text:
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
I am a postdoc and I have been applying for jobs in both industry and academia. My h-index is good enough for junior faculty (~7).
Along my academic CV I have an industry-oriented CV and send both of them out accordingly. I have had a handful of final stage interviews (faculty/scientist) for academia but none in the industry so far.
I suspect I am being interviewed as the "token diverse female" (I'm asian) as my area of science is white male dominated. The whole experience, along with prior job hunts, has led me to suspect that my gender and race may be hindering my earning potential. I believe I have the required qualifications and skills.
I am thinking of reapplying as a white male to these same industry jobs I got rejected  for (especially the rejections without interview) just to see if how far along I would get. Only for industry jobs because those CVs don't make it to the chief scientist's table. Maybe make a documentary or blog about this if there are significant findings. Now put your imagination to the test: what is the worst that can happen?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Hiring biases in industry are off-topic.

I like to think I have a pretty vivid imagination, so the worst thing I can reasonably imagine happening is that you would be seen as trying to perform an experiment with human participants without proper controls, questionable experimental design, possibly a lack of appropriately rigorous analysis (if this isn't your specialty), and lack of ethical review and oversight. From an ethics perspective, you propose to use deception on uninformed participants while possibly obtaining personally identifiable information on them which could lead to them facing serious social consequences if they were identified. With the mob mentality of the viral internet as it is, the consequences could be pretty darn severe - up to loss of job, death threats, actual violence, and more. Sensitive topics require sensitive handling, which is what any functioning IRB and responsible researcher would insist on.
In reporting on the results, even if informally on a blog, you could be seen as offering a pseudo-scientific view (or worse) on a controversial and important topic. If your experiment was performed poorly or your analysis done improperly, you could lend weight to an incorrect view - either providing what could be cited as evidence that discrimination does not exist where it does (thus making it harder for people discriminated against to make changes or be taken seriously), or supporting the view that discrimination does exist where it doesn't (leading to negative consequences for people who are doing nothing wrong and deflecting attention away from more pressing, extant issues). Bad science, even done with good intention, can easily make the world worse.
If some random blogger or journalist did this, most of us can gratingly dismiss it as "they don't know any better", or just the world of click-bait, etc. But if you were a qualified scientist who should know better, people might not be so willing to dismiss such activity just because it wasn't intended to be scientific and it wasn't intended for publication. Most people won't even know the difference in what is and isn't intended to be scientific when done by a scientist, and many that do know the difference might not consider it an excuse.
As Dawn pointed out in a comment, one version of this is called an audit study, and there is a pretty large body of literature that tries to do basically what you are suggesting in a systematic way. I cannot even try to count how many studies of this sort are published, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't already in the thousands, looking at everything from gender to race to the impact of varying lengths of time gaps on a resume.
Finally, the nature of this sort of field study is that even with everything going your way they are hard to do correctly. No simple analysis method works even if you did everything right and collected all the data appropriately. There is too much randomness, too much heterogeneity, too much structure, to allow any simple bit of statistics to give the correct interpretation. In short, unless this is your specialty, it would be trivially easy to get everything else right and still come to exactly the wrong conclusion.
For those who are not familiar with this kind of statistics, a classic example of how a simple analysis can go wrong is Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data from Berkeley. In a simple aggregate analysis, it looked quite clearly that women were being admitted at lower rates than men, and thus bias was quite obvious to the point that the deans of the school were concerned this could be the basis for a lawsuit. It turned out it was a nice example of Simpson's Paradox, as it turned out the cause for the difference was that women were more likely to apply to departments that were crowded and competitive and thus harder to get into for everyone, while men were more likely to apply to departments that were less competitive.
If a similar condition existed in the employment sector, where you were applying to jobs in industry that turned out to vary in their selectivity in a way that you were not considering, this would mess up your analysis, and you cannot easily collect more information that would allow you to fix it. After all, I'm sure you weren't inclined to use random selection in your own employment search!
So, in summation, the worst that I could imagine happening is: you end up doing bad science that would reflect badly on you and would not be easily excused just because it wasn't intended for publication; you come to the wrong conclusions and in a way which could hurt innocent people; you casually report information that could be used in dangerous and damaging way; you end up being identified as the person responsible and it goes viral, so now the most famous thing you'll ever be known for was this thing you didn't intend as a serious study (and which could have gone horribly wrong); and, as a bonus, you could just end up wasting your time and the time of others for no benefit.
And since its the worst thing that can happen, I suppose you could also end up with a headache. Things can always be worse by adding a headache.

The question was "what's the worst that can happen", so this answer rightly applies a strict standard. But we don't generally demand scientific rigour from blog posts, journalism, or political advocacy. For example, interviewing an arbitrary sample of people in the streets is not a representative opinion poll, yet it is common practice in TV and newspaper reporting.

@henning those organization do pay a price for their lack of rigor. In lost reputation as well as in lawsuits.

@A Simple Algorithm Not really.

You're asking the wrong question.

... what is the worst that can happen?

Others have answered this. But it's the wrong question. What you should really ask is:

What's likely to happen?

You are likely to not get any statistically significant information, and probably not even a sound hunch about the reason you got more offers than your friend. You are likely to get into a mild amount of trouble at least with some of the potential workplaces when you retract your application or when they call up your references/former universities/etc. IMHO it is likely you will not have contributed even marginally with your experiment.
If you believe "affirmative-action"-type hiring is nothing but Tokenism and is inappropriate / discriminatory against people like your friend - act against it where you actually are present and have access to information, such as your next workplace; and in wider social contexts (e.g. participate in public awareness-raising campaigns, lobbying elected officials, organizing petitions, demonstrations etc.)
PS - Please do not construe this answer as an endorsement or criticism of "affirmative-action"-type hiring practices.

The worst thing which can happen is that you get the study setup or the statistics wrong, and the interpretation in the blog. The world is too full of oversimplified blogs and video documentaries on perceived gender biases.
There is a lot of research by people who devote their scientific career to this, and the statistics of "who studies what" is quite influential. For example I (as a technical team lead doing a lot of technical interviews) observe that most women who started to study engineering 10 years ago (Central Europe) did think about the study choice well before studying, while for many men it was "the default option". This alone makes it reasonable to select them for the interviews with a higher percentage. I cant quantify this -> read research on it.
In the worst case (i assume that you are in a STEM field) it could cost you job opportunities to present a flawed analysis without peer-review.


text:
When applying for a PhD or research related jobs, should a LinkedIn profile be a copy of the CV?
I am interested in applying to a PhD in epidemiology in the US and jobs related to public health research (also in the US). I already have my CV, should my LinkedIn profile be a copy of my CV or how should I differentiate it from my CV?
Does the same apply to public health jobs outside of the US like in Europe?

No one in academia cares about LinkedIn^.
If you're applying to PhD programs, they'll have a structured application process with specific application materials. The admissions committee will be very busy, they're not going to go digging for other material that is not part of the application, the applications are probably already longer than they'd prefer for the number of applicants they review.
Exceptions might occasionally apply for social media content that would indicate you're a bad fit for a program.
^Okay, I'm sure you'll find someone, this is hyperbole but I think instructive hyperbole

This may be true for the US, but not necessarily elsewhere (the question is about the USA, so this is fine). I just wanted to mention that I have seen situations where you were glad to get at least one good application for an advertised PhD position, and maybe five in total.

@Bryan Krause, thanks for the insight! I will definitely keep this in mind with my applications.

Your LinkedIn profile should contain your CV and expand on the content of your CV. But don't expect that any content in it is seen in your application.
Your question is primarily about PhD programs but does also address the job hunt. I can speak with experience primarily on the latter. Across my brief time in academia and my longer industry experience, I have seemed to be the one lone person (in my circles) looking for additional online information about candidates. I don't do this for all candidates. But when we reach the point of having weeded out 90% in a large pool and we need to get down to the last 5%, that's when I'm looking for more information.
To me, if I can find good additional information about the candidate through LinkedIn or other major domain-specific sites (GitHub in computer programming), I use that and point it out to my colleagues reviewing the applications. So, just in case you run into someone like me, I recommend having your LinkedIn profile current with your best foot forward. If you have something to show your quality that can't quite fit into a CV, put it there. I love it when candidates have something that really demonstrates their work that I can go find. When I do, that is a differentiator.
But, overall, don't expect someone like me to be a decision maker in your academic or industry applications. I haven't met anyone else who does this.

I've done it as a technical interviewer for IT jobs, but most people don't have their LinkedIn profile as up-to-date as the resume they just submitted, and what I want to know about a candidate I usually can't learn outside of an interview. So I agree it's not very common for people to check LinkedIn and one reason may be the limited usefulness of what's there.

@Dana, thanks for the insight! I will also keep this in mind with my profile.

Personally, I would expect that the CV you submit with a job application is tailored to the role in question, whereas anything you put on LinkedIn is more generic. I would expect a candidate to supply information on a CV that is a bit more "in confidence" than anything they publish for the world to see.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I use questions from a published study when the questions haven't been published as a standalone measure? (PhD psychology research)
I'm a PhD candidate researching and evaluating the impact of interventions on children and young people. An existing published study that closely aligns with my own topic created a series of questions that would fit with my research very nicely. However, seemingly they haven't published those questions as a measure I can find. I would of course, contact them and seek permission but my question is:
Is it the 'done thing' to use questions from a published study when they haven't been made into a measure?
Thank you

What about doing this concerns you?  I mean, why wouldn't you be able to?

I don't understand the meaning of "they haven't been made into a measure". Can you explain "standalone measure"?

Yes, are you worried about the psychometric properties of using a partial scale, or rights infringement?

For people outside this field @PeterFlom & Buffy: it's common in psychology for instruments like questionnaires to be packaged and sold by a publisher (written or software). Copyright applies, and using the questionnaire for research or diagnosis requires purchasing a license or at least complying with some terms. There may also be required or optional training for instruments that involve more subjective/interactive aspects. This can be a bit controversial, of course, as it puts reproducing research behind a paywall, but the publishers may also invest substantially in validation, etc.

Hi, Thank you for responding. For clarity most research I've encountered uses validated/licensed measures. For example say, the Big Five personality test.
These are published and able to be used for research purposes.
The study I am considering asked participants a number of questions about their attitudes but hasn't put those questions into a published questionnaire so I'm wondering if it is appropriate to contact them & ask if I can reuse them

Does the paper have an appendix of all the questions they used? I would take that as implicit permission to use them.

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


text:
Is an employment Conflict of Interest necessary when redundant with my Affiliation?
I am a full time employee at company XYZ, and will be co-author with university researchers on a paper utilizing one of my company's products. My affiliation will therefore be listed as "XYZ." Is it then also necessary to put in the Conflicts of Interest section that I am a paid employee of company XYZ? It seems redundant when my affiliation is indicating that I work at XYZ, but I haven't been able to find any definitive answers.

At the very least, it seems like an easy thing to do to CYA just in case.

And add a note to the editor asking if it is really needed...

What would be the perceived conflict in the conflict of interest? How could working for XYZ potentially cloud your judgment?

@WolfgangBangerth OP states that the paper utilizes one of XYZ' products, but doesn't go into detail. If the paper reports results about said product, or otherwise appears to endorse the product, there could be financial impacts on XYZ and there could be various pressures on OP to present the product in a good light, even if that results in inaccurate (or worse) representations.

There's no benefit to not stating a conflict of interest here, so

I see no reason to not be as explicit as possible. A conscientious editor will probably ask about it anyway.

Fair enough! Affiliation is usually in a more obvious spot (like right below the author list) in my experience, hence my question, but you're right, there's no harm in being more explicit.

If your research uses an XYZ product in a fundamental way and you work for XYZ, then your paper should definitely have a disclaimer about possible conflicts of interest stating that you work for them.
Maybe this disclaimer should contain a lot more, what the alternatives to the XYZ product are, how the result of your research affects product XYZ, how your work at XYZ relates to the XYZ product in your research, etc. That depends on the details of your research which we don't know.
If you did check these things and found that the only possible source of conflict of interest is you working there then you can use your statement as a sort of proof that you did consider the issue and there is no conflict to worry about. That is much better for you than not having such a statement when anyone reading the paper could notice that there is a potential conflic of interest about XYZ that is not addressed.

The disclaimer might also include how much your work at XYZ involves the product. Are you part of the team or in a different department?

@w123 Good point, added

Also relevant to disclose any other influence of the company on the work. Even if they haven't paid any of the other authors directly, have they provided other support? Did they provide the product for free? Other research materials? Travel fees? Some of these things may be covered in disclosures by other authors but others belong more to the project as a whole and it's important they not be missed.

Which takes more time: (1) posting a question on academia se, waiting for answers, and then reading the answers, or (2) just stating the conflict of interest just in case.
Benefits to stating it:
It's clearly in a "conflict of interest" section; people don't have to go hunting for it. People might not notice your affiliation. And especially in these days of automation of parsing of documents, you should make it easy to find your COI, rather than relying on the reader inferring it.
People might wonder whether you intended people to not notice your affiliation.

I'm not sure how time taken is relevant; I've wondered this for a while & this question may be helpful for others. My experience is that the affiliation section is actually much more prominently displayed & typically on the very first page. The COI on the other hand, is typically on the last page. Affiliations are usually one of the first things I personally look at when reading a new paper, but I'm interested in other perspectives, like yours. You make a good point about automated parsing.

If there is a Conflict of Interest section you should definitely list it - the alternative would be to say there is no conflict of interest, which would not be true.
If there is no Conflict of Interest section, you should still probably declare it, because the journal or publisher likely requires it. Check the journal's or publisher's websites for details. For example here's the relevant webpage from Sage:

In your Journal Publishing Contributor Agreement you will be asked to certify that:

All forms of financial support, including pharmaceutical company support, are acknowledged in your Contribution.
Any commercial or financial involvements that might present an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the Contribution are disclosed in a covering letter accompanying the Contribution and all such potential conflicts of interest will be discussed with the Editor as to whether disclosure of this information with the published Contribution is to be made in the journal.
That you have not signed an agreement with any sponsor of the research reported in the Contribution that prevents you from publishing both positive and negative results or that forbids you from publishing this research without the prior approval of the sponsor.
That you have checked the manuscript submission guidelines to see whether the journal requires a Declaration of Conflicting Interests and have complied with the requirements specified where such a policy exists.

Therefore, if you don't mention it in your cover letter, you would be lying in the Journal Publishing Contributor Agreement (even if your COI is obvious from your affiliation).


text:
Submitting a journal paper based on the conference paper before the actual conference happens
I'm working on research which I plan to finish in the next 2-3 months. I want to present some preliminary results as a short paper at the conference. The deadline for the short papers submission is the beginning of September, and the conference is scheduled for mid-March 2025 (there is 6 months gap).
My question is, can I submit a full research paper to some journal (expanding on the results from the conference paper) before the conference (and after acceptance of the short paper)? E.g. my research should be done by November, and I would not like to just wait with ready finished paper until March...
I plan to make my conference short paper preprint available on Arxiv.

Short answer: yes, this is fine. It would be absurd and pointless to make you wait until after the conference to submit the journal version of the paper. Even waiting until after you get the decision about the initial paper’s acceptance to the conference has no logical purpose that I can think of, and is unnecessary IMO.
(Of course, the journal version of the paper should cite the conference paper, and maybe discuss in what ways it’s expanding on it.)
Detailed answer: in computer science, some areas of math, and possibly other disciplines, it’s very common for authors to submit a preliminary, typically short version of a work to a conference and later prepare a longer version to submit to a journal. This is seen as completely normal and acceptable. The rationale behind this is that the initial short version is a quick way to disseminate exciting new research, while perhaps not communicating the work in as much detail (or in some cases as accurately) as the slower-to-prepare version; whereas the long version is supposed to conform to higher standards of detail and accuracy, and is peer reviewed according to the more thorough and strict standards of academic journals - so that represents the “ultimate”, more authoritative, version of the work.
What you are proposing to do is completely in keeping with this philosophy and the norms around this sort of dual publication pipeline. In fact, I would say that you are maybe being overly cautious in suggesting to wait until your conference paper is accepted before submitting the journal version. I don’t see any reason why you would need to wait at all - you can submit the longer version as soon as it is ready.
The only type of related behavior that I would find problematic is submitting the journal version before the conference version. As the journal version is supposed to supersede and obviate the need for the conference version, personally I see this as a type of gaming the system (and akin to a kind of double-dipping or self-plagiarism), at least given the norms prevalent in the specific fields I am working on. Actually I was involved for a few years with the program committee of a large math conference, and encountered a situation where authors submitted a conference version of a paper that has already been submitted and accepted to a journal. I was not involved with the final decision-making on this paper, and I vaguely recall that the people in charge did decide to accept it to the conference (and they had some reasoning why they thought that made sense, which I thought had some validity but was not very compelling). I expressed concern at the time that the paper shouldn’t be accepted, and I know I wasn’t the only one holding that opinion.

Thank you very much! So, a journal paper with the sentence like the following solves the issue: "this work is an extension of the short paper \cite{arxiv_version} submitted to (or accepted by, depending on the timing) the "Name of the Conference"?

@Vukasin yep, that should be fine. Here is an example of a recent paper of mine that includes such a statement, and a few additional sentences explaining in what way the long paper extends the short one. You may want to provide such details as well if they provides additional useful context.

In my area, having the conference and the journal version submitted in parallel, before the conference version is accepted, would probably be seen as an illegitimate form of double submission by most. After all, the conference version is usually fully included in the journal paper and is then in two review processes at the same time.

@lighthousekeeper why is it OK for two papers one of which is fully included in the other to be in review (and eventually published) not at the same time, but it’s not OK for them to be in review at the same time? I don’t see the difference. The fact that it’s OK for both to be published is logically a kind of double-dipping even if the submissions are in series rather than in parallel. (The usual justification I have heard for why this is okay is that conferences aren’t really “peer reviewed” in the same way that journals are peer reviewed. That logic still holds for parallel submissions.)

For the same reason why double submissions are generally not allowed in the first place: Having the same material reviewed in parallel by different sets of reviewers is an unethical waste of reviewer time, as the reviewers give feedback based on the submitted version, which might still be far from publishable. In the usual sequential model, the extended journal version incorporates the changes that were made to the conference paper in response to the reviewer comments from the conference.

@lighthousekeeper okay, seems like a weak distinction to me. I’ll acknowledge that to my taste both the sequential and not-sequential double publication models suffer from some problems including waste of reviewers’ time (and I agree with the parallel submissions this is worse, albeit not in a material way IMO). Anyway, logic aside, each discipline does have its own norms of what considered appropriate, so it’s good to know that what I wrote is not universally applicable.

With a couple of caveats this should be fine. The first is whether the journal will want the copyright before the conference and what restrictions they might impose. Seems unlikely, but possible. But either the conference or the journal might have issues with begin "second", depending on their requirements for novelty.
But, I don't see those caveats as likely in this case, as long as you are honest with both parties. It is unlikely that your journal paper would be published prior to the conference and you will probably hold copyright through the process. Note that submitting a paper is not the same as publishing it and the time delays are usually fairly long.
And make sure that the journal is happy with preprints. Many (most?) are these days, but you need to be sure.

You may want to be careful about this matter. Duplicate publications will hurt your reputation in the long run. Quality is more important than quantity.

It’s described as an extension, however, not a duplicate.

Think about the audience. It is better for them to read the whole story as one big piece, instead of two broken components.

Neither is that how it is described.

It probably depends on the research area.


text:
Splitting a scoping review by themes
I am on a team with 2 others in completing a scoping review. The journal that invited us to submit the article has a word limit of 4000 words. Therefore, we split it by themes identified in the results section - we had identified 2 main themes with each having subthemes. The methodology and strengths/limitations will be the same since we are using the same question and objective for both. How is it recommended to reference the same information since it has not changed? The first article has not been published but has been submitted and we want to get the second submitted asap. Both will be submitted to the same journal.

You can discuss this with the editor; they should be able to answer definitively for the journal. Since your articles were invited, the editor should be willing to clarify such matters.
In principle, though, I would think that each published article should generally stand alone; each should have its own complete methodology and objectives section, for at least two reasons:

If the articles are being submitted and reviewed independently, one might be accepted while the other might be rejected. So, you cannot assume that one should be able to reference the other.
Even if both are published, normally you should not require readers interested in one article on a theme of interest to read another article on a theme of lesser interest just to obtain essential information like the methodology and objectives of the article they like.

All that said, I note that 4000 words are quite a low limit for a review article. If the article was indeed invited, I would request the editor to allow you 8000 words for a single joint article. Even that woudl be quite a short limit for a review article.


text:
Should an instructor adjust grades for students from underrepresented groups?
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, (Belonging), known as DEI(B), has become increasingly valued in higher education in the United States.  UC Berkeley provides a rubric for evaluating candidates' DEI(B) statements, and one category the applicant must address is to describe plans for advancing DEI.  I want to inquire into the acceptable boundaries of such plans.
I have struggled with understanding how to implement DEI in the mathematics classroom. It occurred to me, perhaps the best way to promote DEI in the mathematics classroom is by assigning bonus points to students from underrepresented groups, say +10% on the final exam.
My question is, is this kind of thing good, recommended, acceptable, etc?  If not, please explain from the DEI perspective what kinds of DEI plans are good and when these principles may be taken too far.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Multiple users have raised concerns in comments and flags that this question is not asked in good faith. I think we can answer directly the question asked here about procedure in Academia: "is it appropriate to adjust grades for students from underrepresented groups?" from a perspective that not everyone is equally informed about issues of representation in academia and that it's possible especially for people educated in systems where these issues are not emphasized to be unsure about what to do in systems that care about them. As such, this Q&A can be useful to people besides the asker.

Could you clarify what you mean by “asked in good faith”?

Asked because you want an answer to the question posted, versus intending to participate in debate or to criticize a particular view through satire.

No, actually. That would be the worst possible "accommodation". It would probably get a person fired due to the numerous and vociferous and valid complaints of the other students.
The issue, making some "accommodation" necessary for some students, isn't their gender, or race, or ethnicity, or .... Rather it is that the education system in the US in years prior to university is terribly unbalanced, partly due to historical reasons and partly due to the way that we finance primary and secondary education. We use local property tax for the main funding mechanism. This means if you are poor and (because of discrimination and "redlining") you live in a poor neighborhood, there is much (much) less funding available for your schools. This leads to lower teacher salaries and fewer support staff in many places which leads to some quality issues in the teaching staff, though this is compensated for by the extreme dedication of some teachers. Jaime Escalante was one such dedicated secondary school teacher (see Stand and Deliver).
What is required of a university professor (indeed all teachers) is that you teach every student. That is to say, you make it possible for every student to succeed regardless of their background. If they are "good enough" for admission, then they are "good enough" to excel  in college. But you need to make that possible.
You also need to be aware that every student is different and so you need to do more for some than for others. You are not a "presenter of material - take it or leave it." "Equal treatment" is unlikely to lead to successful educational outcomes unless the level of instruction is so low/poor that anyone can grok it.
Those with a weaker background will need more help. It isn't their fault that the secondary school they went to didn't have a great math teaching staff. Nor is it their personal quality that let them go to one or the other of the finest high schools in the land.
But, giving unearned "points" to any student is just a way of replicating failure. "I will make it appear that you are successful even though I don't require that you learn at the needed level." This pretty much assures that the person will fail later in life without some extraordinary intervention that you should be providing.
If a student is willing to do the work, they should be able to learn if you are willing to do what is necessary to teach them.  The accommodation they need, actually, is your time and effort.
But, free points for minorities???
Don't. Go. There.

A personal note: While I have a few former students who are now university faculty (with doctorates), one of my happiest educational experiences was two students, who previously had few successful experiences wind up at the top of the class in a difficult course (compiler construction).
They spent the semester camped out in my office asking question after question, some repeatedly. They worked very hard. At the end, they suggested explaining a complex topic to me for verification, rather than asking for a solution. The class over all was very talented and some of the students resented these two, calling them "ringers". But the two of them learned the value of hard work.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Remember when comments are moved to chat to continue any conversation there; comments can't be moved more than once, so your follow-up comments will be merely deleted.

Not only is this a bad idea, but it is likely illegal if you work for a public school. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down policies that provide a quantifiable advantage to underrepresented individuals, such as in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Gratz v. Bollinger.
Also, Ibram Kendi doesn't exactly have the most middle of the road views, so I'd take a less radical approach. Instead of giving free points to make up for disadvantages, re-evaluate what aspects of your course are the source of those disadvantages and fix them.

As others have said, "no, don't do this". There are many problems with it.
To my mind, the factually correct content of concern for DEI is that not everyone has had the same privileges, both earlier, and ongoing... and/but lack of privilege does not imply incapacity, nor does having privilege imply increased capacity.
"Privilege" tends to make one's resume look better, by many conventional measures. Part of my own thinking about this, while looking at graduate math admissions and so on, is to try to distinguish the effects of privilege from actual potential/capacity.
And so on. A very complicated thing.
But, again, the proposed grading scheme is not helping anyone, as it stands.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

As others have noted, what you are proposing is illegal in the US.
Here are a few ideas of what you can do as a mathematics faculty member to promote DEI at your institution:

Serve on DEI committees and lend your mathematical/statistical expertise to the committee.  Help to analyze the data at your institution to see in which ways you could be better serving minoritized students.
Do this data analytics work internally in your own department.
You can think about making your course materials and presentations accessible to people with disabilities.  Are the documents you generate accessible using a screen reader for a blind student?  Are you selecting color schemes which are accessible to colorblind students?
You can think about making your writing and speaking more accessible to people who speak English as a second language.  Are you speaking in the plainest possible English to convey the mathematics?
Does your department offer remedial courses?  Are minoritized students over-represented in these courses?  What sort of intellectual experience are these courses offering?  Are they offering interesting mathematical experiences or rote drill work?  You might question the assumption that mindless drill will serve these students better than a rigorous mathematical experience.  The "level" of the content should not be conflated with the "level" of rigor, creativity, and meaningful work which can be done in a given context.
You can take steps to eliminate the impact of your implicit bias in the classroom.  Grade anonymously.  Call on students using a random generator.  Group students randomly during group work.
As you co-create mathematics with your students in class you can celebrate the contributions of each student.  For instance, if a student contributes a key idea or perspective you can explicitly mention this.  I often even develop local names for such ideas which explicitly give credit to the ideas originator ("we can use Arpit's strategy of adding and subtracting the same quantity here...").  You can keep a private record of which students you have celebrated in this way through the semester.  If you notice that there are some students who you have not so celebrated, you can be more mindful to look for opportunities where they do make a significant contribution that you can celebrate.

I will not reproduce my whole DEI statement here, but I hope you get the point.  One can pay serious attention to these issues and take concrete actionable steps.

Would also put something on this list about the “hidden curriculum” and making it explicit. This is things like explaining what office hours are and how to take maximum advantage of them vs assuming students know…

@Dawn totally!  It came as a shock to me when a student asked me if we could meet, I told them that my office hours were always available for drop ins, and they let me know that they thought office hours were the times I was busy doing office work, and should not be disturbed!

Compiling numbers is particularly useful for people who aren't naturally inclined to bending people's ears, soap boxes, "beer and sandwiches", etc, but want to make a difference. For example, during the admissions process does diversity increase or otherwise at each stage. This could indicate whether attention should be turned to initial marketing of the course, or to the selection process. Similarly for attrition, grades etc, within individual classes, etc.

A good thing that might apply to a math class is presenting non-male, non-white, non-etc. role models. Take Emmy Noether, Alan Turing, or Katherine Johnson, facing obstacles for being female, gay, and black, they achieved a lot. It is not only Gauss or Newton who moved the frontier of mathematics.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

School reputation is at stake, therefore no. The school itself should be adamantly against this.
We like hiring graduates from the local university system because we know it produces quality students for the fields we are hiring. The school has a reputation with the people who are responsible for the hiring. They are familiar with the curriculum, and past experience has shown good results from those hires. This gives real practical value to the school, and its degrees, and attracts even more students as a result.
It's easy to imagine it going the other way. If a school inflates grades and ends up passing students who shouldn't pass, then it deflates the value of that degree, from that school. If a company has a few bad hires from a particular university, I would expect to see the hiring managers see that school on a resume and think twice before bothering with an interview.
"Disadvantaged students" (who can come in all colors -- being a minority student doesn't automatically imply "disadvantaged", either) may need extra help, but that should come in the form of something that produces a good end product -- a knowledgeable graduate with a legitimate degree that they earned. Inflating grades damages everyone: the school, the student, the companies that hire students, and future students of that school.

Not just the school reputation, but the reputations of every minority student who never got such accommodations and still suceeded (of which there are many!). Imagine going through your career with peers who think you were gifted your degree and didn't earn it through hard work and merit.

In my understanding, DEI (especially E and I) should seek to compensate for disadvantages a student might have, not provide advantages to certain groups. Some examples - all things I've seen implemented at a secondary school in Germany:

If a student struggles writing longer texts by hand, give them the option to use a PC.
A student whose mother tongue is not english (or whatever the language of instruction is) might profit from being allowed to use a dictionary.
Visual impairment? The student would get an electronic copy of the formulary that allowed zooming in and out.
A student with dyslexia gets less deductions due to spelling errors.

And so on. A student only gets compensation if they ask for it, and it should fit the limitations that student faces. There is no way a student will simply get bonus points.
Of course, those don't help with the "diversity" part of DEI, and I really don't know what to suggest. I studied engineering, we were four girls in our year of about 40. Whenever there was some event seeking to "encourage girls to study engineering", the boys let us know that they considered this unfair, some jokingly, some rather serious, and (as far as I can tell) with rather limited success. But bonus points on exams? There would have been quite an uproar, if not legal measures being taken...

If you address the difficulties people face due to their physiology, psychology or background, that alone doesn't fix all problems with diversity, but it does help nonetheless, because the fact that it's not plausible for someone to succeed is likely to stop them from applying, and it's going to hinder diversity of graduates, even if diversity of applicants is fine.

"A student with dyslexia gets less deductions due to spelling errors" ‒ how is this different from what the OP is asking? "less deductions" is exactly the same as "extra points", so you're giving them points as a gift. I do see the difference between a disability and the social/race/etc background that may have created a disadvantage in earlier stages of education; but still, this suggestion sounds not so much like providing an accomodation. How is this fair to other dyslexic students that worked twice as hard to ensure they don't make spelling mistakes despite their condition?

@Cal-linux I think generally the right approach would be to not punish any students for spelling errors (outside of a language or typing class), to accommodate students with dyslexia (and to just mark in a reasonable way). And as for language classes, how to accommodate students with dyslexia is perhaps not such a trivial question, that we probably wouldn't be able to solve in a comment section. And also, medical conditions are different from background, become you can't educate someone out of medical conditions, but you can educate them to "fix" their background to a reasonable degree.

@Cal-linux Someone with dyslexia would arguably have different target outcomes (that may not include being able to spell all words correctly), so you don't want to fail them due to their dyslexia, but you probably also don't want to grade students differently. If a spelling error is clearly due to dyslexia rather than not having learnt how to spell a word, then I think the obvious response would be to not deduct marks for that, regardless of whether the student has been diagnosed with dyslexia. But the cause of an error may not always be obvious.

It may be worth pointing out that, while one shouldn't mark students differently based on gender, race and background, one should take such things into account in teaching. As a very trivial example, if all your word problems in maths class only feature boys, that might contribute to girls subconsciously feeling like they don't "belong" in that class or that they "shouldn't" be good at maths. Different people (often in different demographics, but not necessarily so) may also respond well to different styles of teaching, so sticking to one teaching style may unfairly disadvantage some students.

Answers here focus on legality and group rights, but I wanted to mention another reason why this is an ethically bad idea: every person belongs to many groups, but every person is also an individual. Everybody works for themselves while studying and they will live for themselves. What matters is not how hard they have had it in their life, but what they will be trained to do after school; they need those skills, not pity.
Putting obstacles before any group or making it easier for a specific group is always harmful to individuals, and in extreme cases can be called classism, sexism, or racism.
However, were you to offer help to struggling students — regardless of their background — that would be not only ethically much better, but in many ways an optimal solution (i.e. standards and outcome would not be compromised, while opportunity would be equalized). Naturally, that begs the question if it's more beneficial to focus on the struggling ones instead of helping the best ones become even better, and many others as well. That's just the only way of having a cookie and eating it out there.


text:
Very long PhD interviews
Recently I've been invited to a PhD interview, for a three-year program.
They are asking me to book two whole days for the interviews. The invitation asks me be avaliable "from 9am on Day X to 3pm on Day X+1", for a large number of talks, one-on-one interviews, and meetings with current employees.
In addition, they are asking me to prepare a "job talk" describing my papers.
The whole thing is very similar to how my senior colleagues describe faculty interviews.
I am doing a research internship in industry during interview season. As I've applied to several programs, I am not able to take two full days of vacation for every application.
This is a well-established program in my field.

Is this particular program an exception, and other positions I've applied to will have less time-consuming interviews?
Or, is the whole field like this? I am afraid of how faculty interviews will look like for my cohort, given the PhD interviews.

Hi and welcome to Academia SE. Where in Europe? Europe is not a uniform block and each country has its own traditions. In my experience, a two-day interview for a PhD position is uncommon, but there may be exceptions.

Thank you for your reply. I do not think specifying the country is crucial, as the programs may differ a lot even within countries. Most of my applications are in German-speaking areas.

It certainly sounds like it might be challenging if you have a half-dozen two-day interviews like that as far as your current position is concerned. On the other hand, twelve days of talking with dozens of scientists and researchers in a bunch of different research groups sounds like nirvana to me :-) Remember, you get to ask questions too! And you should try to make the most of that. Will you get fired from your current position if you do something that extensive? Or will it just cause strain but not break your current situation? Can you offer to make up time nights and weekends?

You say a "PhD interview." Are you interviewing to be a PhD student, or for a job that requires a PhD?

I am interviewing to become a PhD student.

@phdapplicant You may consider what interview process you'd expect if you were applying for an industry job in another city/country, where (at least until the pandemic) in many industries it is normal for top candidates to travel for in-person interviews.

Is this particular program an exception, and other positions I've applied to will have less time-consuming interviews?
Or, is the whole field like this?

I believe this rigid and formal process is an exception to the rule, though may be relevant these days to some machine learning programs, as you attest.
On the other hand, it is not exceptional and to be expected that PhD application process is a long one. Usually it is long, but takes a much less formal form, like many informal discussions between the potential supervisor and the candidate.
Note: PhD applications are sometimes more risky than faculty positions: a single staff member invest a lot of their time, and sometimes their own grant money, and failure to complete the PhD is at times more damaging than letting off a staff member.

I have seen this type of interview strategies especially for PhD schools rather than individual projects. In those schools the students still need to be matched to potential advisors. So in those days the candidates can see what (funded) projects and advisors are available, while the advisors can see what candidates are available. The meetings with current students is there to be informative for the candidates.
Whether or not you can get around that, or reduce the time you are there, depends on the program (and the number of candidates).

I know the answer is tagged europe, but I will answer for the united-states for future readers.
Yes, multi-day processes for PhD interviews are common. Two days is probably the median, at least pre-COVID, where the program would typically fly you out, and wine-and-dine you. (Probably the best they'll ever treat you, but I digress ...)
It is not usually 8 hours of intense interviewing, but a mix of interviews, meeting students, information from administrators, social events, etc.
This can mean taking a lot of time off, but if you are coming from an academic position, they are usually understanding. If you're coming from industry, unfortunately there's little I can suggest other than turning some down.

I guess I will just decide upon the one or two applications I have the best chances with, because I just do not have enough days to take off.
One issue is that I need to confirm or reject this interview before other programs communicate interview invitations...

@phdapplicant You can try asking for a reduced schedule (if it's virtual), only attending the most important interviews

In the US most departments I know only do this for accepted students; not as part of the interview/pre-acceptance phase…

@Dawn Really? I would have said the opposite, in fact my current dept is considered somewhat unusual in that they only do it for accepted students, not interviewing ones. I had one two-day interview session and one two-day accepted student weekend. Most people I talked to were juggling many two/three day interview sessions.

Oh I now see the machine learning tag. I am speaking from engineering and economics perspective so perhaps that is different?

@Dawn Perhaps, I'm in psych.

In neuroscience in the US, the norm seems to be to invite ~2-3 times the matriculating class size for interviews, which are scheduled over a couple of days (say, Fri-Sat, though with travel some visits may extend to Thurs-Sun). Some applicants may have as many as 6-8 such interviews over a couple months, though 2-3 seems more typical. Many applicants are undergraduate students, and instructors are used to being flexible with their senior students since grad school interviews typically take priority over the current semester's coursework. It's quite the gauntlet.

@BryanKrause Yup, pretty close to what is normal in psych.


text:
Math PhD Application with non-math undergrad
I want to apply a Math PhD program but my undergrad major is engineering.
Currently, I am attending MS math program. My GPA is near 4.0 and all coursework (except a upper undergrad course) are graduate level. I expect to complete 10-15 graduate courses during this MS program.
Does a non-math undergrad harm the Math PhD application?
How likely am I admitted to a PhD program in the future?

The fact of your MS enrollment is essential here.  The gpa less so.

You have again removed essential information for an answer, namely that you are enrolled in a math masters program.

We can't predict the likelihood of acceptance since it hinges on several factors. Generally speaking though with a MS in math there shouldn't be any issues. In the US there is usually ample opportunity to make up for any missed courses that are required to pass qualifying examinations.
Your later work will be more heavily weighted than the earlier degree, as is typical. My guess is that you are in a pretty good place given the GPA and the institution.

I second what Buffy said, when it comes to applying for a PhD, emphasis is given more to what you have done in your MS than undergrad. So, yes I agree there should not be any issues. Maybe Maths is a bit separate thing, but I have seen people are doing PhD in very inter-disciplinary fields such as Biophysics or physical chemistry and so on. For instance, for the case of biophysics, it means that a person with biology/physics with minor in physics would be eligible for the said programs.


text:
GRE scores expired after applications window, but before admissions offer?
As part of PhD applications, I shared a copy of my unofficial GRE test scores from a test I took approximately 5 years ago (using a PDF from the ETS that shows the date I took the test.) Now several months later I have received PhD offers but my GRE test scores have expired. That is, my GRE scores have expired between the open applications window and when the admissions offers rolled out. The ETS will not send out expired scores.
How big of a deal is this if any? Should I bring this up before "accepting" my offer? Should I retake the test?

You received an acceptance with only unofficial scores?

Yes, that's right

Did they ask you to send official scores conditional on acceptance?

I think getting official transcripts costs like 10-USD per request.  To reduce the burden on applicants, as they might be applying to many programs, some places allow unofficial transcripts, with the condition that the applicant provide an official copy to verify upon admission, should they accept (such that the applicant only has to pay the 10-USD, or whatever it'd be, once).

You may want to check the admissions-guidelines to see if an official copy is required, then ask them about your situation if so.  Unfortunately, some applicants have lied before, so programs can't just automatically trust.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth
You have your offers, so presumably the relevant universities were able to scrutinise the applications prior to the GRE scores becoming unavailable (or they just didn't care about the scores).  This is not a big deal, and there is no need to go looking for faults in their admission process now that you have got your offers.  Just consider the offers you have received, accept the one you want, and then decline the ones you don't after you have confirmed your place in your preferred program.  (Make sure you do all this by email so that you have the offer and acceptance in writing.)

I suspect that if you got an "acceptance", rather than a "conditional acceptance" then it will be honored. It seems unreasonable and inefficient to reopen a case based on such a situation. Easier to let it go, even if it is noticed. It would seem to be a case of "buyers remorse".
If, as I suspect, this is in the US, then the risk of honoring it is also small since the impact on the decision of the GRE was small. Decisions are made on a broad view of the candidate, not just how they do on standardized tests.
But that is only the "reasonability test" for a rarely occurring situation. You can ask, specifically, of course, though it might be worth following up on your admission as if there is no problem. "What is the next step I need to take to complete my admission."

Would any university outside the US care about GRE scores in the first place?

@brendan, fewer, certainly. I'm not sure if it would be 'none". And it seems to be disappearing even here.

@brendan I was looking at RWTH Aachen and they do require one (at least for non-German educated people)

@AyamGorengPedes OK, there's at least some then!


text:
Applying for a PhD in a different area
I've seen many posts in this website about changing fields (sample: 1, 2, 3, etc...). This is very reassuring for me, since I wanted to do just that. Just to sum up, I want to study an area of mathematics which no one works on at my university - Group Theory, to be precise (mostly finite G.T., but I'm very open-minded about it).
I've done my best to do my undergraduate and masters degrees in as close a field as possible at my university, and kept studying some material on my own to make sure of my desire to switch gears for a PhD at another institution in the future.
That said, everywhere I look pretty much assures that, when contacting a prospective advisor, you should always establish a link between what you have done and what they have done. This leads me to pose:

How to overcome the disadvantage of being relatively unfamiliar with a new field of research when contacting a potential advisor?

What I've studied, I've done on my own, meaning I have no certificates or the like to testify my studies and put on a CV, for instance. Furthermore, I won't even pretend to know as much as I could had my MSc been on finite group theory.
Are advisors actually willing to take on students that don't have as much familiarity with their field of research? And what can I do to level the playing field against competition which is (presumably) more acquainted with the area? I am planning to apply to positions in the US, UK, Canada, and possibly elsewhere in Europe.
Thanks in advance!

What country are you in? Expectations at the start of a PhD vary quite a bit.

Not sure if it's relevant, as I'm applying for PhDs in other countries (US, UK, Canada, etc), which will certainly vary amongst themselves...

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear that it would be the country/ies you're applying for rather than the one you're presently in.

@BryanKrause No problem! But, as I indicated above, the main three are probably the US, the UK and Canada. There may be some outlier in continental Europe as well, but I don't know yet - Spain would probably be the most likely (as far as I'm aware).


text:
Today is April 26th, and I still haven't received any response concerning my application to 2 Ph.D. programs. Is this normal?
I also tried contacting both schools, but they fail to give me a clear answer concerning the status of my application. Also tried looking on the application page on the site of both universities, but no result there as well. Can I consider myself rejected at this point or is there still any hope?
Both universities are in the US and abide to the 15th April resolution according to https://cgsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CGS_April15_Resolution_Apr22.pdf which makes all offers of graduate school financial aid valid until April 15th. The applications were due in mid-December for programs beginning in Fall 2022.

@jonesy Have you checked your spam folder? What does "fail to give me a clear answer" mean? Did you get any answer?

@Bryan Krause I have been checking in the last few weeks, but it might be the case that I missed the email in march and it got deleted after a while. In fact, I had missed the email from another university, but they quickly sent me the decision email back after I inquired. As for those other two I mentioned, one told me to read their FAQ regarding response time (not helpful) and the other told me (after 2 weeks I sent the email) that decision dates vary for each program and I should try contacting the program directly, and also that if a decision was made I would receive an email.

@jonesy For the first one, when did you ask them? For the second, did you follow up with the program directly?

@Bryan Krause Both universities abide to the 15th res. (already edited the OP). For the first university, I asked them on April 12th, then I sent them another email and they didn't respond anymore. For the second one, I received their late response today, I might try asking the program directly, but 4 days ago I did contact a professor member of the admission committee for this program, and he told me it was unlikely I would get an offer at this point.

I sympathize with you that getting that canned response on April 12th is incredibly frustrating... For the second program, it is similarly frustrating that they did not respond to you earlier, but it does seem you've gotten a clear response from them: it is unlikely (effectively zero probability, this is just a friendly way to say it) that you will get an offer from them.

@Bryan Krause regarding the "unlikely" response, Im still not totally sure, neither was this professor. He asked me in the email some other details regarding the application. This program is offered in multiple internal school/departments in this university, and he asked me to specify these details because each possibility follows different processes and the response times varies, even though its the same program (this is unique to this university and super confusing, I know). I then replied with these details, but still no answer from him.

Indeed, that seems...unnecessarily complicated. Presumably there is some central point of contact that keeps things orderly, but perhaps that professor doesn't know who that point of contact is. It would certainly explain why they have failed to communicate a decision, though, if they are so disorganized. Maybe better not to be a student there, after all...

I sympathize with you that getting a canned response "to read their FAQ regarding response time" on April 12th is incredibly frustrating, though it's likely your message did not go to someone with knowledge of your specific application if you sent your mail to a general graduate school office. Admissions decisions in the US are typically made by individual programs: contact the program to see if you've missed a message. Unfortunately, even if they did intend to accept you, it may be too late now.
Ordinarily, application decisions in the US are given out by the beginning of April at the latest, to give students a chance to consider their options before the April 15 deadline. If you are waitlisted, then it is possible to hear a spot has opened up after April 15th, when students who have accepted other offers would notify schools by, but you should have been informed you are on a waitlist already.
For the second program, it is similarly frustrating that they did not respond to you earlier, but it does seem you've gotten a clear response from them: it is unlikely (effectively zero probability, this is just a friendly way to say it) that you will get an offer from them.
I would consider both of these to be rejections at this point; when I was applying to grad schools in the US it was typical to get both a physical mail and emailed response, and I also received a personal phone call from accepting programs. I assume these standards are more or less the same today, though some programs may only communicate rejections one way. If they failed to send one, it's their fault; if you failed to receive it, it may be your fault, but neither really changes the admissions situation for you. I hope you've accepted your other offer if it was suitable to you.

If you are rejected you will most likely get a clear statement of it. I'd guess that they are still processing applications and only starting to make offers. Lack of a clear answer is probably a positive sign. Giving a clear statement helps them avoid answering unfruitful queries. But not all universities have optimal policies.
OTOH, it is possible that they are making offers and that you aren't at the top of the list. But the crystal ball is cloudy.
It is a mistake to make assumptions about things, but also good to keep other options open.
If you only applied to two schools, however, you have sub-optimized, especially if they are similar.

I applied to 6 universities: 3 rejected me, 1 accepted me, and also those other 2.

Getting no reply at all seems quite odd. If they are waitlisted then it is to the benefit of the department to tell them that. Similarly telling them 'yes' or 'no' is beneficial to all parties.


text:
Is it normal for academics to pay conference fee themselves?
I am invited to present in a session at a conference, and the conference requires presenters to pay the registration fee themselves.
I usually will have some research grant/ travel fund to cover the registration fee; however, this year, I don't have any financial support from my institution.
The conference is extensive and usually has lots of great talks in previous years, so I think it's a good idea to attend. And it's a big event so that I can promote my work and it's suitable for my key performance indicator (KPI) too. However, the fee is not small, and I don't know if it is normal for early career researchers to pay for these events themselves. If I pay, does it make me look bad because I feel like it shows that I failed to get research support?
Edit: thank you everyone for the answers! I should clarify that I only consider paying myself because it’s a virtual conference and so I don’t have worry about travel cost. While I know that virtual conferences don’t bring as much benefit as in-person events, it’s still not as easy as before the pandemic to travel, and I consider this as a way to get some interactions with people in the field. But I do agree that I should only do this at most a few times.

I'm surprised your institution won't fund this. Are you faculty?

@Buffy  During hard times, my university's travel budget has fallen to zero.  Now it is back to meager.

While this may be late, you may ask the organizers if they can provide you financial support. I had two cases of this happening to me as a PhD student, not sure if you have similar chances as a (I suppose) postdoc. Never hurts to ask though. Also, if you're in EU, you may be able to apply to COST for funding your participation.

@Roland made an important point in a comment that was later removed.
In most cases you pay by yourself by some means, and then get reimbursed ("repaid"). As the reimbursement is between you and your university, no-one at the conference knows that you will not be reimbursed.

For the record, this is how its been in 3/4 universities of the UK I worked at. You pay from your pocket, then you ask the uni for a refund.

It is not that normal--but also not completely rare. I know of several who did this (including myself).
But you can pay for yourself without anyone knowing this! Indeed, conferences do not gather information on the funding sources of participants.
Hence, your problem is solved.

Also I imagine this is deductable from your taxes in most jurisdictions so the cost will be somewhat lower than the sticker price.

This happens all the time.  Many academics travel a bit more than their research budgets allow.  Most registration fees are paid by the participant directly and then the participant applies for reimbursement.  A cumbersome system that can cause problems, but it does mean nobody knows how much you end up paying yourself.

Paying yourself and asking for reimbursements later (no matter if reg fee or air tickets) is dangerous. If you get sick and do not travel, the costs may become ineligible. I try to avoid that as much as possible.

@VladimirFГероямслава Dangerous maybe, but in some places not easily avoidable.  (And one of the reasons I always book hotels with the option to cancel last-minute. Flights are an issue though, as are conference fees.)

No one will know that you paid yourself, since most people pay in advance out of their own pocket and then get reimbursement from the institution or funding source.
However, even if it's not unheard of, I think that paying for a conference yourself without reimbursement is highly, highly problematic. I would never do it myself, and I actually refused to pay out of my pocket much smaller work-related expenses.
For many, me included, research is a lifelong passion, but one must also remember that it's a job. And all work-related expenses must be paid by the employer.

Depends on who you are. For example, students and adjunct instructors often do not get conference expenses covered by their home institution.

"And all work-related expenses must be paid by the employer." --- well, if the employer refuses to pay for your conference it is almost literally not part of "your job". Indeed, if the employer deems your research career unimportant, it's better to pay yourself than succumb to your employer's selfish plan for your life.

Note that my chair and my dean have little idea of which conferences are important to me.  They just set a travel budget.  If I want to go past that, to promote my career or see a new city, that is on me.

And all work-related expenses must be paid by the employer. - In the US at least, it is common that employees (esp. school teachers due to underfunding) pay for things out of their own pocket.  It is so common that deductions for such expenses are written into the US tax code (though not as broadly as they once were).

@ElizabethHenning: then my very personal opinion is that they shouldn't go to the conference, unless some other source of funding/travel grant is available. I would never ask a student of mine to pay out of his/her own pocket, and I wouldn't even imply that this is a possibility.

@TerryLoring - oh wait - you have a personal travel budget?  Our department has a travel budget for funding travel of unfunded faculty.  In good years we can fund 2 trips; in bad years 0.  The College of Science also has its own limited pot, but mathematicians are unlikely to see any of it since the travel won't be helping to bring in a million dollar grant.  (As is common at many lower ranked research universities in the US, research only counts if it brings in grant money.)

This is not particularly common, but certainly not unheard of.  Universities will fund conference travel for their faculty up to an extent, and subject to approval in specific cases, but sometimes these applications for funding are not successful and the academic decides to go anyway, on their own dime.  Some important points to note about this situation:

If your institution assigns Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for your work then they have an obligation to give you what you need to acheive those KPIs.  It's not clear from your question exactly what the relevant KPI here is, but if it requires you to attend a conference, and they are not willing to fund that, they cannot reasonably assess you adversely on that KPI later.  If your university will not fund your conference travel, but expects you to deliver a conference talk as a KPI, they are effectively setting you a work task that is impossible to achieve without your own personal funding.  In employment law, impossible work tasks leading into adverse performance reviews are often interpreted as a form of bullying and unreasonable management (again, depending on relevant laws in your jurisdiction).  If you are in this type of situation, have a calm and reasonable conversation with your boss on the problem to see what can be done.  (At minimum, they might reduce your KPIs to conform more appropriately to your funding situation.)

Some conferences may allow a discounted fee in some cases when they are dealing with academics who lack funding, particularly if they are early-career researchers.  This is certainly not guaranteed, but it is something that you could write to the conference organisers to inquire about.  Many big conferences take a long-term view where they hope to attract younger poorly-funded academics who will later be older better-funded academics.  If you think this is a possibility, write to the conference organisers, tell them your circumstances, and see if they can offer you a lower fee for attendance.

If you are self-funding for an academic conference that relates to your work then it is probably the case that the expenses you incur are tax deductible as a work-related expense (depending on specific tax laws in your jurisdiction).  This means that the costs will usually come out of your pre-tax income instead of post-tax income (so it will end up a little cheaper than it might otherwise be).  Make sure you keep all relevant receipts for your costs and consult advice at tax time about claiming these costs as work expenses.

As other answers have made clear, nobody else attending the conference will have any idea whether you were reimbursed by a grant or your institution for your travel expenses or if you're attending on your own dime.
Note that some conferences have some funds available to support early career researchers (although this funding is often limited to students):

https://www.aps.org/meetings/events/futurephysics/travelgrants.cfm
https://www.scipy2022.scipy.org/financial-aid

In mathematics, in the U.S., in the past, the idea was that one had grant funding to pay for travel and lodging at conferences (from NSF, for example), or, if one was in "invited speaker", the conference would pay for one's expenses. (Still, in most cases, one had to pay, and then get reimbursed...)
This has created an unfortunate model, in which one's home university most often does not consistently pay for conference expenses. You're supposed to get grants to pay for it yourself. In some cases, I've seen (limited) funding of grad students to go to conferences.
On another hand, as in other answers and comments, no one will know the ultimate source of your funding for the conference.
So, operationally/practically, yes, probably a person needs to go to conferences... and cannot expect to have these expenses paid... though no one will know if you pay from your own funds.
(Mild irony that more severe pandemic times made the economics of conference attendance more egalitarian... For that matter, even ignoring money, I'm ever less enthusiastic about going to airports, sitting in airplanes, figuring out taxis, etc., just to give or hear talks that would scarcely have been different by Zoom...)

Personally, I don't go to conferences just to give or hear talks. The real value comes in the interactions with other people at the conference in the back of the room or hallways between sessions, in the bar after the sessions, and so on. Being away from one's own environment in a situation where one is instead dedicating time to interacting with other researchers without having to have a specific agenda lets me learn about things and make contacts with people leading to further collaboration that would never happen if I attended the conference "remotely."

@cjs, oh, yes, I would strongly agree with you, especially for younger people. And/but, at a certain point, one has enough contacts, enough information channels, that extravagant-and-not-so-comfortable travel offers insufficient gains. Maybe to show people I'm not quite dead yet... :)

Don't forget there are other fees for attending a conference, beyond the registration fee. Things like air fare, hotels, food etc. If you don't have funding for the conference fee I expect you don't have funding for the other stuff. Depending where the conference is, the other costs can add up to be alot more than the conference fee itself. So that is something to keep in mind if you are self funding a trip to a conference.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Is it necessary to provide contact information for tens of co-authors when submitting a paper from a large collaboration?
I am submitting an introductory paper of a large project to an Elsevier journal. All the main contributors to the different working packages are co-authoring the paper. They are more than fifty.
The last page of the submission system asks me the names and emails of all the authors. I don’t even have all their email addresses. Moreover, it asks for the affiliations because there could be conventions with some institutions for open access, but we will choose the subscription option.
Granted that all the authors and affiliations are listed in the manuscript, is there any ethical concern if I don’t provide all fifty names and addresses to the system?
I was left out once, but still the paper correctly figures into my Scopus and Scholar profiles because my name is in the manuscript.

50 only? that's cute ;)

I don't see any ethical issues.  As to the practical side, you'll have to ask the editor if they need you to enter all 50 addresses, or if some other procedure is okay.  We can't know what this journal's policies or preferences might be.

Whoever collected all the co-authors' agreement to submit the manuscript surely has their emails?

It seems to me that if these people should be authors on the paper, someone organizing the project should at minimum have this contact information for all of them. I do understand this can be a taxing administrative task in a large group.
"I don't have them" seems like a solvable problem, not a valid excuse. I don't know about this particular journal, but I've found it fairly common as a coauthor to get emails from the journal informing me of the submission at minimum. It's a way for the journal to ensure people listed as authors are aware their names are being used and gives them an avenue to communicate if necessary.

As @BryanKrause said in their answer, if you are collaborating with so many people that not everyone knows each others names, affiliations and email addresses, then there should be (and probably is) someone in the collaboration keeping track of those things and be able to provide a list of authors to you.
However, you may also want to take a look at how bigger collaborations handle this, see e.g. this paper from the LHCb collaboration, one of the four large collaborations working at the particle accelerator LHC at CERN, which has more than a thousand members: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931730062X
While all authors are listed (not doing that would clearly be unethical), only their names and affiliations are shown. Having been a member of that particular collaboration in the past, I can also tell you that I did not receive an email from the journal whenever a new paper was published by the collaboration, which happened quite often (although there were internal emails announcing it). So they probably did not enter the email addresses of all members of the collaboration. Note that the particular paper I linked above appeared in an Elsevier journal (Physics Letters B in this case), just like yours is going to. So it may make sense to figure out if it is also possible to just supply the names and affiliations in your case.

The issue here is not one of ethics, just organisational requirements and logistics for the publication process.  The journal will want the email addresses of the co-authors so that it can email them to let them know that a paper has been submitted in their name.  I guess it's possible the journal might allow you to proceed without that information, but I doubt it.  I recommend going back to your co-authors (through whatever means you have been communicating) and organising a list of basic information like emails and affiliations.

You are the "corresponding author" with the journal. Here's the International committee of medical journal editors' view of your responsibility in respect of providing contact information:

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary
responsibility for communication with the journal during the
manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The
corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s
administrative requirements, such as providing details of
authorship...

(The entire ICMJE policy on authorship is worth reading, as it is quickly becoming the model policy.)
In short, this running around collecting information is exactly what a corresponding author has signed up to do.

Does "details of authorship" necessarily include e-mail addresses or is it up to the journal to define their administrative requirements?


text:
I got a paper to review from a journal that had rejected my earlier works, how to respond?
Recently, I got a paper to review for a journal (Elsevier) which is very reputed. The fact is that this journal had rejected two of my earlier works after keeping it under review for more than a year approximately.
I understand that in science, it is good to forget the past; however, it still keeps me haunted when I think that my works became obsolete because of unnecessary delay in the review process that resulted in no satisfactory comment on rejection.
Is it weird that the journal is now thinking that I am capable of reviewing a manuscript?
Anyway, past apart, how should I respond? Should I accept the review invitation? Or, should I just say that I can't do the review, which will be like Tit-For-Tat. I don't know, I am confused.

As someone who has never been involved in the publication activities of Academia, for me, this question confirms the accuracy of Mark Burgess's commentary on the brokenness of the peer review process for the advancement of science.  He wrote a blog post about it: Why I stopped caring about peer review, and learned to love the work.  You may find it very relevant.

@Wildcard Thank you very much for this awesome link.(+1)

Just in case you still felt like working for free for this lot I'll leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge

Part of your (legitimate) complaint is not that they were rejected, but how, and how slowly. Were they rejected with or without comments? Were the comments correct, accurate and helpful? Could you use them to resubmit elsewhere?

Review is not usually slow because of a lazy editor but because of slow reviewers.

And just for that, nothing personal: People who get papers rejected have 85% submitted a lousy piece of work and/or to an unfitting journal. Just think about how low quality many published papers are: You likely were even below. Or you're wasting, like many others, the valuable time of unpaid reviewers by being overzealous about the IF of the journals you submit to.

Watch it.  You could also ask this question in the opposite direction, and the answer is also NO: "If I refuse to review papers for that journal, can they retaliate by rejecting my future papers?"

@GEdgar Yes. I had this question in mind. But, then I thought, who would track and who has that much time to track.. we never Know. Their api would show history of the researchers. Thanks.

These two issues are separate: if they reject your paper without comments, that's where you have to complain. They did not do a good job, reputable or not, and you are entitled to an explanatory review, especially since they wasted your time.
But you should not link the issues. If you think the journal is not as good as it used to be, you can decide not to review. If you think it is good, then, depending on how much time you have, you can offer to do the review. And if you do, do it with as much goodwill as you would for a journal that gave your astounding reviews.
But you should not link your rejection and your review - it is tempting to do so, but it is not a professional attitude. And you want to be just that: a professional.

Thank for that statement "And you want to be just that: a professional." -- it makes sense here. I have been thinking this. But, you know, somewhere back of my head, it is afresh - the rejection.(+1)

@Coder The rejection is irrelevant. You can expect some of your very best papers being rejected or hardly passing review. That's the way it is. If you think the journal is not doing a good job on the whole, that's a reason to refuse, of course. In general, you will find that taking a low-pass filter approach to experience is more helpful than a high-frequency filtering approach - in short, once is happenstance, twice is bad luck, three times, however, [well, look up Goldfinger's law] ;-)

Is it weird that the journal is now thinking me capable of reviewing a manuscript?

Not really. Almost all scientists have their papers rejected on a regular basis and if this disqualified them from reviewing, journals would be running out of reviewers extremely quickly. Moreover, highly ranking journals reject papers mainly for their lack of importance, not for being technically bad. So, assuming that you have some publications elsewhere to advertise your qualities and your paper was not rejected for outrageous problems (such as plagiarism), I do not find this weird.

Should I accept the review invitation? Or, should I just say that I can't do the review, which will be like Tit-For-Tat.

Only you can make this decision, but consider these points:

Seeking revenge on a journal because they rejected your paper is neither ethical nor professional.
On the other hand, if you think that the journal or publisher are generally practicing bad behaviour, you can refuse to review on that basis and should state your reasons. It is even okay if you make that judgment on basis of your own experiences – there is a crucial difference between “I refuse because you rejected my paper” and “I refuse because of how you rejected a paper (which happened to be mine)”. However, I think that if you do, you should have complained about these issues when your paper was rejected – after all whatever you experienced could be bad luck or due to a single bad editor.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Is it weird that the journal is now thinking me capable of reviewing a manuscript?

No, it isn't.  Rejecting your papers was a judgement about those specific papers, not about your personal abilities as a scientist.  It doesn't indicate that the journal somehow thinks you, personally, aren't good enough for their journal, it just means those particular papers didn't make the cut.
If your experience with the journal has actually poisoned your relationship with it - in particular, if you wouldn't submit again for fear of the same thing happening - then that's probably a reason to decline (perhaps just politely responding that you don't have the time, which is always a valid response).  Answering that question probably means deciding whether you think the journal really mishandled your papers, and in a systematic enough way that you don't trust them to handle others, or if they just happened to reject them, or just had a one-time mess-up by a single editor.

+1. I don't think the two cases are completely separate. What the OP shan't do is be cruel to the authors; he could do that, accept to review, wait 10 months and write a short rejecting review. But I hope we agree that this hurts mostly the innocent authors. He actually shan't be cruel. On the other hand, I think that be fair is a priority. If you reject to review because you're objectively angry at the journal, you should make the reason clear.

I suspect you ticked the "available for reviewing" box when you submitted your earlier work via Elsevier's editorial system. Your name then showed up in a list of potential reviewers based on the keywords you entered at that time. It's possible that the people who handled your papers are different from the ones asking you to be a reviewer.
While I understand the frustration, I don't think it's wise to "rage quit" a journal you consider reputable on that ground. If you don't feel qualified because of the rejections or some other reason, then it's best to politely decline. If not, it's actually a great exercise for you and an opportunity to be part of the community that publishes in your field.
Also, by completing your review in a timely manner yourself you can "be the change you want to see [in your field]".

This is a good answer. I would only add that he should pay attention to his emotions too. This is essentially unpaid work, but it is still important work. And if he feels conflicted about it, he may do less than a stellar job with it.

One fact that hasn't been mentioned in the other answers is that a "journal" is not a homogeneous entity. A typical reputed journal (at least in the engineering domain that I am familiar with) consists of 15-20 associate editors (AE) who handle the reviews. It is quite likely that the AE who handled your paper(s) is different from the AE who is asking you for a review.
When I am handling a paper as an AE, I never check if the reviewer has had any paper rejected in the past. As others have said, almost everyone receives rejections for top journals. As an AE, what is important for me is to find reviewers who will be able to provide a critical evaluation of the manuscript under review...it really does not matter if the reviewer has published in that journal in the past.

Your papers being rejected is not the case for a grudge against the particular journal. The longevity of the process could be.
If you have been invited, it is quite possible that one of the editors thinks that you are capable of evaluating research at the (apparently) high level the journal strives for. Partially, it is a badge of honour (of course reviewing papers is hard work and reviewers are needing everywhere), since now you have the option of participating in the "old boys club" that rejected your papers, and applying your judgement to other people's works. You can influence the outcome of the reviews. If you think they handled you unfairly, you now have the option to contribute to fairer handling of other manuscripts.

There is no dilemma here and no argument for revenge. Being asked to peer review is a complement at its best and at worst an honor. It would also seem to me that if you take the revenge route, you are not only taking this out on an innocent party who is waiting patiently for his or her paper to be reviewed. But you are also running the risk of damage to your reputation with this publication.
My advice is that you take the risk of showing some academic integrity by submitting the most honest review possible as quickly as you possibly can. Where's the harm in committing a random act of kindness. Especially when it's the right and only thing to do. Short of washing your hands of that publication where under such a circumstance you would decline the review as soon as you can for the sake of that writer so that they can find another reviewer quickly.
So, do the review and submit your updated paper as well to the same associate editor. Take this opportunity to build a relationship. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

What do you mean by "running the risk of damage to your reputation with this publication" ? How do you know it?

What is meant is that if you decide to carry out a childish and immature vendetta by unfairly taking on the review of someone's paper, then stalling for an extended duration, as you state happened with you, your standing with this journal will be less than a positive one.

Ostensibly, damage to one's "reputation" with that publisher can be as simple as being known by that publisher for rejecting requests for reviews thereby being removed from the list of potential reviewers. One would have to see some value in being asked to be a reviewer. The publisher not must have but would have have had a good reason for requesting the review. So, I hope you went with what I believe is an opportunity to shine!

How to proceed:  Review the paper honestly and objectively, just as you would hope someone would review yours.  This really should not be a question that needs to be asked in my opinion, as the ethical way to proceed is crystal clear.

It shouldn't be a question. IMO review must be honest no matter whatever the situation is.

Are you implying that the journal you submitted to somehow was unfair in their rejection of your submissions?  That would be another matter entirely, and there should be mechanisms in place for appeals, or at least my logic/common sense driven mind assumes so.

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


text:
Does a bad paper get rejected very fast and if a paper is under review for long time, should one expect at least reasonable review?
My question is regarding applied Math journals (for example SIAM). Is there such a thing that a bad paper gets rejected very fast? Also if a paper is under review for more than 6 months, then should one expect at least a reasonable review (Although it may get rejected at the end)?

No.  There are tremendous differences across journals.  A "bad" paper can get rejected within hours after submission, or 6 months after submission.  Good papers can also get rejected within the same timeframe.  Some reviewers are very conscientious and complete the reviews quickly, but the paper can still sit with the editor for a long time.  Or, more often than not, you have multiple reviewers on much different time schedules.  Some journals do a very good job of triaging papers, so a rejection of a bad paper may happen quickly.  But you will learn that "bad" is a very subjective viewpoint.  I suggest that you do not associate the quality of the paper (i.e., good vs. bad) with the time under review.

"Good papers can also get rejected within the same timeframe"... Did you mean accepted? :)

@JoãoMendes: both can happen.

@BenoîtKloeckner Yes, that's what I meant. That's not what the post says, though. :)

Compared to APS journals (e.g. Phys Rev), SIAM journals do not manage their review process very well. There are no clear guidelines on how long each review step can take, and a lot depends on the attitude of a particular associate editor. On average, SIAM reviews are quite long, and the quality does not necessarily justify the time spent on it. One particular frustrating aspect is that some SIAM journals tend to offer "Reject and Resubmit" decision where a "Major Revision" would previously be offered. This is probably to improve some internal statistics (average review time, maybe).
However, it is fair to say that there are journals in applied math with even much worse review process. Ultimately, I think, this is a question of who we are as a community, and how much we want to change things. Clearly, from the editor/reviewer point of view a lazy workflow has its benefits, especially because we all have other commitments.

I don't think Phys rev is an AMS journal, and it is certainly not a mathematics' one.

@MartinArgerami I am sorry, it was a typo, AMS -> APS. It's definitely a physics journal. Thank you for pointing it out.

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