text:
What is the "chalk talk" at job interviews?
It was only recently that I heard about the academic "chalk talk" at job interviews (from biologist friends). As I understand, this is a closed-doors talk the applicant must give to the existing faculty. I was shocked that even through I am preparing to apply for faculty positions, I never heard of this practice before.
So my questions are:

What is this "chalk talk", and how common is it at job interviews?
Is it specific to biology, or at to least experimental fields? Almost all the information I can find about it online is focused on biomedical sciences (and the few articles that don't, still assume an experimental field). Perhaps the concept exists in other fields too but people use a different term than "chalk talk" to describe it?
My work is in one of the hard sciences and is purely theoretical. What are the main differences between experimental and theoretical (mathematically oriented) fields in how this chalk talk is given? Since most of the online advice I found concerned biology, I need to decide how much of it is relevant to me.

Update:
Many of the comments (and one answer) show that several people have completely misunderstood my question.  I would like to emphasize once again that the question is about the specific part of faculty position job interviews referred to as "chalk talks".  In the meantime, I found a hint that this concept might be specific to life sciences.  My question is not about lecturing techniques with white- or blackboards, nor about why this part of the interview is called a "chalk talk" (i.e. etymology).
It's about what this part of the interview is about, which fields have this as part of the job interview protocol, and what differences are there between biology and theoretical (math/physics) fields (i.e. what part of advice given by/for biologists should I take or ignore).
Here is an example of a blog post discussing interview chalk talks.

Could you add a country tag? The hiring procedure varies significantly between countries. In Germany in math we always have a scientific presentation (like a seminar talk) as part of the job interview but this is not closed door and not necessarily on the blackboard.

@Dirk I'm interested in answers for any European country, the USA, or any other culturally similar countries you might expect people to also apply to.

I would guess -- and it is only a guess -- that a chalk talk is a talk given in front of a white board (historically in front of a chalk board, hence, the name), where the speaker is expected to show something on the white board

@NajibIdrissi Because it is generally historical... Admittedly, I don't have numbers to back that up, but, by looking around, that's what I see. Of course, it isn't universal and some disciplines have no desire to switch, but, nonetheless, the trend is towards whiteboards and away from chalk boards.

It's unclear from your update, do you want to know what a "chalk talk" is or not?

@Laura would you consider engineering to be related to mathematics?

@SolarMike I think the answer might turn out to be field dependent. An engineering-specific answer is also welcome, though that is not what I am most interested in.

@NajibIdrissi so how do you recycle the chalk dust...

"My question is not (...) why this part of the interview is called a "chalk talk" (i.e. etymology).
It's about what this part of the interview is about" - note that the answers to these two questions might be essentially the same.

I can't comment on how common this is outside of biomedical sciences (my field), but it's becoming quite common in this field.
In terms of what it is, the "Chalk Talk" is a chance for you to talk about your research (past, current, and future directions) without hiding behind Powerpoint slides.
You'll typically be given up to an hour to do this, in front of the hiring committee and/or faculty. You'll have a whiteboard/blackboard/flip-chart so you can draw down a key figure or two, or write an outline of what you're speaking about. It's less formal than a normal talk at a job interview - if you are asked to do one, expect to be interrupted and questioned throughout.
There are many reasons these are becoming popular. It's easy for candidates to talk through a deck of slides they've had weeks to prepare, and the hiring committee doesn't necessarily learn that much about them as people or scientists. This is more dynamic - it lets you see how people think on their feet - and gives a real opportunity for people to display their passion. It's daunting to speak for an hour with no props or prompts, but a good academic who knows their field, has a clear research plan, and cares about their work should be able to do this.
Source - personal experience (I have been on training courses specifically about giving chalk talks in faculty interviews, albeit in a different field).

It's daunting to speak for an hour with no props or prompts - At least in pure math, it's very common to give hour-long talks without slides, but I guess you're saying there's a lot less writing on the board than is typical in math, yes?  To clarify a bit, are the biology chalk talks things you prepare roughly an hour of material for in advance?  And does one typically look at notes to keep on track?

@Kimball my stress and structures professor gave 2 hour lectures , one a week, involving differentiation, stresses, matrices and never brought any notes with him. Always proved everything and answered all the questions: this was the final year for the students and he was really good in his field... The students however, took LOTS of notes from the board...

Does this mean it systematically weeds out people who can think well over longer periods of time, but not right there on their feet?

@Mehrdad it seems likely, yes. But like all such processes it tests for what is testable, hoping to approximate what it wants. It has success stories and it has flaws.

I am not in Academia, but I find it very difficult to answer anything (other than very high level) if all you have is PPT, when I am asked to explain anything I always prefer to go to white board right away.

Chalk talks are pervasive in the biomedical sciences in the US since the tenure requirements, at an R1, is to obtain an NIH R01 grant. Since the target funding source is known (unlike a lot of fields) and the applications are fairly formulaic, the chalk talk is really helpful. They allow the candidates to present a high level overview of a problem in the field, tell the committee about the 2 or 3 aims of their future grant proposal and discuss how the aims address the problem. The candidate can then use the board to draw up the results of the pilot studies that they will be conducting over the next 3 years in preparation of the grant application.
Since the pilot data don't exist yet and the committee is going to ask a lot of worse case scenario questions premade slides don't work well. A typical chalk talk might involve a candidate drawing a set of axis and a hypothetical line representing the pilot data that goes up. The first question from the committee might then be what happens if the data go down. Then a discussion about how the literature says it won't go down, but it might be a U shape and the line gets redrawn.
I don't think chalk talks work as well when there are a variety of funding sources. Industry money requires a different approach than an NSF application. It would be hard for the committee to judge whether the applicant is on the right track for funding.

The hiring process in different countries vary quite a lot. However, once you get an invitation to a job-interview, you can expect that institution will tell you what you should prepare. In case you are unsure, just ask your contact person the institution. And there are many things that are not standardized and it should be clear that an applicant can have quite a lot of questions (Who is going to attend the scientific talk? Will there be a demonstration of your teaching skills? Will there be students? Will there be a meeting with the dean/students/…? Do you have to prepare any additional documents in advance?)

What I am confused about is that it was suggested to me that this "chalk talk" is a standard thing that I should expect to do at most institutions, and it should roughly happen in the same way.  Your answer suggests that it might not be so.

Another aspect of "chalk talk", in mathematics, in the U.S., is in contrast to pre-prepared talks with overheads/slides/powerpoint/whatever. That is, a "chalk talk" is much more "live", than a pre-recorded powerpoint talk, and, therefore, can show much more of the speaker's grip on the material. This sort of talk can also be expected to accommodate audience questions, which is another sort of "test".

A formal talk is where you show your work.  A chalk talk is much more about how you plan to lay out the first few years of your career, which can be quite different.
You should go into a chalk talk with a clear vision of how you plan to establish funding -- who will you apply for grants with, what will the specific aims of your first application be, who do you need to collaborate with, etc.  It will go over better if you can actually present your specific aims as the testing of very clear hypotheses.  You may also need to know your teaching aims, depending on the position.
You should show a plan of how you plan to bring your research up to speed during your start up phase, during which you might be low resourced (even if you come in with a generous start up package, purchases and renovations can take more time than you expect).  I often hear the question "If you need to do a project with just you and a single tech, what will you do?"
The discussion of the committees/faculty following a chalk talk (i.e., without the candidate) often center around if the candidate is ready for a faculty position, how well the faculty candidate "fits in" with the rest of the community in terms of the body of work.
If there's a feeling that the candidate has a flaw or two, the conversation may well turn to "is the candidate mentorable?"  Thus, if at a chalk talk you're feeling a bit pressed on by faculty at large, it's probably a good idea to listen to what they have to say, instead of feeling cornered and reacting defensively.


text:
Supervisor not helping with PhD graduation requirement of publishing
I am in the final stages of my PhD thesis with a renowned university in South Africa. For me to graduate, I must publish at least two articles on my topic. I have raised  this with my supervisor and all he said  was "I will see which angle we can take". Since then I have reminded him twice about complying with that university requirement with no success.
I have sent him my drafts for further assistance but nothing has materialized. Can I go alone, trying to send my manuscripts to accredited journals and see what happens? If there is anyone whom I can co author with, better still.

Is this a requirement set down in some policy, or the rules and regulations of the University for the conferral of the degree? Or is it just a rule of thumb?

Over what period of time has this occurred?

What’s your major/research field

‘with a renowned university in South Africa .’ Nice! How does that figure into the situation, please. Calling AI-gen …

Have you raised this issue with a trusted third party?  Your department should have a PhD administrator who is skilled in dealing with these kinds of issues sensitively.  It is not in the interest of the supervisor to thwart your progression, so there should be ways within the school to unblock this situation.

Book a face-to-face meeting with your supervisor and openly discuss your concerns.
I will never suggest you submitting your draft to any journal without the permission from your supervisor. If you do, they can easily request to withdraw your submission or report for plagiarism.

That makes no sense. There's no risk in trying to publish alone other than less likely to be accepted. As for plagiarism, there is no risk unless they have plagiarised.

@Elk That's certainly not true; if you publish alone when you shouldn't have, that's a major breach.

Why would this be plagiarism?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pursuing PhD 5 years after master's
I live in Germany and want to continue my studies in Pharmaceutical engineering with a PhD. Since it has been 5 years since my master's degree, do I have any chance to be accepted and what can I do for this purpose?

It absolutely is possible. I have a friend who did her MSc in Portugal, worked for a few years in a pharmacy, then went for a PhD in Czechia, fully paid. Email professors that had interesting classes or research. Certainly they can recommend programs or colleagues.

Do you wish to study in Germany or are you looking more broadly?

I had a 5 years gap between my master's and Ph.D., both in fluid mechanics. But I studied all those 5 years myself for my future Ph.D. I was solving problems, I was thinking about research ideas.

@Buffy does this changes for united states?

You would be considered in the US.

@Buffy Yes, I did my masters in 2020. Can you please let me know how it is thought in USA?

You would be considered like anyone else but note that letters of recommendation are especially important here. See the answer for the US here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368

Generally speaking, the answer is: yes, you may be accepted.
There is no reason why industrial experience should spoil your chances.
Moreover, to a potential advisor whose research is related to industry, you and your experience may become a useful acquisition.
Explore the web pages of the departments to which you wish to apply. Find professors whose research scope correlates with your work experience (and, ideally, with the topic of your Master's thesis).  Don't hesitate to write to them directly.  There would be nothing unusual in doing so.  A sample of such a letter, and some related discussion is offered here.
Good luck with your applications!

do I have any chance to be accepted and what can I do for this purpose?

I'm not German, but presumably if you have the aptitude needed to get into a PHD program (where academic research and so on are stressed heavily) of this kind, then yes.

May I point out that, with few exceptions, there are no 'PhD programs' in Germany.

Congratulations on deciding to complete a PhD in pharmaceutical engineering. Speaking from the perspective of a current graduate student, I'm sure that this will represent an amazing portion of your life!
It is absolutely possible to pursue a PhD five years after your Masters degree. In fact, you may be at somewhat of an advantage, given that during those five years, your academic horizons were no doubt expanded, and you may have gained industry experience.
That being said, there will be a couple of challenges given the fact that you are currently not in education, so may not being receiving academic support during your application. If this is the case, I could offer a couple of suggestions:

Reach out to the lecturers or other staff from your Masters. Your past lecturers will no doubt want to help you, whether that be with some advice, suggestions of contacts, or letters of recommendations.
Reflect on and refine your research interests. After a five-year gap, it's useful to reflect on your current interests in the field, especially since your passions or areas of focus may have changed during the time away from education. Having a clear and focused research interest is important for a strong PhD proposal. Perhaps it would be useful to read through some academic journals in order to understand any evolution in the field since your Masters.
Leverage your professional experience. Sit down and relfect on all the professional experience you have had in the time out of education, because PhD programs will value candidates with practical insights. Write down all of the skills that you aquired so that you have something to talk about in your application and interview.
Brush up on your academic skills. Science gets rusty after a while, and so it may benefit you to brush up on some learning. Perhaps there are some texbtooks laying around which you could flick through, some problems to work through online, or even a lectuer series on YouTube. It's worth brushing up on now, as in the interview section of a PhD application, you may be asked specific questions concerning your field of study.
Reach out to potential supervisors. Identify potential supervisors at unviersities whose corresponding department aligns with your interests. Write an email expressing your interest in the potential of carrying out a PhD there. You could even ask for their advice. They may remember your name when they are looking through the applications, and they will remember that you were proactive.

This seems like it might have been at least partially AI generated. If this is the case, please note that we have a policy prohibiting AI-generated content on this stack.

@cag51 Thank you for the comment, it's good to see that people are monitoring the site to stop potential AI generated answer. This response is actually not generated by AI (I think one can tell as there are a few spelling mistakes dotted around it)- it is based on my own experiences, and having met people who have been out of education for some time. I do try to lay-out my responses in a clean manner, although if that makes it seem AI generated, I will try to add more personality to them. I do like laying it out with bullet points, however, as I find it much easier to read.

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


text:
How should one deal with criticism from formal superiors (advisors, reviewers) when they have misunderstood the criticized aspect of the work?
EDIT: I already mentiond this in the last paragraph of the original question, but the most voted answer so far seems to ignore the point: This is explicitely not about the (frequent) case that the fault (directly or indirectly, e.g. by not having stated the point clear enough) lies with the one being criticized.I am fully aware of this and generally agree with the "the reviewer is always right even if they are wrong" mindset. But what to do in those cases where the failt actually lies with the critic ?. Not necessarily due to bad intentions or incompetence but due to them simpley not having allocated enough time for the review (which is common, given the heavy total load of work )
Common situation: Certain aspects of my work are criticized and changes are suggested: So far, so good and desirable—nothing helps more than constructive criticism.
However, in my experience, it is not uncommon that the reason for the criticism is the critic's lack of understanding or that they have not read all of the work thourougly enough.
This puts me in a dilemma. On the one hand, in my experience, expressing disagreement "from below to above" always causes a certain degree of tension and generally worsens interpersonal relationships (e.g., between supervisor and student). Reviewers may (even unconsciously) become even more biased against the paper than they already were. I know this from my own experience when I am in the "formally superior" position, e.g., when supervising bachelor’s theses. Despite all efforts to maintain well-intentioned objectivity "on equal footing," I notice how criticism from the "subordinate" makes them at least subconsciously less likeable to me.
On the other hand, I can't simply say: "Yes, of course you're right, I'll make the changes", especially when these are changes that I believe are counterproductive and, for example, would reduce the chances of the paper being accepted rather than improving them.
How should one handle this dilemma?
To preempt the most obvious objection: Yes, I am 100% aware that I, too, can be wrong, and that I may be the one not understanding the criticism. But that's not the point here. For the sake of this particular question, let's just assume that the misunderstanding does lie with the critics.

Maybe field-dependent. If you’re in the social sciences, you might be looking through different lenses.

This question feels way too broad. Yes, the general answer is "explain it better" but if you need more specific ones then this is covering too much ground. The way one can clarify things to an advisor who is physical in reach versus a reviewer who is only reachable asynchronously for limited time are totally different.

"They just did not put enough effort in understanding my great ideas" - why would they (or anyone)? And where does it leave you? If you failed to either 1) make your point extremely accessible OR 2) convince them that putting the extra effort into understanding will be highly beneficial. No one cares until you either make them to care or happen to align with their preexisting interests. Perhaps bit harsh and nihilistic, but generally accurate.

What kind of answer are you looking for? You can’t make people change how they read your work, so either you take their critique seriously and make changes or you don’t. Are you asking whether you should trust more in critiques and make the changes even if you think they make the paper worse?

This is precisely analogous to the case where a reviewer misunderstands your point in a submitted paper.
And the reaction needs to be the same: if your reviewer, superior, or anyone else in the intended audience misunderstood your point, you need to make the point clearer.
This may mean proactively addressing potential criticisms, especially if the misunderstanding arises because "they have not read all of the work thoroughly enough" - while the reader of course needs to read your text carefully, as the author you need to make their life easy, so that at least issues that can easily pop up are already explicitly addressed in your text.

Yes yes yes, make the reader’s job easy! Writing is hard and takes time, but a well written paper pays it back in spades when it is accepted without revision.

This answer actually illustrates my point ;-) I made it clear with an extra paragraph that this question is not about the (frequent) case of "the fault is on the side of the author".
you wrote: "that at least issues that can easily pop up are already explicitly addressed in your text." I did exactly that in the last paragraph of the question, yet it got ignored ;-).  So again: What is the best approach if the fault actually is on the side of the critic (e.g. when they simply did not allocate enough time for the review)

If you did already anticipate the criticism, and engaged with it in your paper, then apparently your engagement was not clear enough for this particular reader. This may mean that you need to be even clearer, or if you want, even more blatant, about your explanations. Or it may mean that your reader is unreasonably unwilling to read and engage with your manuscript. Without looking at the paper itself and thinking about what "reasonable" expectations would be, it's hard to say. At some point this crosses into "what to do about toxic superiors" territory, which we also have lots of threads on.

"then apparently your engagement was not clear enough for this particular reader. "
Lack of clarity of my exposition is of course one possibility, but not the only possible reason. It my also be the case, that, e.g., the reviewer actually lacks expertise in ths special case or simply did not allocate enough time for the reveiw.

" to be even clearer, or if you want, even more blatant, about your explanations. " Yes of course, but this can then put off other reades/reviewers (I for myself do not like blatantly dwelling on a point and see it as unscientific). This the dilemma I posed in the original question.

@zx-81 if the reader/interlocutor misunderstood, then you need to explain to remove their misunderstanding. I don't understand what other situation there may be here. Sure, it could be that they misunderstood because they're idiots, or lazy, and your text/argument was actually perfect. That doesn't change anything at all: they still misunderstood, so you need to explain. If you have a supervisor who is offended when their misunderstanding is pointed out, then that is a whole different problem that needs to be fixed since that is neither healthy nor expected.

Rule #1 of communication: what matters is the message received, not the message sent.  The onus is on the writer to be clear; if you cannot convince higher-ups of what you do, the problem is with you.  Adding secondary details is why appendices were invented.

@zx-81 "I did exactly that in the last paragraph of the question" Well maybe you should've done it in the third, second or even first paragraph? That's the exact definition of making it easier for the reader. If you want them to consider certain aspects when engaging with your work, tell them at the beginning, not at the end.

@walen - tell them what your are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them...

As a general rule, it's good to assume positive intent of anyone giving you feedback, and to look for value in any critique. So, often, even if a reviewer suggests a change you disagree with, if you think about it you may find there is a deeper issue the reviewer is bumping on, and another way to address that deeper problem. For example, a reviewer might say "in step 2 of your argument, you rely on X result, which does not apply in situation Y." That may be correct, but in your paper you are actually considering closely-related but unusual situation Z, in which X does apply, but you may not have explicitly pointed out the differences between Y and Z and that you are using Z in your paper. So in this case, you can respond with something like, "Thank you for your feedback; while I agree about situation Y, in fact I am in situation Z, and have clarified this point in the text."
For the purposes of this question, a more interesting scenario is one where the critic makes a point that is simply incorrect, and making any change to the paper would make it worse. This is an extreme situation, but can happen. For example, a critic could have misread what you wrote, and adding a clarification for their misreading would only add extra text and noise without helping the average reader of the paper. In this case, it is best to politely explain why you think your argument is correct as is. Sometimes, this might require doing extra work to convince the reviewer you are correct, even if you do not want to include this extra work in the actual paper. For example, a reviewer might say that Equation 3 does not follow from Equation 2. You could respond with a note showing step-by-step that Equation 3 does follow from Equation 2. This might be too technical to include in the original paper, especially if there are strict length requirements, but still could be part of the peer review process. There may also be the option to include results like this as part of a technical supplement to the paper, if you think it will be sufficiently interesting to other readers.

"it's good to assume positive intent" Yes of course ! but this question is not about bad intent but actual lack of understanding e.g. because the critic simply lacked the time to read all relevant parts of the paper. Thank you for the second part of your anser that actually addresses the question.

@zx-81 Yep I understood. I just felt it was important to start off with the "assume positive intent" paragraph, since I think sometimes, some people will jump to bad intent, and need a reminder to step back and think about if there really is value in a critique. So even if not your direct question, I thought that part might be useful for a future reader of this Q&A. The second part was basically more meant to address your question directly, and then yeah I think it depends on basically how important their opinion is. (...)

(...) For someone whose approval you need like a reviewer, I generally think if possible it's better to find some way to make them feel you have put effort into addressing their concern, even if you don't change the paper you can explain why and maybe supply extra details. Only when all else fails do you try to appeal to a higher authority like the editor and make the case the reviewer is unfair, IMO. For a supervisor, the situation can be even more delicate than peer review, and avoiding a combative relationship is a good idea, even if it means doing extra work to convince them of something.

You need to approach them as fellow-learners when they are wrong.  Some PhDs can get pretty sensitive to not being respected, so your language has to be couched in respect for their intelligence.  Write back with the idea that they are smart enough to understand it (even if they aren't) and then you'll be teaching them as a superior.  Sometimes that's just how power works.
You should probably try to get their position if they really don't get it.

I think your question is misconceived. The only circumstances (and circumstances that are completely unrealizable) in which your question makes sense in the form that you have put it, is that the paper is so perfect in all its aspects (typography, argument, presentation, referencing, etc) that no more could have been done by the author to improve it, and that had the reviewer only read it, then the mere effortless reading of it would have lead to the reviewer understanding and (probably) accepting it. That state of the world does not exist.
Moreover, the form into which you have tortured your question (and potential respondents) makes the question, as phrased, almost unanswerable.
It might have been easier and perhaps more fruitful to ask a very closely related question that omits the presumptive baggage of a perfect paper and imperfect reviewer. That question would be, "How might one respond to criticism that one feels is entirely undeserved", and the state of affairs that could lead to feeling that criticism is undeserved are more readily imaginable than those that you posit.
In answer to that question, which admittedly is my question and not the one you put, I would say, "Reconsider the (undeserved) criticism to see whether there is even the smallest glimmer of something that might be learnt from it. And if there is noting, learn to live with the criticism. In a full life, criticism that one feels is undeserved will be far from rare."

OP asks: "But what to do in those cases where the fault actually lies with the critic? Not necessarily due to bad intentions or incompetence but due to them simply not having allocated enough time for the review." [emphasis added]
I think the answer depends a little on OP's goals. Is the goal to convince this specific person, or is their misunderstanding an obstacle to something else that doesn't necessarily require their agreement (paper acceptance, passing a board review, etc.)? Both scenarios can be assisted by enlightening the reviewer, the later may also benefit from a procedural response.
As other answers have (correctly) emphasized, it's best to assume the good intentions of the reviewer, and that the reviewer is similarly situated as other audience members to the communication (e.g., if this reader doesn't have time, most of your readers won't have time). The response here is to improve your communication.
OP has already identified how the communication can be improved: They state several times in the question and in other comments that the reviewer is misunderstanding because they don't have time to thoroughly read the material. Unless OP can give them more time, they should accept this as a given. Their reviewer is competent in the subject matter and wants to provide a helpful review, but they are limited in the time they can give to the review. How can OP change their communication to help someone with limited time? There are many possibilities (e.g., restate something more plainly, include a summarizing figure, add a glossary, just make the thing shorter, etc.).
If OP is delivering some kind of communication to the reviewer, and they absolutely must get the buy-in from this reviewer, then this is the only option. All the reviewer will see is what they are given, so OP has to make it convincing to someone with little time.
Now, let's say that OP has done everything they can to edit and respond to the misunderstandings of the reviewer. If this is a situation where the reviewer doesn't have all the decision power, then OP can appeal to the person or body that does.
In the case of a peer-reviewed journal, this would be the editor. In this case, when responding to reviews you are speaking to the editor, not the reviewer.

Highlight changes made in response to the review:

"Reviewer's first critique lies in a misunderstanding of X, I have clarified paragraph N to better outline X and included Figure Y."

Or,

Explain that you carefully considered reviewer's suggestion, but declined to make a change:

"Reviewer requested a table outlining data series Q, however, this information is already shown in Figure Y and due to space limitations the exact numbers will be provided in the data supplement."

Finally, after all of the above—editing to make meaning more clear, explaining to the editor why changes were or weren't made—OP may raise their concerns with the editor. This message will be unique to their situation, so generalized advice is difficult. I'd advise sticking just to objective facts about how the review process had proceeded: "Reviewer A misstates several points (give specific examples) that reviewers B and C seemed to understand."
Outside of the peer-review process you may not have the anonymity of the reviewer, or the editor as an arbitrator, but the general advice is the same. If the reviewer is continually raising a point that you disagree with, just acknowledge that the criticism exists, what you've done to respond, and why you ultimately disagree.


text:
Asking for advice: Leaving Academia after finishing Physics PhD - Hoping to start a career in Data Science right after
I will finish my PhD in Applied Physics (simulations of quantum transport and light scattering in nanowires) in around 6-8 months  and I have already made the decision of leaving Academia as soon as I graduate. The main reason is that I consider that my publications record after the PhD will not be good enough to be able to compete for good positions in the post-doc world. I have also lost the motivation and my interest in the field due to the lack of satisfying and rewarding outcome (I tend to blame myself for this, but I had almost no supervision during the last year). If I stay in Academia I will most likely be jumping from post-doc to post-doc contract in mediocre/low level research groups for the next decade.
I have recently started to consider pursuing a career in Data Science: job offers seem to be abundant and the salaries are good, plus it seems that it is possible to work in many different fields once you are experienced (which is something I love since I'm interested and curious about many, many things).
I currently lack the core-set of technical skills a data scientist should have (R, Python, SQL, Statistics, etc.) and I will not have that much time left to take on-line courses until I write and defend my thesis. However I have strong experience working with other programming languages and I know that I could easily get familiar (not talking about proficiency) with everything needed in short time. After all, everything should be conceptually much easier than the theory of my PhD/MSc and I also have a good background in Statistical Mechanics.
Do you guys have any advices or experiences to share on how to make this transition? I am a bit afraid of the real world after I finish. Also, what would be the most optimal way to get a data scientist job after the PhD? I have thought of looking for an internship, but I do not know if I could just do it by taking on-line courses and doing things on my own.
Thank you very much in advance!
Edit: As it may be relevant, I am not in US but in Europe

An anecdote;  A student of mine who is graduating with an MS in applied mathematics that has involved R, Python, and data analysis and who has taken other steps to prepare for a career in data science reports that interviewers have told him that they have hundreds of applications for each data science position, most of them from people with graduate degrees in other disciplines.  I fear that the moment may have passed when it was easy for anyone with a PhD to get such a job...

You are competing with undergrads who may have done four years completely focused on data science plus one year of industry experience. There are even a lot of highschool students with those credentials. Is there no way to combine your existing set of skills with data science?

Consider looking at machine learning rather than (or in addition to) data science -- perhaps more overlap with your skillset and more R&D type positions. If you are in the US, consider small defense contractors doing R&D (maybe start by looking for companies in your desired area that won SBIR grants on interesting topics -- the winners are publicly posted).

@Brian Borchers: As another anecdote, the person I was talking about writing letters of recommendation for in this comment has an MA in math and knows several languages (including R), and spent over a year trying to transition to a data science position (not just applying for jobs, but putting independent data projects he's done online and has taken several courses in an online data science Masters program he enrolled in). He finally got a job in Chicago a few weeks ago.

looks like a "future-proof" job :-)

There actually is sufficient demand for data scientists and engineers that there are specific 7-8 week long postdoctoral training programs. Such a program could be a good idea, both as a way to build skills and to show that you've actually completed a relevant project. I have no first-hand experience myself, but I know a former physics postdoc who successfully attended the (free) Insight Data Engineering program and now works as a data scientist. (They also have a program focused on data science.) Another such program is The Data Incubator, and I imagine there are more out there.

Here is a theoretical physicist phd graduate who did the transition into data science within few months before graduation. Currently he is Senior Computer Vision Engineer  at Level5, Self-Driving Division, Lyft Inc. & Kaggle Grandmaster :
Interview with Kaggle Grandmaster, Senior Computer Vision Engineer at Lyft: Dr. Vladimir I. Iglovikov
TL;DR
Invest in learning datascience and machine learning by doing kaggle competitions.


text:
Switching from physics to math PhD with NSF GRFP
I will graduate this semester with a bachelor's degree in physics (in the US). I applied for PhD programs in physics, but have come to realize (rather late in the process) that I want to pursue a PhD in mathematics. However, I was accepted into two physics PhD programs and received the NSF GRFP. These two schools have respectable math departments.
As for my background in math, I have taken much of the undergraduate curriculum (linear algebra, algebra, complex variables, Lie groups, two differential geometry courses, algebraic topology); I have also taken around 10 graduate courses in physics, including quantum field theory. But I am missing core coursework in analysis. I am interested in studying low-dimensional topology, gauge theory, mathematical physics, and related topics in math grad school.
Technical details about the NSF fellowship (more here):

It can be transferred between institutions (e.g., from master's at one school to PhD at another).
Changes in the field of study can be proposed after the first year, and require approval by the NSF. My awarded field of study is condensed matter physics.
It cannot be deferred; once accepted, I must enroll in a graduate program this fall. Or I can decline it and re-apply in the future.
Once accepted, I can choose to use the funding for any 3 of the next 5 years.

Given these constraints, I am considering the following options:

Accept an offer at a physics PhD program. Re-apply to mathematics PhD programs after 1-2 years, leaving the physics program with a master's degree. Defer the NSF funding for two years, until beginning a math PhD program.
Apply to math master's programs still taking applicants. Use part of the NSF fellowship for the master's. Apply after 1-2 years of the master's program to math PhD programs.
Decline the NSF fellowship and take a gap year before applying to math master's or PhD programs.

Given my circumstances, do you think it is wise to pursue one of the options above for graduate study? Any other suggestions are welcome. (I am also not completely savvy with the NSF guidelines sketched above, so please correct any misconceptions.)

Do either of the schools that admitted you have potential advisors working in the areas you listed (in the physics or math departments)?

Also: if you choose option #1, what you will end up doing during that first year? Normally it'd be taking [physics] courses, but it sounds like you might have already taken all the grad courses, and you could start right away with research?

My interpretation of the need for NSF approval to change major field is that NSF wants to check and make sure you are not using the money for something NSF is prohibited by congress from funding, such as medicine or humanities.

I think it's very likely that the best option here is just doing a Physics PhD with an advisor who is a mathematical physicist.

I do not think you should turn down the money unless you have a much higher-paying job lined up for your gap year.  Looking at the rules, that implies you should enroll in a physics program in the fall.  Switch to a math program as soon as the GRFP rules allow; that is after one year.
If you bring GRFP funding with you, most universities will let you do whatever you want so long as they get their share of the money.  They won't mind that you do not know analysis.  Clearly you are able to learn it.
You cannot enroll in a math masters the first year and keep the GRFP funding.
A master's in physics is virtually useless to a math PhD.  I suppose you could use it to teach both physics and math at a college that is too small to support a physics professor.
Thanks to inflation, the GRFP has lost a large portion of its value.

To comment on the inflation part: The GRFP was started with a stipend of $1,600 in 1952 which would roughly equate to $17,000 in today's money. The current actual value of the GRF is $34,000. Yes, there will have been periods over the last 70 yrs where a GRF was more valuable than today, but I think it's a bit misleading to say that "Thanks to inflation, the GRFP has lost a large portion of its value."

It looks like the highest comparison point would be 30k in 2005. Even compared to that high point, today's GRF is only around 20% less inflation adjusted. Before the big jump in 2005, the GRF was 19k in 1999 which would be around 32k today... I guess we should draw a diagram of inflation adjusted GRF stipend as a function of time to do this properly. But I wanted to add a few data points here to put things into perspective.

@user2705196 The inflation calculator I just checked says it's 30% less than 2005, not 20%.  My reference point, which was based on personal experience, was close to 2005.  $39,000, even spread over three years, is a lot of money to a graduate student.

@AnonymousPhysicist, I'm confused about your "spread over three years" comment, since my own student with this fellowship gets 37k per year, etc. Can you clarify?

@paulgarrett The GRFP lasts three years.  Based on the inflation calculator I just checked, I would expect it to pay out $34,000 more over three years, or $11,000 more per year.  If you agree with the baseline and inflation calculator, your student should be getting $48,000 per year.  That is not much in an urban area.

Actually, the first thing I'd try is to talk to the math department at the places you were offered a physics slot, preferably in person. Ask them if there is any chance of giving you a math slot instead. I'd guess that the chances of this aren't very high, but it would be a shame not to ask.
Maybe cag51 will expand his comment into an answer, which would be the second thing I'd try.
It is likely that math and physics are in different departments, but there might be some coordination, especially among individual researchers.
Otherwise my own preference would be for your option 1, which seems far better (to me) than the other two. But that is my value system and yours may differ.

In addition to talking to math and physics professors at the University  that admitted you, you really need to read the entire set of rules.  Twenty-five pages is not long by NSF standards.  In particular, you are considering a deferral for a reason other than a medical or military reason.  You might qualify for reserve status, if you can fund the first year another way.
These awards are somewhat prestigious.  For example, universities put out press releases sometimes when a current student gets awarded one.  It is something worth listing on your CV for the first few years after graduation.
There may be a mathematically oriented program in the physics department. Something that is not a waste of time if you switch to math after one year.  Something you might find interesting if you stay in physics.
Theoretical condensed matter physics today is dripping with modern math.  Operator theory, C*-algebras and homotopy theory with a side-order of machine learning.

Pretty sure you’re wrong about the press releases. But if you meant something like a news item on the department website, that sounds more plausible. And notwithstanding that nitpick, I agree that GRFP is a prestigious award.


text:
How formal should the dedication section in a master thesis be?
I want to make a little practical joke in the dedication of my master thesis. It's nothing extraordinary, and it's harmless, but it is all but formal.
I searched around and found this answer that states, as I already thought, that the acknowledgements section is not so formal and I can write it the way I want, but in terms of the dedication, it doesn't state anything.
Will the academia receive it well if I make this little practical joke in the dedication page, or should I write something a little more formal?

This is a question for your advisor. The answer can differ greatly in time and place. In some places it might be seen as very rude, in others, no problem. Ask.

I see. I will ask my advisor what is her opinion in this matter. Thank you very much!

I second @Buffy. I'd like to add that some restrictions may appear not obvious to the candidate himself, but pretty transparent or familiar to the advisor. For example, I was once strongly discouraged to use a certain (more "modern") LaTeX template in my PhD thesis. Don't ask me why, I've changed universities since and I am pretty sure it'd be Ok in my new place.


text:
Should I leave my "first" job for a PhD student position?
I graduated from a masters degree half a year ago and I am been working at a private research institute. Today I received an email from a professor who is asking me to join him in August this year for an graduate position in the experimental sciences. If I accept, I would have to quit this job before the contract terminates, which I think may spark off some negative consequences in the industry, such as a marred reputation. I tried to make the best out of this situation by asking the professor whether I may defer admission for 6 months so that I finish my contract before I start. He said it won't be possible to defer, and advised me that I will have to apply again next academic year if this was the case.
I've previously had 2 years of resaerch experience as a research assistant, and the sole reason I think I need to do a PhD eventually if not now is because I want the rigorous technical training that only a PhD program can offer.
Pros for doing a PhD now:

I want to do it now in my early 20s as I think it will be more difficult as I get older (physically, or even mentally.
It is a rare opportunity that I get an offer since I had an egregriously low GPA when I was an undergraduate. I may not get this opportunity again.

Cons for doing a PhD now:

I am doing well in the private research institute I am in now, and I am responsible for a project that is not yet finished.
Quitting my job after just 10 months will not look good, and may raise issues with the HR in the future.

What do you guys thinks?

I've seen phd "students" over 40 who earned their title faster than most top students simply due to experience and organization. Especially if your GPA is low, it maybe wise to gather more experience instead of trying to touch the boundaries of science which you are supposed to do as a PhD student

I would have thought that folks at a research institute would be supportive of people going to get a PhD. I’d talk to research staff you know and get a feel for the general atmosphere on the topic.

I've talked to a fellow colleague about it. He said that our supervisor probably wouldn't mind, but wouldn't be happy about people leaving too soon. Most of the people working here are actually graudates from PhD programs who will be working here for a few years before they move to a more permanent position suhc as government chemist, etc.

This is too personal to get good answers here. Think about what you want to do, rather than trying to game it out strategically. Decide what you want and then make that happen.

You did not mention how do you feel in your current job. Do you feel that you are learning a lot, are you enjoying it? If the answer to this is yes, and seeing as it is a private research institute, then maybe consider staying there. There has been a lot of articles around about how you do not need to have a PhD to be successful and satisfied in your career.
Another point to consider is, why did you get this offer despite your GPA being so low? And maybe your GPA being low is an indication to you being able to grow more in a job at a research institute, as the environment, different from academics, may suit you better and you would end up learning more here. Or maybe your GPA is low for other reasons, and it does not always reflect how you strive in a PhD program anyway.

Then I would say it depends on how confident you are in the mentoring you will get in this PhD.

With my current job, while I'm using my technical skills all the time, I think the quality and the amount of rigor in terms of the research is not as high as it was with the work I did as an RA in universiities. That is because the work we do in this institute is more product-orientated, and so our job actually feels more like industrial eningeering than it is doing research. Another thing is that there isn't much tutelage in the place I'm working in as most people do not have a background specialized in the work they do.

I wouldn't bail from the job right now, since you say it's going OK.  It's not the "contract" per se, but that you haven't been there long enough to get reasonable resume credit for it, etc.  Stick for another year at least.  Ph.D option will always be out there (lots of schools, years...don't be wedded to one guy).  You can do it later if you need a break, redirection, etc.  But don't bail on a job after a few months.

It seems you have to choose between:

Sacrificing your professional opportunities (quitting now will look bad unless you decide to "just erase the experience" from the CV, which is morally questionable).
Sacrificing your academic opportunities by rejecting the PhD offer.

However, let me ask you a few questions: is your research experience in this private institution going to help you to get more PhD offers in the future? Do you like the professor's offer? Why did he offer you this?

I was also thinking whether staying here longer may get me more PhD offers in the future. It seems like my supervisor right now is satisifed with my technical skills.If everything stays this way, I can see that he will be supportive of me leaving for a degree in 2-3 years time. As to whether I like the professor's offer, well, I was very worried about accepting it since it will involve a lot of organic synthetic skills, which I haven't used in a long long time.

As to why he offered this to me despite my egregious undergraduate GPA, it may be because I have a masters degrees where I achieved a much better GPA, and because I've already had 2 years of research experience after graduating from my bachelor's degree.

do you know whether you want to pursue a career in industry or in academia yet?

I want to do R and D in the future, but in the industry and not in universities. With private research institutes including he one I’m working at, you do need a phd if you want to progress beyond the lowering ranking positions after a few years of working there.


text:
How to prepare before going to grad school
I earned my Bachelor's degree in Information Technology this year and I am currently employed in the last 5 months. I am currently 20 years old and expected to be 21 when I enter graduate school.
For my background, I don't think I have something special. I barely passed during the part 2 of my undergraduate thesis. I am just a regular student back then and was not active on any organization or extracurricular activities. A kind of student who managed to pass all my subjects without failing a single unit but some of them just barely passed.
As for the job, according to my employer, on all applicants that they I have, I was the only one who was able to answer their take-home programming exam.
I am planning to take up a Master's degree in Computer Science which is somehow different from my current degree next year.
As for my research project, I haven't thought of it as of now. To be honest, I will enter the graduate school to boost my skills and credentials and also for self satisfaction.
I have roughly around 6 months more to prepare. As a student planning to take up computer science, how should I prepare in entering grad school? I don't want to waste my 6 months to do nothing and I want to prepare that bad. Is there any advice you can give me? Or something to study before entering graduate school?

This question may be too broad because we don't know exactly your background besides that you have a Bachelor's degree in IT. My general advice would be: pick up a good Discrete Math textbook, read it, do exercises. This can easily take 5 months.

@scaaahu I added some background that may be relevant. As far as I remember, I got good grades when taking Discrete Math during my undergraduate degree. Might as well get a refresher for starters.

I think you misunderstood. It's your academic background that's important. Besides Discrete math, how many other computer science courses you have taken? Algorithms, computability  and others? Please take a look at our sister site Computer Science SE. Would you have problem understanding the questions there? Can you answer some of them? This will give you some idea what you'll need.

"How to prepare before going to grad school" is way too broad of a question. You've talked about your experience and your strengths and whatnot but you are going to have to narrow it down a bit here. "Is there any advice" is not a good "stack exchange" question: it's too broad.

Prepare financially. Grad school is not cheap. Make sure you can afford it. Even if you're going to be funded, you're probably not going to be well-paid, so the money you can save now, while you still have a job, will be precious. By having a reserve available, you can mishaps like this one since even if funding runs out you'll be able to self-fund.
Prepare a fallback plan. This ties in with #1. Do your current job well. If you manage this, then if you go to grad school and find you dislike it (happens quite a bit, e.g. see this question) you can still hopefully return to the workforce seamlessly. Perhaps you can rejoin your original employer, perhaps you can join a competitor; either way you have a lot to gain by achieving a lot in your current job. Your employer might even be willing to fund you through grad school.
Start worrying about how to find a position. After having done the two things above, start thinking about where you're going to study. Which universities are you going to apply to? Which professors do you want to work under? What topics do you want to learn? Do you want to take courses or do you want a research-only Masters? Here's where money can come in handy again, because if you're able to self-fund you'll have a wider pool of potential universities to look at.
After you've identified a university/professor, the next thing to do would be to write to read some of that professor's papers, write to that professor to make contact, possibly discuss some aspects of the intended work, and apply. If you are accepted, then you can ask the professor about what to study before attending.

"Grad school is not cheap." Except in countries where there are low/no tuition fees and you get paid to do research.


text:
Know how academically successful and respected A professor is
I have a lot of professors, and I want to have a way to know how respected and successful academically speaking each one of them is.
The reason is that some professors talk very highly about themselves and it seems that they are very good at what they do but I suspect it sometimes isn’t the case.
I want to go work at the summer in the university under some professor and I want to try to get accepted my someone who really does interesting things.
I tried searching for a professor rank system or something similar online but I didn’t find anything. Does some ranking system even exists?
I also tried looking on the published papers of some professor, I saw a lot of papers but how can I know if they are of quality or low level and meaningless.
Thanks

You could check the journals they publish in and research their reputation. Furthermore, you can look at their students and what they are doing now (e.g. "80% of the PhD students of Prof A are now working in a high position in the industry or at a university") and, if available, you can read their theses to see if the professor encourages high quality work in his students.

http://scholar.google.com, e.g., compare https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=O3FVg9AAAAAJ and https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LXVfPc8AAAAJ

There are some apparently objective rankings (like the H-index, which is based on citation counts), but these are too different between different sub-fields and too age-specific to be meaningful in such comparison. Generally, you can expect that the professors at your university will be in the same order of magnitude regarding academic success. Professors are hired by a committee which basically consists of other professors, and it's unlikely that a group of top professors would hire a non-top candidate.

"I want to try to get accepted my someone who really does interesting things" You can expect that all your professors find their work interesting. There are differences between academic areas: some prefer flashy things, some prefer things with immediate real-life applications, others prefer well-grounded and substantiated things.

You read the papers not to find out if their research is interesting to them (it probably is) or others, but to find out if it is interesting to YOU. I can work with a well respected and successful person and be bored to death because we do not share the same interests. I have worked with people some others would have called "low level" and had a great time and great results, because out approaches and interests just fit and created a great environment for success.

"some professors talk very highly about themselves" My experience is that this tends to be inversely related to their true prestige (whatever that might mean). Although counterexamples to this are common, I think it's a good rule of thumb until you know more about the person.

Echoing @DaveLRenfro: Regardless of their actual level of success, someone who speaks highly of themselves is most likely a jerk that you want to avoid.  If you want to know how interesting their work is, read their papers, and see if you find it interesting.  If you want to know how successful their work is, look up citations to their papers to see how they're cited, not just how often.  But remember that success is neither necessary nor sufficient for being interesting.

Since there are no answers yet, I'll try to combine the excellent comments into an answer.

First of all, someone speaking highly of themself is a bit suspicious.
You should read their papers - if you are unable to judge whether they are relevant, check how often they are cited.
You could check the H-Index, but since most indexes accumulate points overt ime, older persons are having an andvantage

Most probably, it does not make too much of a difference how good the reputation of your professor is as long as you are getting good guidance. Ask former students how good the support was and how interesting the topics were.

+1 for the final paragraph. If you are an undergraduate, you can be well taught by someone who does little research as long as they can teach you the subject at the level you then need to learn it. Later, the rest becomes more important.

I guess I need to note that Feynman had a pretty high (and well deserved) opinion of himself. So it isn't necessarily an indicator. There are many other examples. But some of these self important but highly skilled masters are personally insufferable. Not all, though.

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


text:
Is there a branch of sociology that deals with nutrition and active lifestyles?
(Please excuse my ignorance if this is an obvious question, but my Googling skills don't seem to be up to par today.)
I was just wondering if there is a branch of sociology that deals with health and wellness - like nutrition and exercise - when looking at a community or nation as a whole. If there is, would this be something that one could study in graduate school? (I'm interested in how lifestyles affect societies, not really the biology and chemistry part of health. I mean, I realize that I'd probably have to learn about those things, but they're not what I want my main focus to be.)

There is a branch of sociology, which would be the sociology of health. Research into 'active' lifestyles and nutrition would fall under sociology of health.
Unlike public health which will take a much more straight forward approach in addressing issues based on biological/essentialist research, sociology of health will look into the social constructs of health, how that's implemented in society and the issues surrounding it (i.e. fat discrimination, issues of class/race/gender in the 'health' rhetoric' and so on.
Many universities with sociology programs might offer an undergraduate course in the sociology of health. I took one and loved it. It's not my main focus in sociology but I do find the social construct of health and medicine highly fascinating, especially in the way in seems to be used to justify our discriminations.

Not necessarily sociology, but there is a graduate degree known as the Master of Public Health.
It's been a while since I've looked into it, but the degree typically covers health administration, policy, and nutrition, and disease prevention. You obviously aren't a doctor, but you work with them.
Basically, imagine that doctors work at the individual level, while MPHs work at the community level.
From what I can tell, this is a general page for public health programs that will give you more information than I can given how far removed I am from medicine now.

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


text:
Hard-to-find historical grey literature - any tips?
I am currently doing some research and a reference from 1982 has been cited in several more recent papers. The nature of the citations suggest this was a pivotal reference in the theory & practice related to my research so I am very keen to review it.  The reference is a technical report - not a published article or book - that was issued by a university department. (The university is in the USA and not in my country). I have contacted the department in question but have received no reply. I have contacted authors that have cited the technical report - again no luck. I have exhausted online searches, including trying to track down the original authors online.
So I'm after any final suggestions (barring traveling to the university in person) as to how I could get a copy before I, reluctantly, move on without the reference.

How long have you waited for a reply? These things can take time, but I'd be surprised if you were ignored.

@Buffy - it's been six weeks now. I am not sure whether its 'polite' to follow up as that feels akin to stalking! I can always be more patient :)

You could contact the department head/chair under these circumstances, I think. Or is there some reason your original message didn't go through?

@buffy - yes i agree its worth a follow up

Or contact the library of the university. They often keep such resources and are unlikely to ignore you.

Have you talked to your librarian? They are pretty good at tracking stuff down.

As noted by @MaartenBuis, something like this would be the highlight of the summer for a good research librarian. Let the professionals work on it.

To be clear, I have done this - I was looking for a report from a foreign entity from the early 1960s, often referenced back then for charged particle bunching techniques. My local research librarian found one of the few (out of several hundred) remaining copies that had been provided to universities in my country at the time. I scanned it to PDF and OCR'd it, and returned the physical copy and the file to the institution that provided it. But the hard work was done by the librarian.

Does this answer your question? How can I find an old, obscure, or otherwise inaccessible paper when the usual methods fail?

As noted in comments, you should contact the librarian at your own university and also the research librarian at the university at which the report was done.
Many university libraries maintain copies of such research reports and can send a copy to you or your library.
But, if several weeks have passed you can follow up, perhaps with an email to the department head, asking for assistance in finding the resource and in finding/contacting the authors.
However, it is also true that some things of this nature are just lost. You may have to use secondary sources to provide proper citation of the original. The papers that cite the original may have enough in them so that you can proceed, even if somewhat blindly.

If you follow secondary sources, please state this properly. Otherwise people will reach out to you and ask for a copy of the technical report and you will be embarrassed to not having it yourself.


text:
What are the ethics of removing a reference from literature?
I have been reading a journal article that extensively references another article by the same author.  The cited article is referenced to a pre-print service but it has now been removed. I had no luck finding it through other searches so I requested it directly from the author. I received no reply for months despite following up a few times. In the end, I managed to call the author but was told, very abruptly, that the reference was not available.
The question I have is what are the ethics of essentially deleting a reference from literature that remains used to justify a subsequent article? I know some articles don't progress but deleting them seems extreme.

This sounds like you want opinions, which will vary and also depend on information you haven't provided (and maybe don't know), such as why the reference is not available (author has a copy but is not willing to share it, author had a copy but has since lost it, etc.). Probably a more appropriate question is how do you deal with such a reference when citing it, which I think would simply be handled by saying the reference is cited in Article X, but you have been unable to locate a copy.

Related are the answers and comments to How to cite a thesis/paper when it's not available online? AND Should I cite an article that I can't find? AND How to admit that the cited source is lost?

@DaveLRenfro. Thanks for links - much appreciated. Regards to your  first comment...I just don't know...not sure whether it was lost or unwilling to share. I was just told it was not available.


text:
Is there a time limit to publish PhD research?
In 2019, I graduated with a PhD. (I am no academic so that was a massive achievement for me). I had started writing an article on the research however, due to personal circumstances, this was delayed. And then along came Covid. The discipline I did my PhD in was challenging under Covid as it was dependent on international travel. This necessitated having to re-focus my career in-country. One consequence was the article received less attention. I have recently thought about whether I can still submit the article for publishing or is it too late now. Is there an accepted time limit to publish PhD research?
And to add to the mix, during this time, I have had some further post-PhD insight/refinements that I would like to include in the article which wasn't part of the PhD. Are these okay to include in a delayed article?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/150441/what-to-write-in-journal-cover-letter-when-research-was-conducted-several-years/

I'm having difficulties to understand what you mean by "I graduated with a PhD. (I am no academic so that was a massive achievement for me)."

There is, generally, no separate category of "PhD research" which would be governed by special rules when it comes to publishing in a journal. There is just research. It might be publishable or not, but that has nothing to do with how many years have passed since you have received your PhD.

@JochenGlueck OP was obviously being modest or showing impostor syndrome. I guess your point is that graduating with a PhD means by definition that you are an academic.

@gib: More generally, my point is that I can't think of any potentially intended meaning of the word "academic" which would cause the combination of sentences that I quoted to make sense.

My mum, now in her 70s, has been putting together papers from her PhD that she did over 40 years ago.

Not the same but related... https://phys.org/news/2008-07-brian-guitarist-band-queen-phd.html

@JochenGlueck. Reading way too much into an innocent statement. Just take it at face value.

@gib...Yes, if you want to know I probably have imposter syndrome - not that being labelled as such or admiting it  makes things better. Also, as I see it, one can be qualified with a PhD and not be an academic...but i guess that depends on the defintion of 'academic'...maybe a question for another time.

@JackAidley - that's awesome.

@Mari153 OK, I understand what you mean. I didn't mean to ask or label you. I was just saying that what you wrote was clear, in my opinion.

@Mari153: I'm sorry if my comments came off as rude; it was not my intention to read something into your statement.

Famous example was of Brian May who finished his Astrophysics PhD after Queen disbanded as no-one had worked on the subject in the meantime.

There is no general time limit. Reputable journals will however only accept new results in the sense that they are not published elsewhere. So as long as nobody else has published the same results you are going to publish, there is no problem.
And of course you can include additional findings that are not in your thesis. The journal publication is a document on its own (standard citation rules apply).

You should include additional findings. After all, you're supposed to present your very best work!

It is generally true that if no one has published the same results, you can publish. However, the field may have sufficiently advanced in the time since the original work to the point where the publication is largely irrelevant, even if it remains novel work. That would certainly make acceptance more difficult.

You can publish work in a journal whenever you want, as long as it's not be published before. One thing to think about us whether there are now new papers that should be cited or discussed in your work. It's only been a few years but you might need to reframe your introduction if your field has moved forward alot and thus place your work in the current context of the field rather than what the field was several years ago when you wrote the article.

Rob, thanks for your answer. I would have awarded a green tick as well...but only can give one. I note your advice to check current literature given the time difference between research and publication.

@Mari153 If you had co-authors, it might also be more difficult to get their consent to publish if some time has passed.

@user3067860 - there are no co-authors involved


text:
Adding Arabic sources to my bibliography
Should I dedicate a separate part in my bibliography for my Arabic sources and thus write them in Arabic letters, or should I transliterate them and include them within the whole bibliography like any other source. I've searched the latest version of MLA (8th. ed.) and found nothing relevant. Could anybody help me, please?

How many do you cite? How important are they? Are your readers likely to understand Arabic?

Have you seen this question, and the answers to it? It's about Russian sources, and the type of text in question is not a thesis, but a paper to be published in a journal, but you might find the answers helpful nonetheless.

Superbest, quite a large number. And yes, but the thesis is originally in English and is meant to address scholars and English speakers in Arabic-speaking communities as well as English-speaking ones.

Based on how it's normally done for foreign titles in Latin script — no translation as a general rule, bracketed translations of necessary — I would say your best bet is to cite them in Arabic script (we need to be able to give the source easily, working from a transliteration makes that hard) putting their Latin forms in brackets. But as I imagine you'll be translating for in-text, you might flip that. But I'd look up some theses already done and see how they do it and follow

Check with the office at your school that sets the thesis formatting guidelines.


text:
How should staff address non-doctorate professors?
Background:
I am in an administrative staff position, in a research compliance role, and frequently have to "cold" email professors I have never met or otherwise previously interacted with.  In my institution almost all professors have MD degrees, so I typically address them as "Dr. X."  However there are a small number of professors with master's degrees in areas of specialty that don't offer doctorate-level degrees, and I am uncertain how to appropriately address these individuals.
My gut reaction is to address these individuals by their first name (as our institution's culture considers first name acceptable for staff above you in the reporting chain), but to me this feels disrespectful when applied to faculty, especially considering the content of my messages are often directing them to do things (or stop doing things) they'd rather not.  Conversely, calling them "professor" seems unusual to me since I am not enrolled at the institution.  Finally, my school is very progressive, and I worry about (mis-)using gendered pronouns.
Question:
Am I worried about this unnecessarily?  How should I address these professors when I can't open by asking how they would like to be addressed?

What's wrong with just using their full name?

Why not ask your boss?  That way you will get an answer tailored to the culture of your institution / country, and appropriate to the content of the message.

@Azor-Ahai Where I work, nobody ever addresses anyone with their full name in an email header.

@Nate Eldredge Because (1) He's on vacation, (2) Because he is on the same side faculty / staff wise as I am so frankly his judgement isn't any better than mine necessarily, (3) because I googled  the question out of curiosity and found lots of answers for students, none for staff, (4) he's C-level so it would be a waste of his time, and (5) I bet that others would have the same question so good thing to post on SE.

as our institution's culture considers first name acceptable for staff above you in the reporting chain

First name it is then. Or you could go first and last name without a title. Or you can drop the name completely and just get on with telling them what they have to do. It sounds like you know they are all professors/faculty, which would mean using professor is not incorrect, although it is more formal than just the first name and the same as calling someone doctor.
I would steer away from Mr/Ms/Mrs for a couple of reasons. First, it introduces the gender issue you raise. Second, Professor is a higher honorific than Ms/Mr. Finally, working in a medical field where half the clinicians have a terminal masters and half have a terminal doctorate, I find it mildly insulting to use different titles for two people who have terminal degrees.

Agree with this post, although I'd say for an email, which is typically more formal than face-to-face contexts, "professor" isn't all that unusually formal; especially if you are "cold" emailing people usually the trend is towards more formality. Especially avoid the Mr/Ms/Mrs.

@BryanKrause you are right that "professor" isn't really that overly formal, especially if you are in a compliance role where you are saying things like, "Dear Professor Smith, please stop discarding nuclear waste at the orphanage next door. If you have not stopped by September 15, 20% of your funding will be cut. Thanks, S. Grey, Compliance Officer, The Research Compliance Office".

Non-Ph.D. full-time lecturers are addressed as "professor" in official correspondence at my university. Traditions may differ, but I'd agree with full name no title, or alternatively go with Prof. + lastName absent official advice to the contrary

Why do you suggest avoiding Mr/Ms/Mrs.?

@James  see edit.

Thank you, that last edit is incredibly insightful. Along the lines of what rubbed me wrong,  though I didn't have it quite put in words.

You mention that the persons in question have a master's degree.
In Mexico and I guess other Hispano-American countries, someone with a master's degree will be called Maestro/Maestra.
Likewise, the formal way to address a person holding a bachelor's degree will be either Licenciado/Licenciada, or Ingeniero/Ingeniera if he/she is an engineer.
Anyone with a teaching load at a university is considered a profesor and could be addressed that way. But the title from the degree is usually more formal.

Not relevant to me specifically because I'm in the US, but +1'd because it's definitely potentially helpful to others.

This gives me the idea that everyone should refer to everyone else as maestro/maestra. It would sure save a lot of pointless worrying about modes of address. And it sounds cool. :-)

But in Spain, in contrast, you never use those terms as titles. To my ear, it would just sound odd, not disrespectful, though.

@DanRomik my girlfriend holds a MSc in astrophysics, and she points out her title should be "Master of the Universe".

@Davidmh funny. Well, I've heard it said that while physics is the study of what is true in our universe, mathematics is the study of all universes. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out what this means my title should be...

@DanRomik I would suggest "Master of all imaginary universes". (As a physicist myself I have to poke fun at mathematicians).

All depends on the academic structure of merits in the country and in the branch of science. In some countries there are scientific degrees, and faculty positions. Typically an equivalent of Ph.D is required to get elected into a faculty position, but this is not a rule carved in stone, it might depend on particular personal achievements and/or recognition in the area of science or technology. But if a person holds a position of Professor, he/she IS a Professor, regardless if he/she holds any official qualification degree or not. So you should address them as "Professor".