text:
Taking a course on Pass / No Pass Basis for Grad School
For a PhD application: assuming a student has a good technical GPA (whatever that means from your point of view) and took some challenging technical classes and some grad courses; what would you think if he has taking some "challenging" courses for unrelated topics on Pass/Not Pass basis. My university lets me take one third of my whole units for P/NP basis. For example, as a math major, what if instead of taking easy humanity courses, I take hard humanity courses; but not for letter grade. How would this affect a grad school application?

Why do you need to take any humanity courses as a math major?

@Olorun: In some educational systems, students of every major are required to take a certain number of courses in a variety of subjects (so-called "general education"), including humanities.  For instance, this is almost universally true at US universities.

I suspect it will make very little difference; I think PhD admission committees are unlikely to pay much attention at all to grades in fields outside the major, unless they are notably low.  But there are people here who have actually been on math admission committees, so they can answer better than me.

@Olorun as others said it is a university requirement to take some certain humanity classes and they will be counted on my GPA. So it will appear in my transcript with other classes.

They will be looking closely at your grades in your field.  P/NP is fine outside your major.

I have been to Ph.D. admissions committees both as a grad student and as a faculty member. Generally speaking, if those courses are not very relevant to your major and your intended area of research, I wouldn't pay much attention to "Pass" grades (whereas low letter grades would probably stand out) We get plenty of domestic and foreign applicants with very diverse backgrounds and there are much more important things to look at in their application package.
I assume that the genesis of your position is that you want to be challenged in class, but not at the expense of risking a bad grade staining your otherwise impressive transcript in a subject that probably won't define your career. While this is certainly not the only approach, it seems sound thinking to me.
If they do affect your GPA in a negative way, however, I would consider a bit more carefully--perhaps not in a binary way, but in regards to how many courses to do this with.
By the way, remember that as a Ph.D. student you can also take courses outside your major you feel curious about. I certainly did that.

Short answer, yes it could affect your grad school application. If the school is looking at those non-major classes.
What you should do is check with the admissions councilors at the schools you are interested in. Each school may look at this differently, but be prepared to give an explanation as to why you took those classes, in case they ask.
The best way that you can do this is in your personal statement or any other essays that might be included in your application. Within that paper, I suggest that you talk about the areas of study that you wish to grow your knowledge, even if it is a "basic class". If you word it right, you can show how you enjoy learning new and challenging topics, which is why you chose to take certain classes at a harder, but pass/fail, level even though they did not apply to your major.
Edit: I only suggest that you add this into your statement if the councilors state that those classes will be taken into consideration. If they deem otherwise, then there is no need to worry about those classes.

Justifying non-major classes in a personal statement seems like a tremendous waste of space that could be used to make application stronger in other ways.

I should clarify, I suggest doing that after a conversation has been had with the admissions councilors. If they state that those classes will be looked at, then I suggest that you add it to the statement. If not, then there is no need to bring those classes up at all.

For PhD admissions, decisions are generally made by members of the department, not a separate admissions office with "admissions councilors."

Yes, but admission councilors can answer questions.

@Engelbre: I would not expect "admission councilors", of the kind that I'm familiar with (the staff of the office that handles undergraduate admissions), to be able to meaningfully answer any questions regarding graduate admissions.  If you're lucky, they'll refer you to someone in the department.  If you're unlucky, they'll give you an answer which may simply be wrong.

@Engelbre this is really confusing for me. When I talk about non-major classes I do not mean elective class for my major. Let's say I want to study math in PhD and specialize in computability theory, should I really waste my personal statement with explaining my Russian Literature or Human Genetics classes? Will they care about these classes even a slightest bit?

@MathCSMajor: As you can see from the downvotes, there seems to be a consensus that Engelbre's answer is not the best possible answer to your question. To me, this seems to be because it is not based on personal experience on Ph.D. admissions committees. You might consider waiting for some other answers; if one is highly voted up, that could be a signal that the other readers of this site think it is a more directly helpful answer to your question.


text:
How are university departments receiving corporate funding?
I learned in class that some departments of universities, such as the medical departments, receive funding from corporation that bypass the university administrators, such that the research finding can be used for the profit of the corporations.
I also read that similar mechanism is influencing the curriculum-design of computer science. I want to know how exactly would a corporation fund the research of a department, computer science in particular.
The following is my baseless conjecture on how the interactions works, even though it's probably nonsense, I think it may help you understand the kind of answer I am looking for:
A certain corporation wants a new technology for its products, say phones, it asks the administrator of a university whether the latter wants funding for its computer science department. The administrator thinks that if some funding for computer science is handled by the corp., then more fund can be distributed to other things, and so approves this funding. The department uses the funding to do research, but the research is what the corp. asks them to do. When the department found a novel method of making phone computers, but instead of getting a patent, the department gives the patent to the corp. which uses it for its products

Are you asking only about funding for a department that comes from industry, or are you also interested in how industry might fund research projects of a particular professor or research group?

Your suppositions seem indeed to be baseless conjecture, and I'm not quite sure what motivates the fairly negative spin you put on it. Funds in to a university do go through standard university channels. The ability for a company to fund relevant research, and perhaps have some title in it, is pretty standard at all US universities that I have dealt with.

If the corporations "bypass the university administrators", how is it that in your "baseless conjecture", a corporation "asks the administrator of a university" before doing anything?

"When the department found a novel method ..." - at least in my perspective from a country where universities are not supposed to produce anything marketable in order to improve their finances, "getting a patent" was never the plan in the first place for "the department". With or without the corporation, the research results are published and can thus be used by everyone around the planet. Beside any funding, the really valuable benefit for "the department" is usually getting access to real world test data and real users. The benefit for the corporation is knowing about the results ...

... a few weeks earlier than anyone else, and probably getting readily prepared prototypes and test results that exactly fit their own specific use cases (because that's what you get when you provide your specific test data and test users), as well as some additional public exposure.

@O.R.Mapper I'm not sure what country you are in but in the US it is common for universities to retain ownership of marketable intellectual property. For example, at UW-Madison, WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) handles patents produced by the university and funds a lot of university research. The drug "warfarin" is, in fact, named after WARF. If a private company contracts with a university, even a public one, the terms of that contract could include full intellectual property rights - most professors would demand to at least have publication rights but may cede any commercial use.

(I should clarify that WARF is technically an independent entity from the university but they are tightly linked to one another)

@BryanKrause - Precisely - most universities (Cornell, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, ...) have IP experts, usually under the Dean of Research, to apply for relevant patents and ensure that any IP generated under contracts (with companies or the government) is handled correctly. In the US at least, to think that companies are coming in some backdoor is strange to say the least. (Often there is also funding available to spin out companies based on such IP).

@BryanKrause: Over here in Germany, at least in CS, the statement "We only create prototypes, no marketable products." is a very frequently heard sentence. If someone does indeed create something marketable that they want to sell, they will be supported by the university's start-up support programmes to found a new company that will then sell the product. I have even been part of a project once where the greatest concern of the project leads was that our prototypes "look too professional" and someone might mistake them for real products and accuse us of violating the project guidelines.

@O.R.Mapper I think that makes sense, and the situation in the US is similar in most cases - in the WARF example I gave, the university is not producing a product directly, but they are managing intellectual property to the benefit of research at the university. There are also many start-up companies that have used intellectual property initially created in the university and have employees who are also university faculty.

@JonCuster I wouldn't describe it as a "back door" but companies in the US definitely fund research projects at universities directly, and then benefit from the proceeds. This is usually not too controversial, but there are some exceptions, such as when companies use their sway to influence projects they don't fund ("If you publish X we will stop funding Y") or prevent publication on projects they initially agreed for publication on. In engineering, for example, it is common for a company to fund a student to do PhD/masters work at a university that directly benefits the company.

Some universities are no longer filing patents because they were losing money.  They were costing more to administer than they brought in from licence fees.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it OK to include images/graphics/plots from other published works into my thesis?
I am currently writing my master's thesis about an already published method which I improved and modified.
When writing the background section of my thesis about the existing method I am tempted to use the graphics of the original paper/thesis when explaining why this method was created in the first place and how it performs compared to other methods.
Is it necessary that I create such graphics myself even if they include the same tests and information or can I use the existing images and cite them accordingly?
What is your general opinion about citing images of other works?

See also: Academic fair use and using publication images in your thesis and Can I use images from an arxiv paper (and some others) in my undergrad thesis?, among others.

It really is a nice touch to just re-make the graphics yourself (if you can get your hands on the original data) even if you do have permission to use the original graphic. This way you can just cite the source you pulled the data from in the graphic's comment.

@Jerome I got in touch with officials from my university and they agreed that re-making a graphic that was already published is not the way to go. It's probably a copyright issue if the graphic is not that different but most importantly it creates the impression that you created this solely by yourself. When the idea is clearly coming from another work it's better to just use this graphic and cite it accordingly such that there is no impression created in any way that this graphic is coming from you when it's not originally.

@sam If you use the original graphic, you need explicit written proof of permission, which often must be submitted as a file alongside all theses/articles that use it. If you re-make it, and ensure it looks very different stylistically, and directly cite the source of the data and the original graphic in your graphic's comment---because all of your graphics must have comments, obviously---then there is nothing wrong, and this happens all the time. Feel free to get permission and use the original, but know that university HR often doesn't know what they're talking about.

Others have explained already that in order to reuse copyrighted content you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder.  Here's a how-to:

If the original source is a thesis monograph, this would usually be the author,

unless it's in the form of a book with a publisher (note that the university may be the publisher), then it may be the publisher (or an open license, see below). The book will then tell you at its very beginning (frontmatter) who the copyright holder is.

And in any case, the author must be aware to whom they've signed their copyrights away if they did so. They can thus point you to whom to actually ask.

For a journal paper, if it's under an open license such as CC, that license may already allow you to re-use content, and will then also tell you how. It may also specify how to cite.

Papers which are not under an open licence: here you need to obtain permision for re-use from the publisher. The big publishers have established processes for this. E.g. SpringerNature displays a "Reprints and Permissions" Link under their online content, which already has "I would like to reuse in a dissertation/thesis" as established category. You fill in the form, and can then expect to get permission pretty much automatically. Again, there's typically a condition that you cite in a specific form, something along the lines of "This image is reproduced from [$ORIGINAL_PAPER] with kind permission by $PUBLISHER".

Your first bullet is unclear. I assume you mean if the original image is in a thesis, not if the future use is for a thesis. And that assumes the author hasn't given copyright to anyone else, a publisher or (possibly) the  university.

@Buffy: thanks I clarified the first point. Thesis published with publisher is the 2nd bullet point, though. And I haven't met a thesis whose copyright was by the university unless the university acts as publisher - I clarified this as well. (Over here, the possibilities to transfer IP rights for student work to the university are limited)

Often times publishers give blanket permission to reuse material from published papers in theses and dissertations produced by authors of the papers.

Citing images is not the same as including them. Presumably those images are under copyright held by others, probably publishers. You have to respect those copyrights in any work to be published.
Even if your thesis is not going to be published, I'd recommend that you employ standard scholarship methods in creating it. While citation absolves you of plagiarism charges, it doesn't permit republishing copyright material.
The problem with images is that they often (not always) employ creative elements, giving a copyright to the creator (most jurisdictions). And, they can also carry a lot of information. So, while quoting a sentence or two from a copyrighted work is normally fair use, copying an image can be considered a significant element of a work. Moreover, one of the concerns in copyright law (most places, again) is that if the new "infringing" work reduces the "value" of the original, it is considered more serious.
"Recreating" the image may not save you, either, as that would, possibly, be considered a "derived work" which is one of the rights covered under (most) copyright law.
The solution to the dilemma is to ask the copyright holder for permission and describe your use. I'd guess that most publishers will agree that it is fine, though it might take some time to get the necessary permission. Use in a thesis will, I hope and expect, be granted.

Note that the caveats in the above are needed because copyright law is normally civil, not criminal, law and it varies in some places.

The author of the original work will consider this fair use so copyright is not my concern. But rather if it is considered good/bad practice in science to do so.

Careful. The author probably isn't the copyright holder so has no direct say in what is or is not fair use. It is bad practice to breach copyright. The author might have some influence with the publisher, however. And, as a young scholar, copyright should be your concern.

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


text:
Nostrification of a diploma as a Ukrainian
Good afternoon!
I have a rather difficult situation, I hope you can help.
My wife is a Ukrainian from Crimea, has two citizenships, at the time of the occupation of Crimea she was 16 years old (she just received a Ukrainian passport and Russia immediately came).
As a result, she already received a certificate of secondary education in Russia. She already received a diploma of higher education in St. Petersburg. As a result, as the war began, she left the Russian Federation and arrived in Ukraine.
Will she be able to get a Nostrification of a diploma as a Ukrainian in Europe? Because the diploma was actually issued for a Russian passport?
She has all the documents in her hands:

Ukrainian passports (internal/foreign)
Russian passports (internal/foreign)
Originals of the certificate/diploma.

Thanks a lot!

What exactly would this nostrification be for?  I think the answer could very well depend.  I can say that, for the US, there is no such thing as official governmental recognition of secondary school diplomas, and everyone who wants to know about your secondary education (for example universities considering admitting you) decides on its own what to accept (though note that secondary education is not a strict requirement for university admission in the US).  Most institutions in the US probably would not bother with trying to strictly verify her credentials.

Disclaimer: I'm not an authority on this, but hopefully, my answer could be helpful.
If she has a degree in a sensitive subject, like medicine (or nuclear physics?) and she plans to pursue it, there might be some difficulties, eg a  required re-certification, at least initially. Even then some entry-level positions (eg in health care) might be possible.  Otherwise, I doubt this would be a big problem --- at least, I suppose not in the UK or France. There might be bureaucratic delays, but the main thing is that she's legally entitled to be in Europe, and hopefully people will be understanding. Also, several countries/universities in Europe probably have special academic programmes and other support. It might be worth contacting the local diaspora. Hopefully, something works out, and the best of luck!

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


text:
Concerned PhD student used employee for experiments and didn't acknowledge their work
Okay, So I'm not sure if I am making a big deal out of nothing but I am concerned based off of what I have heard so I figured I'd ask for advice.
I recently left a R&D job at a small private company that specializes in endoscope/surgical tool reprocessing systems.  I have stayed close with some of my co-workers one of which was put on a new project for the head of one of the other departments.  We will call my coworker "B" and the head "M".
M is going for her pHD in Health Science. Part of this included doing extensive testing on endoscope reprocessing (think months of work: testing the scopes and research).  M told B that she couldn't do the work (according to her her committee wouldn't allow her to) and B was assigned the task.
B spent time doing testing, troubleshooting issues (because M's solutions were not working and flawed) and writing up her data with some basic data analysis involved.  Apparently this data was core in M's thesis.  When M presented for the Committee it was over ZOOM so B was able to be present.
B received no credit anywhere in the acknowledgements and based off of comments from the committee B was under the impression that the committee thought M did the work. B is frustrated because that was months of her work and I am concerned that the committee is not aware that M didn't do the work or design the experiments.
So I have 3 questions:

Should B have received credit/been put on the paper?
Does it make sense for M to not have done the work herself?
What if anything would be a logical next step?

I am a bit confused by the terms you use: You talk about M's thesis which I understand as the written part. B attended when "M presented for the Committee" which I assume was a talk with subsequent discussion. Then you ask if B should have "been put on the paper", sounds like a written document again. Can you clarify if B's contribution was acknowledged neither in the written thesis, possibly publications, nor during the thesis defense? Do you know this for sure?

So the thesis was defended and during the presentation B was present for this and was not acknowledged at all. No one has told B she will be acknowledged in the written thesis or publications (based off of my experience people tend to tell you if they will be putting your name on either and you often have to sign an affidavit that you were in fact involved).

The way you describe it now suggests that you do not know for sure that there is no acknowledgement of B's contribution in the written thesis. When defending their thesis, PhD candidates often lean towards  overpolishing their results and sometimes err on the side of overstating their own contribution. This is not best practice, but does not imply anything about what is written down in the thesis. The committee might therefore be well aware of the facts by reading the thesis. Be careful not to jump to conclusions.

Based on your summary here, yes definitely.

No, I can't see a reason that makes any sense at all that M couldn't do this work; if they couldn't do the work they should have addressed that with their supervisor and adjusted their topic.

I'd recommend that B ask for a meeting between B, M, and M's thesis supervisor to discuss. Next steps depend on whether the thesis supervisor sees this as a problem or not.

There may be a separate issue about use of internal company resources that's not really relevant to the academic issues and so I haven't addressed it.


text:
Word to describe "continuous relationship" between predictor and outcome variable
I'm writing my methods section where I want to stress that I am not looking at the effect by condition, but exploring the continuous relationship between my predictor variable and the dependent variable. Both are continuous variables in my analysis, but the original study where the data comes from bins the predictor variable by High and Low, and just looks are the main effect of condition (High/Low), so I'm trying to clarify that this is not what I'm doing here.
"We are interested in the continuous effect of Y on X, rather than the overall effect of condition". I feel like "continuous" is not clear/misleading. I feel like there must be a proper term for what I'm trying to say, perhaps something obvious, but I can't think of what this is called.

I'm a bit uncertain as to what you are dealing with, but my initial thought is that some version of "continuum model" might be appropriate. The primary origin of the notion, at least from what I know, is from continuum mechanics, but the term is now often used in other situations. For example, beginning with this google search, add various words such as "business", "biology", "predator-prey", etc.

"Continuous" is standard terminology for variables and their relationships in statistics.
I would explain explicitly what differentiates your current paper from previous work: e.g., previously X was dichotomized as high/low, whereas you are using X as a continuous variable. Might also be worth emphasizing whether X is actually continuous or not (some examples where you might treat X as continuous from a modeling sense would include counts or other fine-scale but technically discrete variables like a score that takes only integers, or even clearly discrete items like Likert scores that nonetheless often behave acceptably when treated as continuous). That is, distinguish between variables that are continuous and approaches to analysis that treat them as such.
The part that feels wrong to me in your sentence is:

rather than the overall effect of condition

There's no "rather" here; a continuous relationship might as well be an overall effect, though that sort of phrasing typically comes up in ANOVA contexts where an F-test of the hypothesis that some factor with more than 2 levels has an effect, without specifying which levels, is described as "overall". In your case I might say "rather than binarized/categorical coding of condition".

What are some examples of non-continuous relationships? Having continuous variables discretized is common, and it is a standard terminology indeed (stats.SE has a bunch of examples), but I would find "discrete relationship" to be a confusing term, especially with mixed data when it is used to describe a disjoint family of functions. Underlining that the variable can be treated as continuous and one can use metrics without e.g. one-hot encoding first makes sense to me, but that is still speaking about variables, not relationships.

@Lodinn I'd recommend describing variables as continuous and then making clear how you are relating them; e.g., a linear relationship between continuous variables. I don't think I've recommended using the phrase "discrete relationship", but any association between a factor and another variable is not a continuous relationship.

@Lodinn Well, sex/gender for one.

@BryanKrause thanks, that's helpful. I agree with your comment on the "rather..." wording as well, rephrased that bit. Thanks again!

While "continuous" is pretty obvious to a mathematician, it might not be in your own field. But "fine-grained" might work, though it isn't the same thing mathematically. In some fields, "deterministic" might also work if small changes in one variable lead to predictable changes in the other.
But if your methodology just uses (lots) more "bins" then "fine-grained" is pretty accurate.


text:
Is is okay to write "awarded" when the selected list is released online, but final offer yet to receive?
Is it okay if I write in letter/e-mail, the following?
   "I have been awarded recently ..."
when the final selected list for the award is published online, but the actual award offer letter is yet to receive?

In general I would say that this is perfectly acceptable (although the phrasing more accurately should not use the past, but the future tense - "I will receive the 2019 XYZ award, see ").
The only reason I see to be cautious about this is if it's not 100% sure yet that you will actually get this award. I would say if the respective agency or selection committee has already made available a public list I would count this as sufficiently certain, but if you for instance had learned about it through more informal means (e.g., your department head has received a phone call that one of his employees will receive additional funding, or something along these lines) I would be a bit hesitant to already officially brag about your award.


text:
How to justify capability for securing research funds in a faculty job application?
I am a professor of mechanical engineering in Russia. I have an excellent record of publications and some visiting experiences in the US. Now I want to apply for a faculty position in the US.
One criterion is a strong record of previous funds obtained. In Russia, the funding system is completely different. If I list my funded projects, the values look ridiculous in comparison with the US funded projects (where an assistant professor secures millions of dollar). This does not mean that my research projects have not been funded as well as the US rivals.
How can I convince the search committee that I have capability to secure research funds from the US funding agencies?

Why don't you just list the grants that you have received, optionally with some measure of how competitive the funding scheme is (e.g., acceptance rates etc.)? I would assume a selection committee to understand that acquiring external funding is different from country to country, and that you were previously able to acquire funding will be a positive even if the amount sounds small in US$ terms.

Also, do assistant professors really usually acquire millions of dollars in the US?

Unfortunately, the funding systems in Russia and the US are so different, that successful record of securing research funding in Russia is not really an evidence of someone's capability to secure funds in the US. You could try applying for joint grants with US partners first.

@xLeitix -- I have friends in Mechanical Engineering who were told that to get tenure, $1M in grants is a decent guideline.

$1M+ in grants, plural, though, yes?

Selection committees know that there are different standards in different countries. What is important is that you give them a list of the grants you have obtained, along with a perspective on what that means in your country. In other words, document things such as the typical size of grants, the success rate of proposals, or maybe the typical amount of grant funding a professor at one of the better universities in your country has. All of this puts your achievements in context, and allows the selection committee to already get an idea how competitive you have been in securing grant funding and how that might translate to your competitiveness in the US.
If you make that hurdle, and the selection committee is still interested in your case, then there are sufficiently many international faculty in the United States that a committee can always call up someone who knows the system in your country and ask them what they thought of your track record regard research funding.

I wonder what the grants cover in Russia? e.g. if the researchers' salaries, overheads, and any students are funded independently of a grant, of course it will be lower -- and you may even be able to state that it was a grant for equipment only (or equipment + consumables or whatever).  The challenge may be in coming up with precise, concise wording.

Correct. In much of the world, faculty are paid 12 months a year, and consequently grants don't include faculty salary -- and are thus significantly smaller. These are all things that should be mentioned in the application.

I'm in a part of the world where faculty are fully employed by the institution but are expected to bring in funding to cover the costs of running a research group including at least some of their salary.

I am not in your discipline, but have served on and chaired search faculty search committees. In my opinion, if you list the grants that you have obtained, you can established a track record of grant funding. To strengthen it, I would do research about where in the U.S. you would apply for grants (specific funding announcements, federal agencies, etc). Also, if you can identify potential collaborators in the U.S. who are funded, that may strengthen your proposal.
I have interviewed international candidates who have been successful in their home countries, but fall flat when trying to articulate a strong plan for securing research and starting up their projects in the U.S. Hence, I feel that if you coupled your past successes with a strong plan for the future, it may still be viewed as favorably. Also, if you have information about how competitive the grants were that you have previously secured (i.e. rejection rate), that may also help your argument.

An apples to oranges comparison would not make sense here, and a reasonable hiring committee will recognize that.  In other words, forget about the dollar figures and focus on demonstrating that you are strong in the skills needed: writing a strong proposal, planning a budget, carrying out the program, keeping good records, sticking to your budget, writing progress reports (if I left anything out, please chime in with a comment or an edit).

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


text:
how to read research paper word-by-word and comprehended it?
I know it has been related to other questions, but this is different angle.
I am a trying to read research papers more efficiently. Off course, I came to realize that large papers are not meant to be read word-by-word, but focusing on sections of interest.
However, even when try to follow my understanding sequence and read the parts I am interested at, I usually have difficulty in two particular things:

sometimes the paper uses too many jargon I am not familiar with, which would require me reading the same part multiple times, google and come back and so forth. Sometimes I don't even have the time to finish and understand an average size section because of that jumping between resources.
Explaining in the figure is usually done, but reading, especially online, makes it hard to keep the figure and text aligned. Even worse, some articles like in arxiv would have the figures 10s of pages away from the text. Again, hopping between paper is consuming and my attention span can't usually hold "what I was reading? what I was looking at?" cycle.

During my studies, many times I need to read 10 articles from start to finish in short period, these limitations makes it difficult for me.
One thing that mitigate that is printing out the articles and highlight and write definitions, but sometimes it is costly to print.
Is there are some pro tips for reading well for the internet?

I’m assuming, correctly or incorrectly, you’re mainly reading papers in English. Practice in reading and writing will build comprehension skills. I couldn’t tell you how to shortcut that.

"but reading, especially online, makes it hard to keep the figure and text aligned" Well, you can open the file twice to see both pages at the same time (preferably on a second screen, but if necessary it also works on a single screen).

If a paper uses too much jargon that you are not familiar with, then that is an indication that you are missing the background knowledge of the field that the paper assumes its readers will have.

What field are you in?

As @TobiasKildetoft says, you have not internalized enough background yet (it is a learning process) to quickly parse things. One does not read technical material word-by-word (or even reading children's stories aloud).

Is the language that you're reading in the same as your native language, or different?

First, I don't want to assume, but it's pretty clear English is not your native language and you might need practice in "regular" English. You might also try translations of article. Google Translate is free; it's far from perfect, but it has improved a lot in recent years, especially for relatively common languages.
Second, regarding figures, you can a) Print the figure (if you have access to a printer) b) Use two monitors (again, if you have that) c) Split your screen into windows (works best with a larger monitor). (You mention that it can be costly to print, but, if you just print the figures, you usually have relatively few pages).


text:
Difficulties with exams
I am a German undergrad Math student (3rd year) at the university of Munich and I would classify our courses as relatively hard compared to what I have heard from other (German, but also some other Country's) universities.
During the terms, I really dedicate almost all of my free time to studying and Math itself because I really enjoy it and love learning new stuff.
Yet, I really struggle at exams. I am always able to pass the exams by doing the standard exercises, but once it gets to tasks where you have to have the right ideas and think a little bit more I am unable to have a clear head and almost never get a REALLY good grade.
My grades are almost always around B+ to B- (if correctly translated), but never an A or even A+, since there's always some exercises that I can't solve. I start feeling like I am either studying the wrong way or I am simply too "stupid" to do some harder exercises.
Whenever I talk to graduate or PhD students or even professors, they always tell me that they have been straight A+ students and I've never met one who was just an average or maybe a little bit above average student.
So my question: Is the excuse "I am just bad exams" a legit one and if not, how can I work on it? I don't think that I don't study enough, it's actually not really possible to dedicate more time to be honest. I would really love to stay in the academic field but I am afraid I am not the right type of person to work on higher mathematics.

One of my favorite researchers about computation geometry wrote this: "I have the lowest undergraduate GPA (2.4/4.0) of any professor I've ever met, although some of my colleagues came close, and some others never finished college at all. (I really shouldn't be proud of that.) "
I mean, he's really publishing top tier research. Thus, it is not about grades.

Despite the OP being an undergrad, this is not a issue that is specific to undergrads!

You seem very passionate about it, so that is great

I'm glad to hear that not every researcher was a fully "A+ student". I just get so disappointed when I don't get the grades I want, even though I commit so much time to it.

Not having participated in a PhD program, but I'll say this: There is a tension in undergraduate testing around depth, time, and security (see many other questions). Obviously a math researcher needs some creative problem-solving, but whether this can be expected within an hour is debatable. I'd suggest that you take one or two graduate courses before matriculation to see if you like/succeed at that level.

I would argue that the nature of problems in research tend to be very different from undergrad exercises, and there is weaker correlation between excelling in both that it is generally assumed.

In my experience, if you're interested in joining a PhD program, as long as you're above the minimum required GPA they weigh your research experience, publications (if any) and recommendation letters much higher than your scores. If you want to find out whether you like academia and academia likes you back, find a professor willing to work with you on a research project or ask if one of their graduate students needs help with something. There are people who are great at both research and exams, but they are two very different skills IMO.

Whenever I talk to graduate or PhD students or even professors, they
  always tell me that they have been straight A+ students.

Depending on the school, country and program, graduate courses are almost always straightforward to get very good grades in since they are largely literature and/or project based. Undergraduate programs tend to be harsher with grading and exams. I would wager that at least some of these academics you've spoken to don't remember their undergraduate scores exactly. :)


text:
Despite excellent grades, does having no rapport with any member of the faculty preclude my getting LoRs?
I am a decently good student (3.8 gpa, 4th year undergraduate). I have gotten A and A- in all major courses (except a B- right as I transferred), but I have a concern. I have Asperger Syndrome and dislike social encounters and crowds; therefore, I have always done my work in solitude and avoided interaction with peers or faculty whenever possible. I am sure that I am a good student, so I was convinced on this basis that I'd be a good candidate for a PhD program. Now I am finding out, however, that 3 letters of recommendation are expected to accompany an application to a US PhD program (in philosophy).
None of the professors whose classes I've taken, despite my above average work (including a handful of A+ essays), know who I am or what I've done or what I'm capable of, etc. Therefore I feel very hesitant to ask for a letter of recommendation, as I expect it cannot contain more than a restatement of my transcript in some way. [Even if I explain that I had good reason not to interact with others, that doesn't retroactively cause anyone to know me better.]
If I were to ask my professors/lecturers (past and current) for a letter of recommendation, am I correct in concluding I will likely get none, or at least none that are good? Additionally, is it true that one cannot apply to a PhD program in the US with no recommendations? Finally, if I secure 3 mediocre letters of recommendation, should I apply just in case I'm accepted?
Thanks.

So... have you actually asked any of your professors for a LoR? Before you worry about no one being willing to write one for you, verify whether or not that's even a problem. And any decent professor will tell you if they don't feel confident in writing one for you.

"None of the professors whose classes I've taken, despite my above average work (including a handful of A+ essays), know who I am or what I've done or what I'm capable of, etc." You lost me a little bit here.  A professor whose class you've taken and done well in should know who you are.  Also, some of them will know at least some of what you've done -- namely the A+ essays -- and thus some of what you're capable of.  If you bring back the A+ essays, they have something to talk about that is not a restatement of your transcript.  I think you're being too negative.

@PeteL.Clark Since mostly the work is graded by TAs, it seemed reasonable to me to assume that it's possible I got an A+ but the professor didn't read the paper.
to tonysdg: In the event I do this, I was wondering, assuming I get 3 at least mediocre letters, can that be adequate for application?

@Ryan: Ah, I didn't think of that.  Still, even if they haven't read the papers before, it seems likely that an A+ paper will be well-received by them.  So you could approach them with this excellent work of yours, and if they like it, it gives them something to write about.

To be successful in a PhD program, you must develop close working relationships with faculty.  I would suggest learning that skill before you start your PhD, because once you start your PhD, you will face a time limit to apply that skill (typically the deadline to advance to candidacy).  Your university likely has a professor with Aspergers who can advise you on how this is done.

I'm wondering what country you're in where undergraduate philosophy programs are so large you could avoid getting to know your professors.  2) From my limited interactions with philosophers, it seems to me that the culture of philosophy at least in the US prizes the ability to verbally outargue other philosophers in person during questions after a talk or at dinner, so I'm worried it puts people with Aspergers at a particular disadvantage.

I think you are right to be a bit concerned as good grades will not distinguish you from the hundreds of other similar applications.  That said, simply 'okay' LoRs shouldn't stop you from applying as there are other components to an application (statement of purpose, writing sample, etc.).  Are you applying in the typical fall cycle?  If so, you still have time this summer to become more involved - but you will have to ask your professors if they know of or have any outside of class opportunities to do so.

My professors would recognize me, sure, and I do/have asked questions during lecture, but I believe I would be indistinguishable from many other students, except for being (from their point of view) awkward/eccentric. I am returning for a final quarter in the fall to complete my undergrad degree, so I still have some time. What does being more involved look like, and how do I ask such a question?

@Ryan A   I got my undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering/mathematics, so I'm afraid I don't know the specifics relevant to philosophy.  In STEM fields, professors are often given funding to specifically encourage undergraduate involvement in their research, to help undergrads learn what research is and what a PhD may do.  While these programs may not exist in philosophy, what you can do is go to a professor/s directly - tell them you are interested in becoming a PhD, would love to spend more time now on (some topic/range of topics), but am currently at a loss of how to do so usefully.

@Ryan A   It's likely going to be very awkward, but it will be worth it.  They may not be able to help you much, but likely be able to give you some advice or even some specific direction.  And it shows again your interest.  If you are lucky, they might be able to involve you in some small way in their work.  This is exactly what I did when I was starting out -undergrad programs in my dept. existed, but I had no knowledge of them.  During spring term, I essentially met with professors, told them I wanted to do research but had no idea where to start.  Scary at the time, but it turned out well.

I have added the tag "disability" although I would have preferred "Aspergers" or "neurological differences."  But I want others with similar questions to be able to find this.

Yes, you can ask for recommendations from people you don't know well; send an email with one to three of your best papers attached, as well as an unofficial transcript; in the body of the email, remind the professor which course(s) you've taken with that person.  Include a sentence or a paragraph about what draws you to the idea of grad school, that is, show your spark.
Yes, you can apply for grad school with mediocre letters; you may or may not get in.  (I do not know whether the letters you would harvest at this point would be mediocre or not.)  You are right that this might not be the optimal way of proceeding.
Now I'll address what you asked in a comment.

"What does being more involved look like?"  In other words, as a student with Asperger's, who is not naturally outgoing or extroverted, how can I get to know my professors better, with the goal of garnering more effective letters of recommendation?

I'm glad you asked this well in advance of application season, because this gives you time to get to know potential letter writers before you really need the letters.

Ask questions and contribute to class discussions.
(You've done this -- check!)

Visit office hours to start to build an academic relationship.
You don't have to need help with a project in order to visit office hours.  If you are not sure how to structure a conversation in office hours, you could send an email requesting an appointment (so that the professor isn't thrown off thinking you're just coming in for five minutes to, for example, request clarification of an assignment); if I were in your shoes I would say, quite clearly,

"I would like to go to grad school and am hoping to get to know you better, so that I can comfortably ask you to write a letter of recommendation.  However, I have Asperger's and am not accustomed to visiting office hours, but I would like to try; I may need some help getting started with having a productive conversation." (You can use this as is or modify it to make it your own.)

You can also start a conversation through email.  Some individuals are more comfortable with email than in-person visits.  If you're not sure which would work better for you, you might want to try both approaches.
In office hours and in email correspondence, in order to break the ice sometimes it is helpful to share a list of universities you are thinking about applying to, and ask for help in narrowing down the list, or adding to it (depending on the length of your list!).  In other words, you can ostensibly be asking one thing, as a way of getting the ball rolling.

Note that you can ask your university's office of students with disabilities for assistance if you want to.  There is no guarantee that they will help, but they might, and as long as you don't put all your hope in that external assistance, there's no harm in trying.  (Some of these offices are great, some less so.)

You might find it helpful to have a grad-application buddy.  Sort of a partner in crime.  Someone who's going through the same process as you, and you support each other through the process.  In fact, your application buddy might go with you to the first couple of office hours visits for moral support.

Is there a department of philosophy at your current institution? Are there any formal/semi-formal ways that professors and graduate or undergraduate students in philosophy meet as a group? Such as a seminar series or colloquium? Assuming you are applying for the fall where deadlines are often somewhere around December 1st, you still have time to participate in these. If you don't know where to find out about these sorts of events, it would be appropriate for you to ask one of your professors, especially if you state your future interest in graduate school. "I am interested in graduate school in philosophy and I was wondering if there are seminars that graduate students here participate in, and if so, if I can join as well."
Understandably, these might be uncomfortable situations for you, but perhaps your shared interest in philosophy would help distract you from the social aspects (especially because it sounds like you successfully cope in lecture settings, and have even been comfortable asking questions, which might put you ahead of many fellow students who would otherwise identify as neurotypical).
Otherwise, or in addition, how do you prefer to express yourself? It sounds like you have some success with writing. I think you could also write to a current/former professor who shares some of your interests: "I am interested in topic XXX and I am interested in a future in graduate school in philosophy. I dislike some social situations because of Asperger Syndrome but I am interested in discussing the topic with you. Would you have time and be willing to read and comment on some writing I intend to do on the subject outside class (~xx pages)?"
Professors may or may not have time to accommodate you with that request, but at a minimum it shows that you have some interest in the topic beyond coursework which won't hurt you, and in the optimal situation, you will interact with that person more closely and have an opportunity both to express your interests and abilities and to have a contact person for suggestions for other aspects of the graduate application process (such as particular programs/professors at other institutions that will also align with your interests).
And just to add a response to your actual title question: No I do not think it precludes you getting recommendation letters, but you will probably not get the one stellar letter that makes an admission committee look extra close. Depending on how the rest of your application looks as well as the personal opinions of the admissions committee, it might not matter at all in any case. Recommendation letters can be difficult to interpret. Given the time you have between now and when applications are likely due, I would advise that you make some effort or set a goal to have at least 1 professor who can give you a more personal letter of recommendation, through some of the strategies I suggested as well as @aparante001. Even if you don't feel like you are able to accomplish this goal, I would suggest you apply anyways with whatever letters you are able to obtain. If your coursework is as strong as your impressions are, I think those letters will read much better than mediocre, they just won't be intensely personal.

I forgot about seminars.  Great suggestion.


text:
Whether/how to list a failed student on my CV
I'm a postdoctoral researcher.  My professor recently asked me to co-supervise one of her doctoral students, whom she also employed full-time as a research scientist.  Since I had no prior experience advising at the doctoral level, I gladly accepted.  Unfortunately, the guy turned out to be a phenomenally poor researcher.  He was habitually late for work, took absences without leave, lacked subject-matter knowledge that we expect even of undergraduate students, and had extremely poor oral and written communication skills.  I worked my best to help him, and we even managed to get a paper published (though I had to completely rewrite his draft, many parts of which were completely nonsensical or even plagiarised).  However, his bad work habits continued, and despite my tutelage he remained unwilling or unable to fill the gaps in his knowledge.  After about six months of my co-supervision, my professor decided to dismiss him from the doctoral programme and from employment.
I'm currently seeking employment, including tenure-track positions.  My question is whether and how I should list this failed student on my CV.  On the one hand, I think it would be helpful to show that I have at least some experience advising at the doctoral level.  But I don't want it to reflect poorly on me that the only such experience I had was ultimately a failure.  Should I list him or not?  And if so, what explanation, if any, should I include in the CV as to why the supervision didn't continue past six months?

@Roland. That's an answer, not a comment! Please consider re-posting it as an answer.

the fact you got some student shafted doesn't make you any more attractive as a professor, quite the contrary. your professors decision to dismiss may actually be the result of your failure (perceived or otherwise). i'm not the only person who thinks this way. this is the best constructive criticism i can offer; i would not mention it on a CV, i would not offer it freely during an interview, this isn't a selling point if that's what you were thinking. personally, I would steer clear of this candidate -- if only because s/he doesn't yet realize the goal was to teach, and not to judge.

the goal was to teach, and not to judge — Incorrect; repeat after me: a PhD and an undergraduate degree are two completely different beasts. @ShaunWilson

@ShaunWilson: Your profile indicates you're a software developer, not an academic. Do you have any experience hiring tenure-track faculty or is your comment just uninformed speculation?

One thing to keep in mind is that tenure-track faculty generally do not list failed PhD students on their CVs.  One might argue that they should actually, since -- unlike a non-academic resume -- a CV is supposed to be a factual, comprehensive record of one's academic career, but nevertheless academic culture doesn't cut this way.
The next thing I will say is that in my experience at least, "co-advisor" refers to a member of a group of more than one faculty member -- usually, though not absolutely always, tenure-track faculty members -- who jointly share the role of advising.  You seem to be using the term as a kind of "lieutenant advisor," but that could be misunderstood.  When the student's other advisor is your PI, it is likely that your advising duties are less official and more subsidiary.  In particular, you write "[M]y professor decided to dismiss him from the doctoral programme and from employment," not we decided...Nor did you hire the student, fund him and so forth.  However, from the sound of it, you played a large intellectual role in supervising the student.
So: I would not recommend you put a line on your cv which says "co-supervised a PhD student."  If potential employers are interested in that, they are likely to ask you about it, and when they find out that the student didn't graduate, I think that sounds bad...in particular, it sounds not completely forthcoming.  On the other hand, "co-supervised a PhD student who did not finish [or however you want to put it]" also sounds bad, as I mentioned above.
I would suggest instead that you put a line on your CV saying that you mentored a PhD student and that mentoring relationship resulted in a joint paper.  That's a successful mentoring relationship.  The student was not ultimately successful in the PhD program, but I claim that you're not on the hook for that: you didn't hire him and you didn't fire him.  If they ask for more information about the PhD student, you should of course be completely forthcoming about the fact that he was dismissed after six months, as well as all the help you gave him.  If/when this additional information comes to light, it does not undermine what you said before in any way.  Since you are not claiming the PhD student as your own, his fate is not your responsibility (which is true!), and so your involvement in the situation looks (and was, based on your description) entirely positive.

Where I work, only professors are legally permitted to admit, dismiss, and "advise"/"supervise" graduate students.  But in practice, my professor delegates much of the advising work to senior research staff. We hold weekly one-on-one research meetings with the students, review or coauthor their papers, and (at least for the Master's level) ghost-write the professor's review of the thesis.  Maybe at other institutions this is called mentoring, but we always call it "co-supervision" or "secondary supervision".

@user6171: It may well be that I have given advice that is more centered on my academic field and geographic location (mathematics, US) than yours (unspecified!).  In my field it is rare for postdocs to be advisors, but when they do they step up to get full credit for it.  I think the term "secondary supervision" is more clear than "co-supervision".  I also think that "mentoring" describes better your experience with this student: six months is a reasonable amount of time to mentor a PhD student, less so to advise them....

...But if the term "mentoring" is not commonly used in your field, I would avoid using it on your CV.  I still think that if your one supervising experience is with a student who got dismissed in six months (in my field at least, that is alarmingly fast), then you are going to have a hard time getting credit for your advisorly skills.  Perhaps you should use a yet more neutral term: e.g. "worked with a PhD student."  Anyway, what does your PI think about this?   Or you know, your co-PI/secondary-PI/whoever is actually mentoring you...

+1 because this is about an early career CV going to apply to an academic position document .The  reason to figure out a way to document it in CV is to show that one has already been credibly learning and spending time mentoring students. (Not so much whether the student failed or succeeded, but that the postdoc has been learning how to mentor). Sure, a mid-career faculty member who has been supporting postdocs and students and has several successful PhD's and MS students is likely not going to bother including shaky newbie mentoring experiences, but this is early career situation.

This is half-truth. The information is very misleading. The fact is the fact, and just do not hide it.

This could be a great opportunity to show off your people and managing skills.
You had to balance all kinds of priorities. Your own project, his project, teaching him something, letting him figure things out himself. Then, as he showed to be weak, you had to balance letting him fail and getting a publication out of it despite his incompetence. I assume he wasn't booted from the program without notice, so you can tell that while you were taking steps to get him out you also kept a good working relationship, resulting in a paper. Your guidance resulted in some (good) results from a weak student. It also showed that you can work with people that are obviously not pulling their own weight, and that you are strong enough to fail students when they're not up to par.
I'd say this is probably a really nice starting point to tell a lot of stories in your CV or during an interview. "Guided failing phd student, still got a paper out of it" sounds good to me.
To write this in CV-speak you could do something like (apparently also already suggested in a comment):
"co-supervised a phd student for 6 months resulting in one publication"

Thanks for the discussion, but this doesn't really answer my question.  I know that once I get an interview, I'll have the opportunity to explain everything on my CV, including the bit about this student (if I list him).  My question is really about how to list the failed supervision on my CV (i.e., before I get an interview) in such a way that it doesn't reflect poorly on me.

You could just list the inclusive dates of the co-supervision (i.e., March 2015 - Sep 2015) without mentioning the dismissal, and explain the circumstances during the interview.

There is no failed supervision. Your prof was the supervisor. You were the co-supervisor. List the period of time and the subject. You don't have to title is as failed or not.How do you define a successful supervision...?

@BioGeo: I don't know any academic that would use the term "successful supervision" for a student who was dismissed from the program.  You're right that the supervision was not clearly a failure either, and I agree that using any such terminology is probably not helpful here.

""Guided failing phd student, still got a paper out of it" sounds good to me." Less so to me, honestly.

@PeteL.Clark That was my point. These terms are ambiguous and not helpful. The important is the supervision as an experience (for a post doc).

A disadvantage of mentioning it in your CV would be that if you do, chances are good that there would be some amount of follow-up conversation about it in the interview.  But who wants to talk about six months of frustration and an unhappy final outcome in an interview?  What a downer.  Better to focus on the positive in the interview.
The advantages of mentioning it do not seem to me to outweigh the disadvantages, since the paper that came out of it will appear elsewhere in your CV, and since the paper was mostly, or entirely, your work anyway.
The turtle writes some of her memories on the rocks on the beach, to remember forever.  Others, she writes on the sand, for the tide to wash gradually away.  This sounds like one for the sand.

chances are good that there would be some amount of follow-up conversation about it in the interview — The validity of this claim could very well depend on the field, but in my data-point-of-1 experience: on faculty interviews, nobody asked me about the several students I listed as co-supervising on my CV (most of the questions I fielded were about my proposed research program and how I planned to obtain funding). Listing these supervised students on my CV may well have helped my application in some small way, but I don't think it was something that required a lot of followup.


text:
GRE test from home
I have found that the GRE General Test may be taken from home: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/register/at_home
It doesn't appear to say on the site itself, but does anyone know if this is restricted to only the general test or are the subject tests also offered online?

Only the General Test, as far as I am aware, because far more people take this test compared to the subject tests. Subject tests are more specialized, similar to what the SAT Subject Tests used to be.  Therefore, there are fewer people taking each specific subject test and not so much a need to provide an at-home testing option.
Maybe ETS might make such an option in the future, but the way the COVID pandemic is now (which resulted in the creation of the at-home option in the first place), the trend of making GRE's in general optional at some departments, and the array of (technical) problems that can arise with the at-home testing, it doesn't seem that they will be able to justify doing so any time soon.


text:
Is it ethical to slightly improve upon someone's unpublished work posted in arxiv and publish before the original work?
Is it ethical to slightly improve upon someone's work posted in arxiv and publish before the original work, however citing the original work?
I mean suppose the original work gets rejected in a top-tier journal (generally top-tier journal takes so much time) whereas the improved version gets accepted in a mediocre journal (suppose the mediocre journal is fast in reviewing).
Then what should the author of the original work (I am the author of the original work) should do?

It’s ethical, but it doesn’t have the effect that you think it has. When the work is posted on arXiv then it is as good as published for the purpose of establishing priority on the results. Improving it and publishing your improvement “before the original work” won’t mean you get credit for the contributions of the original work because you “publisher first”, or indeed that you will undermine the original author’s credit in any way. You’ll just get credit for the improvements, and if they are only slight improvements, your credit will also be slight.

Try not to use 2nd/3rd person wording ("suppose you're in a situation where...", "hypothetically, what would one do if..."). It's obvious whenever anybody does this that they're really one of the people directly involved in the situation, and they're trying to hide their participation for whatever reason.

In this case, most people here have assumed you are the author of the derivative work. If you're actually the author of the original work, as your comments seem to suggest, you've just gotten a ton of totally useless advice, because you didn't specify who you were in the situation! Just be straightforward next time.

@DanRomik: in your comment above, you imply that "credit" is applied in an overly rational manner. However, there many cases where the original paper with the core contributions are lost while small revisions receive thousands of citations. With that said, I don't think minor revisions to an arXiv paper is a crime.

@CliffAB this sort of injustice involving misallocation of credit, to the extent it exists, can happen also with a follow-up paper that appears long after the original work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it’s irrelevant to OP’s question. My comment describes what should happen, and what does happen 99.9% of the time. Regardless, as far as the ethics is concerned the answer (which you agreed with) remains the same, namely that it is perfectly fine to publish any follow-up results you want to a publicly available preprint.

@knzhou why is it important to you that OP disclose their connection to the situation described in the question? It seems perfectly fine if they wish to not do so, and there may even be some very good reasons - for example, they might think they would get more objective advice if they leave that detail out. If they get useless advice it’s only because some people have a tendency to answer the question they wish had been asked rather than the one that was actually asked.

@DanRomik The point is that as written, it's hard to tell if the OP's question is "is publishing the derivative paper ethical" or "what should the author of the original paper do about it". OP has hinted they really care about the second question, but almost everybody is assuming they really were asking the first. I can't even definitely tell either way because it's so vague.

@knzhou agreed.

What do you mean by slightly improve? Is the text or figures used? Is it properly cited in the new version? Or you mean there is an idea used in the original version, and this idea is taken and used in the new version?

Please dont post answers in comments

Can we be clear here?  Is the situation that some other author, with whom you are not acquainted, effectively copied a paper you posted on Arxiv and got it published in a journal before you did?  Without referencing your paper or collaborating or including you as an author?

similar question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/137018/how-to-publish-superseding-results-without-creating-enemies

I question, as did Dan Romik, your characterization of work posted on arXiv as 'unpublished': it is made available to what amounts to the widest possible public, it is just an un-refereed publication (or perhaps arguably a kind-of very slightly refereed one, if you read the conditions).
I suggest that the ethics of it depend on whether the later-published paper  acknowledged the arXiv paper as earlier work, or not. If it did, I see no problem.
If the later paper made no acknowledgement, then maybe there is a problem if its editor/referee(s) happened not to spot the earlier paper in arXiv and took the whole content of the later author as original.
But what the arXiv author could do in that event I could not begin to suggest. Best response would probably depend highly on the particular circumstances, which would no doubt be awkward to set out in this medium.

If it's someone else's work, acknowledgement is insufficient to avoid plagiarism.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I mean suppose the original work gets rejected in a top-tier journal (generally top-tier journal takes so much time) whereas the improved version gets accepted in a mediocre journal (suppose the mediocre journal is fast in reviewing). Then what should the author of the original work need to do ?

@applied_math probably nothing.  If there were proof of plagiarism they could make an ethics complaint.  But there's little benefit.

@AnonymousPhysicist acknwledgement is insufficient to avoid plagiarism. That’s incorrect. See the comment I left below your answer.

@applied_math you seem to have some misguided notions about publishing. I can’t quite put my finger on the nature of the confusion, but your question “Then what should the author of the original work need to do?” makes no sense. The author of the original work shouldn’t do anything differently than they would have done anyway - if they got rejected from one journal they‘ll submit to another one. There is no reason whatsoever for them to be troubled by the other publication building on their work; if anything, it increases their own credibility and is something they should be pleased about.

If the "later paper made no acknowledgment", that is a SERIOUS problem. Using someone else's work without referencing it is one of the best ways to get yourself thrown out of any university, whether staff or student.

As long as you cite the prior work as such and make it absolutely clear what their contribution is relative to yours, then I think you are fine from an ethical standpoint. Papers on arxiv are published in the literal sense of the word, and there is nothing unethical about following up published work.
However, you also want to avoid annoying the other set of authors. The easiest way to do that is to get in touch with them and perhaps ask for feedback on your draft.
Unfortunately, this can be an awkward situation. Some people say they only post on arxiv after their paper is accepted to avoid people following up their work before it is accepted. The first paper deserves full credit.
TLDR: Be generous with giving credit.

I think the best solution here is to contact the original author. You do not know if the paper was submitted to a journal, what stage of review it is. Who knows, it might be already accepted and will be published tomorrow morning.
How about something along the lines of:

Dear Author Authorson,
I read your work titled "The almost most magnificent work ever done" published on arxiv, and I enjoyed it very much because it is relevant to my work on ABC and it can have implications for DEF. I wanted to ask you several questions.
I have found that by applying the method of X and adding equations Y and Z, the uncertainty is reduced by half. (you might want to be vague enough here to not disclose exactly how you did, otherwise the original author might scoop you on this) Have you thought about this option?
Is your paper submitted? What stage is it in? If possible, I would like to collaborate and potentially improve the paper to make it more suitable for XYZ.

Ideally, this might result in a joint publication for both of you. A win-win situation.

A huge chunk of academia is about improving others’ work, whether by independent verification of results, pushing the research envelope, or correcting errors in prior work.
A work that is based on an earlier work should cite it, and clearly mark the point at which the new work begins.
I see 2 question’s posed, with the scenario that E edits O’s original work W1, cites W1, then publishes the edited work W2. W1 is publicly accessible (as opposed to a private letter or similar).

Is E being unethical? If E marks the new work clearly, then that should be fine (think of it as a lit review of sorts). Otherwise, they’re trying to pass off someone else’s work as their own - that’s unethical. Sooner or later, one would expect that the similarity between W1 and W2 would be noticed, especially since W2 cites W1.
What does O do? In the ‘lit review’ setting, O can do a happy dance at being cited. This is academic success - someone thinks the work is good enough to take seriously. In the plagiarism setting, O can write to the publisher of W2, referring them to W1.

Credit to Dan Romik for noting that Arkiv isn’t “unpublished work”, and that credit ascribed to the subsequent author is proportional to the significance of the new work.

No, publishing someone else's work is plagiarism.  It does not matter if that work has been improved or if it is unpublished.  It is still plagiarism if you cite and acknowledge them.  It is totally irrelevant that the prior work is on ArXiv.
You can publish the improvement, but you must not include someone else's work.

I dont interpret this as a plagiarism question. What you say is correct, but I don’t think it really addresses the main point of the question.

@Thomas the question changed, but I think I still have the correct answer.  The asker may have wanted to ask "What do I do now that I have been scooped?" but that's not what they actually asked.

It is still plagiarism if you cite and acknowledge them. That’s incorrect. The definition of plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.” If you cite and acknowledge the earlier work, you are by definition not passing it off as your own. In that case it may still be that your paper is worthless because you didn’t add anything new to build on the earlier work, but you are not committing plagiarism.

@DanRomik No.  See "self-plagiarism" as a counterexample.

Again, plagiarism is defined very clearly in the dictionary definition I quoted. As for your supposed counterexample, self-plagiarism is not a special case of plagiarism (though one would be forgiven for thinking that it is - the terminology is illogical and confusing). See this answer for related thoughts. I stand by my earlier comment.

If you publish/write your improvements and cite their stuff, it’s not plagiarism.  If you publish an improved version of their stuff, it’s plagiarism, even if you acknowledge you didn’t write all of it.  Not clear to me what OP meant by “improve upon.”

@WGroleau the first two sentences of your comment contradict each other. Again, the question of whether it’s plagiarism or not depends only on whether you tried to pass off others’ work as your own (by failing to cite the earlier work and/or using sneaky/dishonest language), not on whether you “publish[ed] an improved version of their stuff” (according to any definition of “improved”, including in the meaning of “not improved at all”) or any other irrelevant issues. The issue of how much you improved on/added to the earlier work affects publishability, not the question of plagiarism.

No, they don’t.  Publishing your ideas on improvements is very different from publishing their stuff with your improvements.  As I said, OP was not clear which of those he/she wanted to do.

@DanRomik Adequate citation is needed. If you cite and acknowledge, but don't quote exact passages duplicated from the original, that's still plagiarism because the acknowledgement is not complete. For example, if you copy-paste a paragraph from the original into your paper and then just add a footnote citing the original, that's still plagiarism because you've not acknowledge use of the words, but only use of the ideas. If a student downloads an essay-mill paper and just adds a footnote at the end citing the mill, that's still plagiarism.

@cfr thanks. I think I’ve said all I had to say on the subject. Honesty, this isn’t rocket science; the dictionary definition sums it up better than all our complicated explanations of what is and isn’t plagiarism.

@DanRomik I've seen students think they've done all that's required because they've cited their sources. It is simple only if you already understand it. It seems overwhelmingly complicated to those who don't. It is not really complicated, as you say, but it is not as simple as handing them the dictionary definition and expecting that to be enough, either.


text:
How to interpret a postdoc rejection letter?
Few days ago I appeared in a postdoc interview. The PI was very much impressed with my resume and the interview went very well. The PI asked me when do you want to join. The next day he asked recommendation letters from two of my references (I am sure that they will give me a very good recommendation). After 2 weeks I got the rejection letter. How to interpret this rejection (he told me that the position is filled by some other candidate). This will be useful for my future postdoc endeavors.
I politely asked him the reason. He did not reply.
Thanks in advance. Sorry if this question is inappropriate.

Have you asked the PI to give you more detailed feedback on your application?

@Savostyanov: I asked immediately. He did not reply.

He is possibly just too embarrassed to give you a reason. Don't take this whole episode as a statement about yourself. You had a bad experience. Move on to the next great thing.

There may be an official advice out against giving reasons for rejection. It is always a very fine line for a prof to decide how much of a reason for rejection to give you that will not be used in court. Don't expect a reply, but be pleasantly surprised if they give you one.

The PI asked me when do you want to join Don't read too much into this question --- it's normal to ask the candidates when they will be able to start working. Many applicants have constraints (family reasons, other positions to leave with a notice, they need time to look for a house and move, etc.), so it's always best to inquire.

Are you sure he asked "When do you want to join?" That phrasing sounds like he's offering you the job. "When would you be able to start?" is the normal question.

There isn’t anything to interpret. The only conclusion you can draw is that there was another candidate whom the professor thought would be a better fit for the position, for an unspecified reason.
Our minds have a psychological tendency to want to fill in a lack of information with speculation and beliefs. The added information you have in this case is literally zero, so you must resist the urge to “interpret”; it is futile and serves no useful purpose.
Good luck with the job search!

It is impossible to say without more information, which you should seek. It may be that the PI in question didn't have final say, or some funding evaporated, or ...
It isn't out of the question that it was just a mistake.
It may also just be that they found someone they liked better or thought would be a better fit in the interim.
If you feel comfortable with the PI, you could just ask (nicely) what happened and that any feedback would be appreciated. It may not be possible for him to give you much information, but you might learn something.
It would be good to know if there was a deal-breaker somewhere, but you may have no way to learn that.
But in general, if you got a good feeling about the interview, it probably doesn't say anything about your future. Carry on, do your best.
While it is true that some people will act very positively in person, just to avoid any potential conflict, don't let that realization get in the way of acting positively and naturally yourself in future interviews. You can't control the things you can't control. The PI may have acted toward other candidates precisely as he acted with you, but then had to make a choice.

If the academic institution is as legally savvy as private industry, seeking more information is not likely to yield much. You are unlikely to learn anything that could be twisted into evidence in a lawsuit for illegal discrimination!

@alephzero, exactly so. But some folks might be willing to hint at least about what you might have done better. If the meeting is face to face (assuming it can occur at all) you can learn something from body language and facial expressions.


text:
Policies regarding to "extended preprint" versions of papers
I want to publish a paper I wrote as a preprint. Anyhow, the paper in its original form has 12 pages (let's call that "version A"). Version A anyhow was rejected, so I compiled a reviewed version for another conference (IEEE) with 10 pages (version B). Here, the paper got accepted as a short paper, requiring it to be shortened to 8 pages (version C), being the camera ready version to be published (non-open access).
Because a lot of content had to be left out in version C, I want to publish the original version A as a preprint. Anyhow, I am not sure how this works in terms of the preprint conditions of IEEE.
In https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/pubs/author_faq.pdf, IEEE defines a differentiation of an "accepted manuscript" and a "published version" of papers:

"Version B" is the "accepted manuscript"
"Version C" is the "published version"

Now, version A is not exactly part of this definition. If at all, it might be seen as a precursor (or extension) of the accepted manuscript.
Besides adding the link to the published version in the preprint, what do I need to do to not run into any problems with copyright when publishing version A on arXiv? Also, must I or may I change the title, indicating that this is a preprint version?
Edit:
My questions are for IEEE published papers:

What conditions for preprint publishing apply to a paper version that is different from "accepted manuscript" and "published version"?
Can a preprint's title differ from the published version?

I believe you are asking too many questions at the same time. As for the "can I publish this", I believe https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ does a great job at boiling down what's allowed for you.

Thanks for your answer. The linked page anyhow does not specify any of this - or related - information. Regarding to the questions asked, I updated my original question.

"I want to publish the original version A as a preprint. Anyhow, I am not sure how this works in terms of the preprint conditions of IEEE." Sherpa includes what you can do with the submitted version (cf. for LMCS for instance), I thought this would help. Sorry if it didn't.

Thank you for the new link. The other one simply led to a landing page. Question still remains what applies to the mentioned version that is NOT an "accepted" oder "published" version

I got the following advice from the IEEE copyright support center regarding to these questions (I'll paraphrase):
"Use either of the two following approaches:
a) post it as a regular preprint following the "accepted version" guidelines
b) post the longer version as a "version 1" and the accepted manuscript (8 page) as "version 2" using the versioning functionality for preprints at ArXiv or TechRxiv"


text:
Can a professor influence the graduate admissions committee if they are interested in a particular student?
I've had a promising Skype interview with a great professor from a top-level university in US. Our research interests are closely related and he encouraged me to apply BUT he says that all decisions are finally made by admission committee there.
The question is "Is a professor in such a high-level university able to affect admission committee if he really wants a student?" or "Does admission committee decision-making process become easier if a professor really wants an applicant?"
The main point is the difference between my transcript (which is a real catastrophe!) and my research background which is pretty good so the professor's decision might be different from admission committee.

Just a side question: is not the application for PHDs for the next in US closed?

Yes @SalvadorDali. I'm gonna apply for 2016

Thinking far in advance :-) smart move

See also: What are some red flags that even the professors cannot help in the admission?

Being on the graduate committee of my department, if a professor sends us a note that they'd like to have a student admitted and state that they will take on their adviser role, we will only not admit that student if there are any red flags in the file. Most other considerations (including GPA) are not all that important any more at that point.
The reason for this is that what you get to see about a student from their application file is really just a very inexact science. You get transcripts that don't say very much about the standards in each of the classes a student took, letters of recommendation that sound the same for almost all students, and statements of purpose that most of the time are pretty generic as well. In my assessment of files, GRE scores and the statement of purpose often carry most of the weight, but I am fully aware of the fact that GRE scores poorly correlate with success in graduate programs. In other words, if I can get a personal opinion from one of my colleagues stating that they're excited to work with a student, then that is worth a whole lot and it will carry the day unless there are obvious reasons in the file of a student to reject the application.

Thank you @Wolfgang :) That was the answer I was looking for specially as we work almost in the same field.

I should also note that statements of purpose that identify possible thesis advisers and, in the best case, discuss prior conversations with them, are the most helpful. So you should definitely state your conversation with that professor somewhere in your application documents -- just to make sure that the issue is not forgotten if that professor happens to forget telling the graduate committee about your discussions.

Great point @Wolfgang! I'll definitely do that. Thanks a lot :)

To back this answer up (as if it needs it), I've always heard that having a professor who wants you to come work for them is the single best thing you can do to improve your chances of getting admitted.

Dear @WolfgangBangerth, I have another question in this regard. What do you think of asking for an internship before applying? Is it fine if I ask the Prof for a summer internship just to get him to know me more and show him my abilities? I'm thinking it might increase the chance that "he suggests me to the admission committee". Thank you in advance :)

Sure, if you can get an internship, and you do well, that would almost guarantee admission. But, as I'm sure you know, internships are not common in the US and nobody I know actually takes internship students -- although I and many others I know get a few dozens requests for internships per year. So getting an internship might actually be a higher hurdle than getting admitted to the graduate program :-)

What are some red flags that even the professors cannot help in the admission?

The conventions for how graduate admissions decisions take place vary greatly from field to field. In some fields where graduate students do apply to a broad program rather than to work in a particular lab, individual faculty may have relatively small influence on the decisions of the admissions committee. The admissions committee in these cases may simply look for the students with the most promising records. In other fields, where graduate students apply to work in a particular lab, admissions committees are often aiming to recruit students whose research interests are well matched to those of faculty members in the department. In these cases, the faculty member in question often has a great deal of influence.
Of course, there is also variation from university to university even within the same discipline, though this may not be as great as the between-discipline variation.
All of that said, individual faculty may be limited in their ability to get a student admitted for any number of reasons. Often a PhD program has number of slots but a large number of faculty looking to recruit students. In these cases, support of a faculty member may be necessary but not sufficient for admission.

Others are providing a reasonable answer to the question you asked (how does admissions work?), but I wonder if the question you meant to ask is "How should I interpret that professor's comment?  Does this mean I'm very likely to be admitted?"
I'll help you interpret the professor's comment.  The answer is... it's very hard to read anything into that comment.  It could mean anything from "That professor is very excited about working with you and plans to advocate for your admitted (so you're likely to be admitted) but he wants you to know he can't make any guarantees" to "The professor feels that you are within the plausible range of someone who might be seriously considered for admission, so he is encouraging you to apply" to "The professor suspects admission might not be a slam-dunk or might be a long shot, but for politeness or other reasons doesn't want to come out and say that, so he is giving a veiled warning by noting that the admissions committee makes all decisions" to "The professor has no interest in working with you or advocating for your acceptance but there's no harm in encouraging you to apply", or anything in between.
The bottom line is that if you are interested in studying at that school, I definitely recommend that you apply.  The one sure way to guarantee that you won't be admitted, is to not apply.  So, do apply.
But don't read too much into the professor's comments.  You should not interpret this as a statement about your chances of admission.  Actually, at this point you shouldn't really speculate about your chances of admission -- it's not very constructive.  If it's not going to change anything you do, it's not worth worrying about.  And there are many factors that go into this that you can't predict.
The procedures followed by the admissions committee don't really change my remarks above.  Yes, in many fields, if the professor wants to advocate for your acceptance, the admissions committee will probably go along with that (barring any serious red flags).  But even admissions works that way at that school, this doesn't mean that the professor is necessarily going to advocate for your acceptance.  All he said is that he encourages you to apply -- a generic statement that many professors will routinely make to anyone who expresses interest, and certainly not a promise that he is going to advocate for your acceptance.
Bottom line: Again, there's not much point to speculating about how likely you are to be admitted.  It's unlikely anyone can give you an answer to that without much more detailed information -- and it's not a useful or constructive thing to worry about.  There are so many considerations that can affect whether you are admitted, which don't necessarily have anything to do with you.  My advice is, apply to a reasonable set of places that you would love to study at and you have a reasonable chance to be admitted to, and then just wait and see what happens.  Don't get yourself too caught up in speculating what might or might not happen.

As others have said, the specifics of the situation will vary from field to field and from one university to another.
At one of my graduate schools, applicants to the department selected an advisor and their applications where read exclusively the potential advisor who had complete control.
In my current department, decisions are made entirely by the graduate admission committee but these decisions will always involve asking faculty about their preferences. Of course, if I want a student and am likely to work with them, I can email my colleagues on the committee and attempt to influence the decision. This influence is real and can help at every stage of the process but there may be situations where it simply not enough to overcome departmental or funding limitations or other major red flags in a student's application. This influence can also vary by context within a department! For example, if I am able to fund a student entirely from a grant or other external funds, my influence is stronger.
So: Yes, professors can affect an admission committee's decisions if he really wants a student? and, Yes, the admission committee's decision-making process is easier if a professor really wants an applicant. This influence has limits and it does not mean you're in, but it is real.
Because the situation depends so much by context, you should trust the professor you're talking to give you a good sense of how much influence they have. It sounds like they believe it is largely out of his or her control. On the one hand, they may be trying to manage expectations for you, but it likely also reflects a real limitation in their ability to affect the outcome.

This depends on school, department and university rule.

completely on individual professor basis, i.e. each professor has own quota of students: so unless there are red flag like bad GPA, bad undergraduate university. If a professor say ok then it should be fine.

on committee Basis, i.e. a department share a quota, particular for US school. However, in this case a professor still have some influences, as they can use their own funding to get you enrolled. and also reasons as mentioned by others.