe he might be a good choice.

Is it unpolite/weird to contact the professor asking him to participate in one of his projects? This imply that I want him as supervisor for the thesis.
Should I send him an email or talk to him personally? He's quite famous professor here and probably receives tons of emails and will take some time to get a response (if any). On the other side, I'm very nervous about talking with him (shyness).
What should I ask him in order to "break the ice"?

some reference about the topic (I don't need them);
if he can show me some of his projects (and if I can join one of them);
or go straight to the point and ask him about the thesis

As it currently stands, I've voted to close this question as specific to undergrads, since there doesn't seem to be anything related to research/grad school/academic life. That being said, I'm confused as to what your goal is here, OP. Are you looking to take the course with this prof? Do you want to do research with them? Something else?

@tonysdg I'm editing the question. I was not clear, my fault

I would find out when the professor's office hours are, and drop in; at that point I would request an appointment to discuss some research ideas.  The professor might at that point say, "Let's talk now," or he might give you an appointment for another day.  The worst he can do is say he doesn't have time, or that he doesn't think you are far enough along. // If you're more comfortable with email, that's a reasonable way to approach him too -- I just think that if you're on the same campus, a visit would be most comfortable (for me).

I edited the question to make it more broadly applicable. Finding a thesis advisor is an issue that also applies to grad students.

Go for it! This is perfectly normal, not at all weird or presumptuous!
I would put together a short, well-written email where you briefly introduce yourself, indicate your interest in his research, and propose a brief meeting to discuss whatever it is you want. Something like this would probably work:

Dear Dr. Eisenhardt,
I am Ignus Ignatius, a sophomore in the Computer Science Department here at Mutant University. I am looking forward to taking your Advanced Bioinformatics course next fall; I really enjoyed the bioinformatics module in Dr. Xavier's survey class this semester).
I am currently looking for a research internship and noticed that you have several active projects listed on your lab webpage, including the development of algorithms for processing NMR spectra.
Are you or your collaborators looking for interns? If so, I would love to talk for a few minutes if/how I might fit in your group (CV attached). I'm free Friday at 2:30 during your regular office hours and have a pretty flexible schedule on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Thank you,
--Ignus Ignatius

I would not ask for reference recommendations unless you actually plan to read them. Similarly, I'd try show that you did as much "homework" as possible by referring to specific things that this professor is doing. Some people spam out literally hundreds of generic "hire me" emails: this never goes well for them and you do not want yours to be mistaken for one of these.
You can rarely go wrong with a polite, personalized email. At the very worst, the prof will write back to say that they are not taking students right now, or never reply at all. Nevertheless, if this makes you very nervous, you can also ask a professor that you do know to introduce you to your "target." This also isn't that weird, though you do need to be careful if they work on very similar things--you probably want to avoid suggesting that the professor you already know is somehow worse.


text:
Who owns the laptop bought with funding for student training etc. in a fully funded PhD project?
I am a PhD student at a UK university and the project is a collaboration between the University and an industrial partner. My question is when the laptop is bought using the extra money allocated for training etc., who owns the laptop?

it is likely a case specific thing. Did you check the conditions on the funding? Although, I have heard people buying high end computers with funding and keeping them.

If it isn't specified in the collaboration contract, ask the funding agency for clarification - this may be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Single data point: I had funding as PhD student via a sholarship that also had an expenses budget.

When I bought stuff that was in between consumables and small instruments (to be precise, VUV-quality CaF2 slides). At reimbursement, the funding agency stipulated that they should become property of the institute.
In contrast, there was no such stipulation for some books I bought from the same budget.

+1. For $n = 2$, my fellowship said computers belonged to the fellow. One day, university IT decided to stick a property tag on my workstation bought with my fellowship. I emailed IT and cc'd my program coordinator who let the university know they were in the wrong and the computer clearly belonged to me.

As other answers suggest, the identity of the owner may vary. However, I will venture a common-sense guess for the benefit of future readers:

If the laptop was not provided with the industrial partner, not bought by it for you, then it's probably not intended to be owned-by-them.
From my limited experience (not in the UK), Ph.D. candidates don't get to keep laptops they are bought for use during their Ph.D; they hand them in what they leave the university/research institute.

so with no additional information I would assume it is the university's.
But really, in your specific case - just ask whoever gave you the laptop.

throwaway comment, sorry, but I just wanted to say that I've seen you on this forum for over six years and I just realized that your username is a transliteration of "אין פה כלום". I'm feeling rather silly right now.

@eykanal: It's not like I was expecting this to be acknowledged or anything...

Nah, nothing on you, just a slow realization for me. The name makes a lot more sense now.

I don't think there's a global rule for this. Institutions could have their standard rules for this, but then enter in an agreement with a particular industrial partner to do it differently for that project, for example. Likewise, it could be different for small and large sums of money, or for items very specific to the project that would be hard to re-purpose, or generic things like a laptop.
So whenever a nontrivial amount of money or work is involved, always get agreements in writing. That way everyone knows what to expect.
If you already have the laptop but don't have in writing what happens to it, make sure you get it in writing. Don't count on keeping the laptop until you do.
It's entirely possible you get to keep the laptop, if it's a long-running project. It's probably not the same standard model the company uses, so if they took it back, supporting it would be more work. Also, companies write off laptops after some years. As a piece of equipment that's exposed to travel wear and tear, it ages faster than a desktop machine. After a certain amount of years, the hardware will be dated and prone to defects so keeping it is not economical. The same business logic applies to the university, although they may be more used to supporting a diverse array of research laptops.
Given these reasons you should not be too shy to suggest that you get to keep the laptop and make it "your problem".

With UK universities, the most common rule would be that it belonged to the University. Research costs on a UKRI studentship are paid to the university to cover the costs of your research. This money to supposed to be spent on enabling you to complete your research and training, but it is the university's money, not yours. Laptops are an interesting one, because in theory, unless you have special requirements, UKRI research funds are not supposed to be used to buy ordinary computers.
Now that's what happens with UKRI. Things might be a little different for a research contract with a industrial partner, but my expectation is that the industrial partner will have a contract with the university to provide the research - once again, note that the contract is between the funder and the university, not the student.
That said, many universities have schemes that allow you to buy computing off them when you leave if they are over a certain number of years old at a nominal cost.

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


text:
How to stop Endnote omitting the year for some references?
I am having problems with Endnote outputting a mix of citation styles (or possibly a broken citation style!) in the same document, despite applying the Endnote Frontiers Science style (official, from the Endnote website) throughout. Eg

...feline herpesvirus 1 (Thiry et al.) and terrapene herpesvirus 1-associated pneumonia in Eastern box turtles (Sim et al., 2014)...

and when I look at the final reference list I see that both references look correct and the same eg

Thiry, E., Addie, D., Belak, S., Boucraut-Baralon, C., Egberink, H., Frymus, T., Gruffydd-Jones, T., Hartmann, K., Hosie, M.J., Lloret, A., Lutz, H., Marsilio, F., Pennisi, M.G., Radford, A.D., Truyen, U., and Horzinek, M.C. (2009). Feline herpesvirus infection. ABCD guidelines on prevention and management. J Feline Med Surg 11, 547-555.
Sim, R.R., Norton, T.M., Bronson, E., Allender, M.C., Stedman, N., Childress, A.L., and Wellehan, J.F., Jr. (2014). Identification of a novel herpesvirus in captive Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina). Vet Microbiol.

So I am at bit of a loss as to why one reference looks correct (author, year) and the other does not (author).

What is the precise name of the journal style?

A few options:

It is possible to exclude the year from an in text citation in Endnote. So I'd check that setting. Right clicking the in-text citation should give you a few options.
Make sure you are showing field codes in Word so that you can confirm that you have actually inserted a citation there. Without field codes it's possible that you have written some text manually.
You may want to explore the style settings in Endnote (e.g., go to edit - output styles in Endnote and select the current Endnote style). There are a whole range of settings that you may need to explore. There might be some rules that you can tweak related to how in text citations display.

While I don't know Endnote in specific, I have seen this type of failure mode in other citation software.  Typically, it happens because the software is treating the reference as the wrong type of reference, e.g., confusing a book chapter with a journal article.
I don't know if your example is the real references, but I notice that first has volume/issue, and page/doi information, but the second does not.  This leads me to suspect that Endnote is treating the first reference as a journal article and the second as something different.  That may be where to start looking for the problem...

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


text:
Are there any resources to find modern (or effective) assignment types, knowledge control techniques?
I'm participating in creating blended (online/offline) courses. Faced a problem of inventing well-designed assignments/assessments. There are already quizzes, essays valuated by teacher, webinars/live lessons. But they are usual, they don't involve students.
So I started searching for teachers' experiences in more unusual ways to control students' knowledge, gather information about each student. But it is very scattered.
Can anyone advice some resources (sites, publications, works, magazines) about this topic? I'm absolutely new in education, so any help will be appreciated.
A bit more information about courses:

oriented on graduate, under-graduate levels and professional development
2 levels of audience: medium (60-100 members in a moment) and big (close to MOOCs: 100-thousands).
technical difficult is not limited

The number of students in each blended course is definitely a consideration when creating effective assignments and assessments of student learning, however, the most important consideration is the student learning outcomes (SLOs) - what are students expected to do, think, or know by the end of your course?  The SLOs will direct the design of the assignments, as well as the assessments of student learning, for your course. Here is a very short training to help you learn to create assignments and assessments from student learning outcomes: http://jeandowns.weebly.com/  There are additional resources and references at the end of the training.


text:
Academic Integrity accusation of generating a personal reflection with AI
Academic Integrity emailed that my submission from the last semester was more than 40% generated by artificial intelligence. They noted there are no grammatical errors in my submission and the writing style is bland and generic, and there is little reflection insight offered (which I usually did at that time because I had no clue when it came to personal reflection).
They offered the opportunity to review my submission and submit a written response addressing this allegation. What should I write in that response?
I actually do use AI sometimes when it gets really hard to paraphrase the text but in terms of personal reflection, I'm 100% sure that I did not use it. This is my first time experiencing this.

"I actually do use AI sometimes when it gets really hard to paraphrase the text but in terms of personal reflection, I'm 100% sure that I did not use it." You are not being very clear here. Did you or did you not use AI when writing this submission?

Several red flags here. My answer here may be relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/173609/43544

The last sentence in your first paragraph is missing a punctuation mark at the end. Also, in your last sentence, you probably meant to write either "This is my first time experiencing this" or "This is the first time I experienced this."

"I actually do use AI sometimes when it gets really hard to paraphrase the text" - Instructors aren't asking you to paraphrase text just to avoid being accused of plagiarism as some sort of game. They're asking you not to copy directly because they want you to first understand the material in your own mind and then write about it. The understanding step is the important part, not the writing part. They want your writing as a measure of understanding and to motivate learning, not because they're in great need of dozens of essays on the same topic. Using AI for this cheats yourself.

Bryan's comment is to the point. Using technical tools to sidestep the "understanding step" is akin to using an e-scooter to sidestep a jogging exercise. Yes, you may be able to "accomplish" getting from point A to point B sooner, but you do not accomplish what the practice was meant for.

This is a difficult area, because both 'sides'/'parties' in the AI essay arms race tend to be in the wrong.
On your part:

Don't use LLMs to write your essays. No, really. There are many fascinating interactions an open-minded and creative person can have with an LLM on one's own time, but the...lowest-common-denominator use of "I don't know how to write this essay, I'm going to make [large brand-name chatbot] do it" is bad for everyone.
If your current writing feels bland and unreflective, well, that's true of a lot of people who aren't good at writing yet. "Yet" is doing some work here. While people vary in how good at writing they are, and how good at writing they could ever possibly be, it is still trainable. You can make your writing less bland and more reflective. You have to actually work at it, though.
Don't deny LLM use you've actually done. Not to us, not to your institution. This is dishonest and only prevents you from improving. It also burns the commons, such that real denials of false accusations aren't believed. This includes your own real denials!

On the institution's part:

"AI text detectors" do not work, full stop. Not at all. I have generated text directly from LLMs and put it through them and seen "0% AI" estimates, and I've seen text written decades before LLMs get near-certain readings. They work off loose patterns in the RLHF tendencies of...I think just ChatGPT alone, actually (GPT models that aren't the specific ChatGPT RLHF don't get high scores, ime). They cannot magickally detect AI. They are wrong, they do not work, and they are causing grief.
Having once been a 12-year-old who wrote a lot better than the average 12-year-old, I was accused by a teacher of having my parents write my essays. I feel for these kids now, who must have an even harder time of things. A lot of young people are good at writing in a practical sense, but haven't yet developed much metacognition or conceptual sophistication. If someone is looking for LLMs and refuses to believe young people can actually be good at writing, this is going to get falsely accused.
AI detectors are bad enough, but some institutions are apparently doing even worse things. I've heard of a professor who failed his whole class because he asked ChatGPT if it wrote their essays.

Be completely transparent in your response. This includes complete transparency about all past LLM use, no matter what implications you fear it will have for you. If you just "have used LLMs in the past", that doesn't say what -- did you do some light copyediting or have all your previous essays been 90% LLM-written? People will assume the worst, and have good reason to.
Do not use LLMs in the future to write your essays. You need to develop your metacognitive skills and conceptual sophistication -- this is the point of writing essays. If you do not develop these skills, your work will seem LLM-written forever.
Also, just to make this absolutely clear, write the response yourself. Do not have an LLM write it. It's admittedly very funny for everyone else when people send "As an AI language model, I can't tell you whether Name wrote his own essays", but it won't be very funny for you.

It seems like the existing answers didn't really answer your question, which is "What should I write in my rebuttal letter". Here is what I would write:

Demonstrate that you have an understanding in the topic. I'm unsure of the nature of your assignment, but let's say it is "Write an essay to prove that the earth is round". In this case, you can demonstrate that you have knowledge in the topic by listing out the history of flat earth vs round earth. This is probably a pretty bad example but without knowing what your assignment is, it is hard to give specific advice.

"Anti-AI" tools are no where near rigorous enough (at its current state) to definitively prove if someone has used AI (Generative AI, in particular). This is a fact that is backed by experiments (although I'm unsure if they are scientifically rigorous studies), although you can probably find multiple reputable articles on this topic. Using Anti-AI tools is akin to convicting someone based on a Polygraph test.

Specify that "no grammatical mistakes" could very well be due to other grammar checking tools (e.g Grammarly, unless Grammarly is also banned in your institution). Even then, having perfect grammar is not outside the realm of possibilities for someone who is articulate in English, or someone who is a really pedantic editor.

Overall, based on what you've written, seems like their argument is based on really shaky grounds. I'm honestly surprised that they even brought it up in the first place without basically any concrete evidence. I wouldn't be particularly worried if I were you, given that your institution has a strong ethical conducts policy and treats students fairly.

They're saying it is because there are no grammatical errors in my submission and the writing style is bland and generic

This is not a reason to suspect A.I. was used. People can just be subpar writers.

there is little reflection insight offered (which I usually did at that time because I had no clue when it came to personal reflection).

Well, it is true A.I. generally isn't good at reflecting/doing real analysis (even if it's very good at computation and certain forms of reasoning), so it's circumstantial, but again, people can just be poor writers.
Anyways, the fact that you used it at all for writing to me isn't very positive. I use GPT to translate MATLAB to Python all the time, with the understanding that it's totally on me to make sure the code works correctly and is optimized, and that's only because I don't speak MATLAB. For all the concepts though, you should be good enough to rephrase things nicely, and if you can't do it in your own words it suggests you don't understand it well enough. Plus, the issue is that there's no way we can publicly check the AI since presumably you don't keep all your GPT conversations laying around, making the overall document less transparent.
Anyways, be honest in your letter. Say the things you did use AI for and the parts you didn't use it for.

LLMs, which is presumably what OP means by AI here are not good at computation and don’t reason.


text:
CV for a PhD application in applied mathematics
In my CV I want to know whether the following ordering of the categories is suitable. I thought of giving prominence to research work because I am applying for a PhD.

Personal Details (name,address,e-mail)
Career objective
Education
Publications
Conference presentation
Research Interest
Skills
Work Experience
Co-curricular activities
Extra curricular activities
References

Is the placing of Research Interest okay? Should I move it up? Where should I keep it?
As Career Objective should I write in general what I plan to do i my career once I finish my PhD or should it include the particular area that I am trying to research as my PhD. Say the specific field in applied mathematics.
For example: Should it be,

Applying for admission into X university’s Doctor of Y program.
or
Career objective : Become a leading researcher in the area of Z and contribute to the betterment of society

How do you make a selection for Talks and Presentations? Assume you keep many presentations in many fields. Should you include all there, or just a small sample?

Firstly, the Career Objective section is a thing of past and should not be present in a CV or resume. Not only it is old-fashioned, it actually makes one change their CV or resume every time one applies to different organization and position. It is much better to place relevant position-focused information in a cover letter, which should be adjusted to a particular position anyway.
Secondly, do not put personal details, like mailing and physical address, on CV or resume. An e-mail address and, maybe, a phone number is more than enough. You don't expect potential employers to send you postal mail, do you? Plus, the physical address would jeopardize the security of one's identity.
Thirdly, the section Research Interests should be higher in the list - I would say, even prior to the section Education (or, at least, right after it).
Fourthly, I suggest you to create two versions of your CV (the following is not applicable to resume) - one with references, for organizations that require them as part of initial application, and another without ones, for those that require them later or using different communication channel (say, Interfolio).
Fifthly, go ahead and search Internet for examples of academic cover letters (there are plenty of them - stick with the ones from reputable universities). Hope this helps. Good luck!

P.S. I would reword section titles, as follows: Conference Presentations => Talks & Presentations; Research Interest => Research Interests; Co-curricular Activities => not sure it makes sense to extract them in a separate section - why not list them below relevant educational info; Extra-curricular Activities => Extracurricular Activities.

@clarkson: You are welcome.

Plus, the physical address would jeopardize the security of one's identity. — How so?

@JeffE: It is easy to understand once you become familiar with the concept of identity theft. For more specific information, including references to address misuse, see this section of the relevant Wikipedia article.

@user37208: This is likely true for more established scholars (who might receive a lot or some correspondence in a non-electronic form). Regardless of that, I think it's not a good idea in general.

I think the whole part with identity theft and security of identity must be specific to some places. Many places one would need to specifically ask not to be listed for people not to be able to find ones address just based on ones name.

@TobiasKildetoft: I agree with you in that identity security and identity theft situations vary greatly across geographies and jurisdictions. Nevertheless, I still think it's a good idea to be careful. Also, many of the databases contain not up-to-date addresses, which is actually beneficial from the identity security standpoint. I don't understand the whole concept of public private information. This is an oxymoron.

What do you think about the phonenumber? - - Should I include there personal phone number or work phonenumber or create a new work phonenumber just for work things? - - I do not like to keep there my employer's phonenumbers so I am thinking to have one myself. What do you think?

@LéoLéopoldHertz준영 Including a phone number possesses somewhat lesser risk (from an identity security / theft perspective). If you're willing to have your own personal work phone number, that would be preferred. Otherwise, just omit it - typically, modern professional communication is [should be] asynchronous, anyway (professional etiquette), so an e-mail address should be enough. You can always reveal your personal or work phone numbers in a follow-up e-mail communication, once you get to know / establish the trust with the person.

@AleksandrBlekh Do you think that I should not reveal my personal phone number in my public CV at all? - - I reveal my personal phone number at my email signature at the moment.

@LéoLéopoldHertz준영 Revealing personal phone number in an e-mail signature is not that risky, because you most likely communicate via e-mail with people you trust (or, at least, know). Having the same info in a public CV is a totally different story, since anyone can read it and use that info as they wish. Having said that, ultimately, you should act, based on your sense of or tolerance for risk (of identity security / theft). Hope this helps.

@AleksandrBlekh It really would be nice to get any meta-analysis about risks of keeping phone number public. - - I just know that many people cannot do it.

@LéoLéopoldHertz준영 Well, I'm not aware of any such studies. You would either have to search the mighty Internet, or find relevant open data and carry out the study. :-)

Your proposed order looks fine to me as a default. If you think you really shine in one category it is okay to move things up or down based on that.
I am assuming most of your experience has been academia. Someone who spent a lot of time working outside of academia would want to prioritize that experience instead.
Research interest placement is fine subject to my above comments about what your want to emphasize.
Your second career objective sounds much better:
"Become a leading researcher in the area of Z and contribute to the betterment of society"

Thanks for the reply. My experience is mainly academia. How about if I move research interest to 3 rd place, after career objective.


text:
How to read papers without falling into a rabbit hole?
Often while reading a paper, I will see a citation that that seems more relevant than my current one. I'll switch to the new paper, only to experience a similar feeling. Or maybe I need to look something up on Wikipedia. An hour later, I'll still feel as if I didn't really digest anything. I will have skimmed 2-4 papers' introductions and conclusions, scratched some notes on the side, and generally feel overwhelmed.
Is this a bad habit? An abnormal feeling? How have others dealt with this to become more productive readers?
I'm fairly new to research, if that matters.

Nope - perfectly normal to begin with. Then you find yourself looking up the same paper from a different line of descent through references and you start feeling at home in the literature... In a new area this still happens to me 25+ years after my PhD

It's normal.   A 'rabbit hole' is probably the wrong expression to use.  By exposing yourself to more concepts and terms, your brain gains the tools required to quickly understand papers.  If you ever wonder why experienced researchers seem to grasp a paper quickly, that's because they have been down many so called rabbit holes.  Just be persistent, and have the patience to go down rabbit holes and enjoy the many ideas you'll encounter.  They will pay in the long run.

Rabbit holes sometimes lead to wonderlands ;)

Rejoice in the overload. Often, when getting to grips with new concepts, I'll become completely overwhelmed by the influx of new information. At that point of feeling the sensation of being overwhelmed, it's easy to fool yourself that you've learned nothing. Take a break/sleep on it, and pick it up again later. Much more that you think went in!

Now if someone can answer how not to fall into the Stack Exchange rabbit hole!

I have answered this question here: http://math.stackexchange.com/a/617995/26580

Relevant XKCD.

Tropes will ruin your life in a similar way.

Wait until you find out there is another species of rabbit who is digging a completely different hole on the same topic.

@Superbest, your answer is awesome. Just having someone with more experience say that BFS is an acceptable approach is great to know. I am finding that research takes a lot of intellectual courage, and knowing what the process feels like is useful.

@DamianYerrick I was planning on not mentioning "Wiki Walk" because it linked to that site. :O

Interesting. This kinda reminds me of looking things up in a hardcover Oxford dictionary when I was learning this language back in my high school. Ah good ol'days!

@Vim ...this is how I learned English as well,and I'm a native speaker. I picked Return of the King from a shelf in my dad's library when I was 6 (The Eye of Sauron on the spine made me pick it up).He quickly snatched it away saying "No, no, no!You're definitely not ready to read that book!"He turned and put it back on the shelf then brought back FOTR and said"read this one first or that one won't make any sense"and then dropped 3 dictionaries on the side table.thud, thud, thud"You'll need those." I learned English from Tolkien. ...I naturally thought that everyone learned this way.

@K.AlanBates I agree "ratholes" (or "rabbit holes"? Doesn't matter to me) in dictionaries are indeed a lot of fun. By the way you mentioned Tolkein.. I thought I had seen it said somewhere that this guy was very inclined to invent new words out of his wild imagination (which of course makes his works notoriously resistant to translation), so could you really make sense of all those words just via dictionary? Just curious.

@Vim ...well, Tolkien was a philologist who had a love for creating languages (Quenya and Sindarin being the ones most people would have heard of...I can't actually identify any of his others, but its understood that he did create other languages) so no: you cannot make sense of all of those words in a dictionary. It's what leads you to understand that you need to use the surrounding context to compartmentalize your understanding of things and "move forward" if you actually intend on finishing the books and not do endless, nonsensical research on fairly pointless things to your overall goal.

@Vim so when trying to tackle Fellowship of the Ring as a 6 year old armed with a 6 year old's understanding of things and 3 dictionaries that don't contain all of the words one sees from Tolkien,you have to quickly adopt the mindset of "I don't care what that means" until you see it again, recall it and realize "this is probably important. Now,I can wonder: what is that?" I wanted to read the story,not sit with my nose in a dictionary.The dictionary was a means to an end given that my 6 yr old self did not have a sophisticated enough grasp of English to do it on my own

I thought this was my problem. That I was too slow, but. Thanks! @JonCuster !

Your problem is quite common among researchers. Actually, it's not really a problem, being overwhelmed like this is just natural. I and all my friends and colleagues face it.
How I overcame this issue: I try to focus on one paper at a time. Try starting reading the latest research paper on a particular subject and go back chronologically. Print the research paper in hard copy, leave your computer and cell phone (if possible) behind and start reading the paper. The point here is to avoid internet access. No matter what question you have, do not search for it right away. Write it on the side notes and keep reading. Most of the time the answer will be in the later sections of the same article. Even if you do not get the answers, once you finish reading the paper, you can go online and find all the answers. That's how I read literature without falling into a rabbit hole.
Also, reading the Abstract first, then the conclusion, and then the rest of the paper is also effective.
For me, changing place of study also helps to focus and good instrumental music is always a plus.

As a curiosity, what music do you listen to to help you concentrate?

@Ant Classical music in general...Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin in particular...are perfect...for me anyway.

SCNR - my acoustic island of sanity: http://www.kdfc.com/

Until about 10 years ago I, too, would print out copies of everything I intended to read. Eventually, I noticed two things: certainly that the piles of paper were becoming unmanageable, but also that I hadn't got much use out of most of the printouts, beyond discovering other more-relevant documents. Thus, kinda a waste to print.

@Ant, Games or Movies OSTs are good for me while coding or lab work, for reading, as Fixed Point said, soft music is perfect. you can find some playlists on youtube. my fav is Zack Hamsey though . . :)

@Ant for a moderner style, check some math-rock (yeah, there is a subgenre called like that)

I've read somewhere that music with lyrics (especially if it is your language) can alter memory. Also for my sake, since I am into classical music as well, it rather disturbs me than helping me concentrate.

Just like like baking. You don't start executing the recipe after the first sentence, you read it to the end first.

(For context, I am in mathematics, and worked on it for almost 20 years before the convenience of the internet...) As suggested by @JonCuster's comment, I think this is what is supposed to happen when one is studying (!). That is, I think genuine study of the literature is "going down the rabbit hole"... and/but not giving up or bailing out somehow. Sure, sometimes there's a "grass is greener on the other side" feeling, but when looking at the research literature it is entirely reasonable to be stubborn in the sense of insisting on explanations.
It struck me that you mention "after an hour, and looking at 2-4 papers"... when I often find myself looking at papers all day long with the conclusion being that there were things that I didn't understand, or wasn't aware of, or had forgotten, that have surprising/significant impacts on the issue I'm considering.
It is true that this (I claim genuine) seeming-inefficiency is wildly incompatible with the assembly-line notion of "research" that we find ourselves being pushed into for various reasons. Hmm... :)
Making notes with good bibliographic indicators, and typing-up these notes rather than leaving them handwritten, and dating everything clearly, is the only thing I know to keep back the deluge. Dating, especially, so that months or years later you can see at least your own personal chronology of awareness is very useful, I think, since it can explain things to your future self about your present and past self's behavior.
In a similar vein, rather than attempting to organize computer files "by concept", in some cases (when the concept is not entirely clear!) it is simply best to organize by chronology.

I have previously written an answer to the math version of the same question. I see no reason why it can't be applied to this case as well.
The human tendency is to prefer worrying about the most recently raised concern: You are reading paper X. You see a term T you don't recognize. You decide to pause reading X to quickly look up T (of course, underestimating how long that will take). You find a paper Y explaining T. While reading Y you find another unclear term U. U has been encountered just now, but T and X were minutes or hours ago - of course U seems like the more urgent thing to figure out. Next thing you know, you're in a meeting about X, you don't know a damn thing about X, but you sure learned everything there is to know about U!
So the human mind, at least in my experience, operates as a stack (in fact a leaky stack, since our attention is quite limited and things at the bottom often become forgotten instead of just delayed). The stack happens to be the defining feature of depth-first search algorithms.
By many relevant metrics, depth-first search (DFS) is a particularly bad choice for reading papers. For instance, presumably the paper you are reading is expected to contain the most important information to you at the time; if there was one that seemed more important, you would read that instead. But with DFS, you will spend a lot of time reading other papers, only distantly related to the original paper - ie. you will waste your time on less useful things.
Because human knowledge is vast, your attention will become exhausted long before DFS hits the wall and starts returning to the original topic.
Probably the biggest reason more efficient approaches (for instance breadth-first search [BFS]) are not more common is that they require additional hardware. Namely, a pen and paper to write a list of things to look up as you read the paper, so that you don't have to split your attention between reading the paper and remembering this growing to-do list. One also has to fight one's own laziness when going to grab a pen and paper, and then (gasp) actually writing, which is much slower than thinking.
Also, the only important point isn't the order in which you look things up. There is also a pruning issue. Many people (including myself) will overestimate how important a term is to understanding the main point (quite a silly habit, since it's essentially trying to guess what it will take to understand a text you have yet neither read nor understood). With a BFS style approach, often it turns out that most of those things you thought you should look up don't really matter and you don't need to look them up. With the DFS, it is much harder to tell what terms actually matter, which ones are irrelevant and which ones become obvious by the end of the text.
Basically, you have to exercise your patience and rebuke your inner sloth. Finish reading your current thing first before looking everything up. Don't worry, you won't forget - just write down what needs to be looked up, with references to where it occurred if you are very worried. Yes, you do have to physically write things, which is clumsy (hence why I say rebuke your inner sloth) but absolutely necessary to overcome some crucial limitations of the human brain. You can type instead of writing, or highlight, or draw !'s on the margins - doesn't really matter, so long as you use a physical (as opposed to mental) means of recording it, and finish what you're reading before starting to read other things.

Maybe not everyone knows the acronym: "DFS" is "depth-first-search", and  "BFS" is "breadth-first-search". :)

@paulgarrett Fair point - though I'd recommend reading the linked answer first (which does expand them).

This stunningly captures the entire problem and thought process I have while reading about a topic which leads me down a rabbit hole.

It is interesting that you used the concept of "rabbit hole" when you are new to research. A couple of things:
Uncertainty is Always There: You read it right. The "rabbit hole" is always there. In fact, at first, it is the "black hole" that sucks you in and you are amazed/sad/angry all at once!. This is normal because the area is new, you have no idea how to make something out of it. As you progress the hole starts to fill in more and more, however, the uncertainty is always there but your approach to the research becomes more and more clear and becoming more smart and you will guess what your contribution will be. This brings me to the second point.
Contribution: Take your area, and work toward a contribution. You can never be 100% sure about a contribution until you can prove it in a respectable publication. This is the whole point, you don't fill the "hole" completely, however, you fill it a little so the next researcher that comes to your area, feels a little more comfortable in the "rabbit hole".
Read Read Read!: Keep reading, take notes, see who is doing what, and then after a year or two, if I ask you about your area, you know the history and you know who did what. Most of the time it comes down to a few people. You will be amazed at how many few people are bringing your research area forward.

Please re-read your third to the last sentence and fix it, it's confusing.

Getting hold of a good literature survey paper helps especially if written recently...given that it exists for your topic.If so you probably wont do better than citing the relevant paper mentioned in the survey. Hand-books also help identify which papers ought to be the go to papers for citation.

One way would be to write down every term or phrase that spark your interest and look them up later.
The best way in this day and age, in my opinion, is to open up each paper you plan to read in a new tab in your browser and sort them in order of importance. For example, the paper that you are currently reading should be in the active tab; the next tab should be the paper you want to read after you stop reading your current paper, and so on. Then you can easily stop reading one paper, switch to another and deprioritize what you were just reading by moving it down the tabs list so you can get back to it right away or a bit later. You can also utilize favorites to add papers you want to go back to later.
However...
Falling down one of those rabbit holes led me to changing fields and a different career path. I am very happy about that and I think others might be too if they just follow their thirst for knowledge and do not resist it. It is very natural for a scientist (and for any person!) to be open minded and constantly search for something more interesting, fascinating, amazing, and readjust academic and personal goals accordingly. Whenever you find something interesting that seems more important than what you are doing now, check it out, maybe it is! If it's not, drop it like a rock and go to the next paper, or back to your previous one. You can get really, REALLY fast at multitasking like that using browser tabs/favorites to organize/reorganize your reading list. Use CTRL+F searches to quickly find the phrases you need. Modern PDF viewers also utilize tab systems, which gives you even more organizing power. Get good at this and those deep rabbit holes won't seem that deep anymore and you will find plenty of wonderlands down there with much less effort.

As Mirza Awais Ahmad already said, if you know that there is one paper you need to focus on, a good solution is to print out the paper, turn your phone off, leave the office, and go read it in a cafe/park/at home/on holiday/in the library without the ability to download another paper. Bring a notebook with you and make notes on paper or in the margins. If there's a reference that seems important, just make a note of it for later, when you're back at your computer. Setting aside time like this can be a greatly enjoyable experience, especially if your normal mode is skimming.
If the issue is that you don't know which papers you need to focus on, an excellent solution is to join a reading group. Or, if there isn't an appropriate one in existence, start one yourself. Find some likeminded people with an interest in a similar area, decide collectively which paper to read next, and set a date to discuss it. This not only provides a great motivation for sticking to the target paper, but you also get the help of other people in deciding what's important, and the subsequent discussion can be an enormous help in understanding both technical details and the broader context. You'll almost certainly be doing your colleagues a favour as well by starting a reading group, and it will also give you experience organising groups of people, which is invaluable for a future research career.

Some tips for dealing with the rabbit-hole when starting in a new area:

Try to find an existing literature review of the field: When you are entering a new field, the best resource to start with (if it exists!) is a well-written literature review that takes you through the history of the field, and tells you about the main papers, research questions, results, etc.  For example, Fang and Moro (2010) gives an excellent summary of economic literature on discrimination, which is pitched with a level of detail that allows a good overview of models, without wading into every bit of minutia.  This kind of resource allows you to learn about some of the main papers in a field without a huge reading investment.
Find and read the "core" papers in the field: After you have read a good literature review of the field, the next step is to read the "core" papers in detail, to get a good understanding of the main investigations and results.  (Even if there is no literature summary to find these, when you look up papers in a new field, most of them will cite some of the core papers in the literature somewhere in the introduction, to establish themselves within a context of broader work.  If you see that multiple papers in the field all cite certain core papers in their introduction, this can be a good indication that those papers are important starting points in the literature.)  Reading and re-reading the main papers in the literature is a good way to get good core knowledge of the main results of the field.  This is a good platform to learn the field in the long-run.
Now you're ready to go back down the rabbit-hole: Once you have a good overview of the field, and have read some of the core papers, you are in a good position to go back down the rabbit-hole of reading individual papers, which give you leads to more papers, which give you leads to more papers, etc.  Welcome to academic research!


text:
self-publish book in engineering
A couple of colleagues and I were thinking about publishing a book. I have heard repeatedly that people who go with a traditional publisher don't get any royalties, they transfer the copyrights, and on top of that, the book ends up being sold for a lot of money (which is something we're against as people from developing countries don't have access to them). Thus, after a short discussion we all agreed that going through the traditional means is no longer necessary. We're all skilled in LaTeX so we don't need the services that publishers usually provide for formatting the book. As a matter of fact, we're not planning on making any profit either, so we're very excited about the opportunity to provide the book as an open document. There are a few issues though:

We want the book to have a digital object identifier. Is it easy to get one? Does it cost something?
We want it to be indexed by major online databases like Google. Is it hard to do this?
We want to make sure is cited by Scopus, Google scholar, and the web of science. Do we need an ISBN for this or the doi is enough?
And we're thinking in having a "living" document, that will be frequently updated. Will it become really messy to do this?
Do we need an ISBN and a bar code for anything if this will be in electronic format alone?

So I'm looking forward to getting as much information as possible in this new exciting journey of self-publishing.

What is your question?

I have modified the post.

Here is a bit of info about DOI Registration: https://www.doi.org/faq.html and List of DOI Registration Agents: http://www.doi.org/registration_agencies.html . Since a DOI can be associated with a URL, have you considered hosting a blog or website? These would Satisfy 1,2, possibly 3, and 4.

Why not ask some traditional publisher about their conditions? As far as I know there usually are royalties, some science books (especially textbooks) are not very expensive and some publishers even allow a free digital copy downloadable at your website. Another thing: A "living" document (whatever that means exactly) will be difficult to cite and somehow is not in the spirit of scientific publishing.

@Dirk We don't want to go through a traditional publisher because of the transfer of copyright and we're really into having this as an open-source document. So that's definitely not an option. I've seen tons of documents in the web (mostly on LaTeX documentation) that has a date and these documents get updated from time to time. I guess you can call them living documents?

@J.Roibal I'm reading into it!

Please ask one question per post.

I need to get all that information on self-publishing. I can't edit my question to a simple question. I'm sure anyone in this situation would like to find all answers in the same place instead of searching for all related answers in different posts. Please remove the "on hold" status.

Each of your questions 1-5 can and should be asked independently. Some people may need the answers to all 5, but others may need the answer to only one, and asking one question at a time makes it easier for people to find that question they need. It also makes it much easier for people to answer - what you're asking for now is a complete guide to digital identifiers for self-published books, which is a little bit too much to ask (too large a scope; see the [help/dont-ask]). You're welcome to link the posts to one another if you want to make it easier for others to find them as a group.

Basically my question is simple: how do I self-publish a book in Engineering? The only thing is that these issues need to be taken into consideration. Is it fine if I edit the question to make this more clear?

Come on! I really need an answer to this question. Could you tell me what to do to make this a single question whose answer targets all my issues?

"How do I self-publish a book in engineering" is too large in scope for a single question. (And someone else trying to self publish a book might have different issues they want to take into consideration.) The StackExchange model is  all about focused, specific questions, so please write one question per post. (You can of course write multiple posts, each with one question.)


text:
Contact info for a professor's letter of recommendation
Is it okay if the applicant provides a professor's official email and the professor uploads the letter of recommendation (LOR) from the same official email, but mistakenly mentions their personal email instead of their official email on the letter of recommendation as their contact details?

This is too variable to answer. Every university will be different. Ask the university or the department. The US has no uniform system for any such thing.

It might be helpful if you explain why this is an issue: using the official email everywhere seems like it makes more sense than mixing them. Can you clarify?

@AzorAhai your point looks obvious to me. I mean it’s like you subscribe in a website with your Gmail or Yahoo email but you expect to login with your .edu email! But a lot of LoR systems specifically in the US clearly states that the recommender should hold an academic status and have a valid academic email address .

@AloneProgrammer Which is why I was confused by your comment about a professor using their gmail or yahoo email in their contact details.

@BryanKrause, I list both my gmail and my current university email on a lot of my things. This is because I've had positions at a bunch of different schools and haven't landed a permanent position yet. This makes it easier for people to a hold of me if/when my position again changes.

I edited again. In English, it's okay to just say "email," "email-id" is redundant and a bit confusing for me, at least.

Yes, it is okay for a professor to have alternative contact information on their letter of recommendation. If you are a student worried about this, you need not worry further.


text:
IELTS - How is the exam handed to students?
My wife and I are taking the IELTS exam in a few days and this question just occurred to me - When taking the test, do students receive the whole listening/reading/writing package or do they receive individual sections as they finish the previous section?
I ask because during my practice sessions, I realized that I would usually finish the listening and reading sections a few minutes before the time limit. On the other hand, I always finish my essay in the writing section only one or two minutes before the time limit.
Therefore, by the end of the listening/reading sections I usually end up with a combined ~6-minute spare time. I would love to use that extra time to plan and actually write my essay, but that would not work if we can only do one section at a time.
So, how does the exam work? Do students receive all the sections to answer at their own pace Or do they receive individual sections, only receiving the next section after the previous one is finished?

While IELTS might occur at a university, it is not part of academia.

@AnonymousPhysicist well it's an academic test isn't it?

Please consult the site tour.

The IELTS test format provides the necessary details. Each section of the exam is timed separately. Normally, all the materials of a previous section are collected before the next one is distributed.

For a similar exam I was involved in, each section was given with its time controlled so the reading / comprehension section had 40 minutes for example, then the listening section had its time and the final section its time.
Each section was timed individually for that exam, so you could not take spare time from one section to another as being able to add 10 minutes to the listening section defeats part of the purpose of the time limit.
Just to say that you sound as if you have been preparing well and the times are sufficient for each section to be completed, they are not made so that it is impossible to finish "just to see how far you get"...
So if you do finish ahead of time then just relax and don't panic.


text:
Ways to demonstrate ("show-off") contributions as an undergraduate in research
I am an undergraduate   CS  student at a US college. Before this summer, I contacted a professor in Game Research and was offered the opportunity to work with one of his PhD students. Currently, I am focusing solely on this opportunity. I wrote lots of code and helped the PhD student run experiments and collect data.
The best outcome of this opportunity would be a publication and a recommendation letter. However, I am only 50% confident that I will be able to get one of the two at the end.
Are there other practical ways for me to demonstrate my contribution (that can help with future applications)?
Any other advice would help too.

A recommendation letter is the way you get credit for this kind of work. I'm not sure why you think you're only 50% likely to get a letter out of this, it would be very unusual for a professor to be willing to work on a research project with you but to not be willing to write a letter for you.  As long as you're taking it seriously and professionally I think you should have close to a 100% chance of getting a letter out of it.

The reason why I think I'm only 50% likely to get a recommendation letter is this: I meet with the professor at most once (about 20 minutes) per two weeks, and I am not sure whether a total of 4-5 meetings and some email exchanges suffice for a recommendation letter. I do meet much more frequently with the PhD student though.

I am thinking about meeting more frequently with the professor. However, as I mentioned in the question, my job is to run experiments. I find it hard to start a causal conversation without priming it with some (interesting) results.

The professor can talk to the graduate student to learn more to write the letter.  If you’re worried you can tell the professor that you’re hoping for a letter and ask whether things are going well for that so far. But everything you say sounds pretty normal to me.

The lesson for us faculty is to be proactive and make sure that we tell our research advisees that we’d be happy to write them a letter if they decide they want to ask.