text:
Applying to top CS PhD programs with a great record but bad GRE scores
I have a good GPA (over 3.5) from a top 5 CS school. I also have lots of research experience and a few publications. I also expect to have very good recommendations. The only problem is that I did badly on the GRE general exam (just under below average). The exam seems like a big scam, so studying for it felt like a waste of time.
One of JeffE's blog posts mentions that schools filter applicants into three piles based on GPA and GRE: MAYBE, PROBABLY NOT, and NO. Will my GRE scores land me in the PROBABLY NOT pile, even though I have an otherwise excellent record?
Will my GRE hurt my chances of getting into CMU and Stanford? Should I try to retake them, even though it's getting late? Application deadlines are around December 13.
Edit: should I say something about my bad GRE scores in the statement of purpose, or do something else if I don't end up retaking them?

Welcome to Academia.SE. There is a a lot in your question that is very specific to you. Thus, the answer may only be useful to you. Such questions tend to get closed as a too localized. Could you edit your question to make it generalizable? You would get better answers, and your answers will also be helpful to others.

Also, your question may have already been answered in one of the many graduate admissions questions already posted, like this one: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5032/how-much-score-in-gre-computer-science-subject-test-is-considered-good

Apply abroad. There are many good schools in Europe waiting for you with open arms.

The blog post @X.Crews mentions is here; however, my department's admissions procedures have changed since I wrote that.

Let's clarify - is the GRE math score below-avg? Honestly the GRE verbal score doesn't need to be higher than.. say 550. But if GRE math is under 650 I'd certainly be a tad concerned

@DaveClarke like which ones?

@Pinocchio: KU Leuven, Uppsala University, Utrecht University, to cite three I know personally.

Many PhD programs in computer science (like my own) don't require GREs; read the application instructions carefully.  If it's not a requirement, just don't submit your GRE scores.
Even when you are required to submit your scores, do not mention your GRE scores in your statement.  You want the admissions committee to focus on your potential for research, where you seem to have a very strong case, not your ability to take standardized tests.

If you can re-take the GREs without undue burden -- yes, re-take them.  You'll feel better, knowing that you did everything you could have.  (Why spend the rest of your life wondering about "what could have been"?)  And, it might help you a little bit, by eliminating a potential red flag.
That said, even if you don't re-take the GREs, if you have great qualifications, you'll probably be fine.  If you have great research experience, great letters, and the rest of your application package is strong, it's unlikely that the GREs will hurt you much.  Great research experience and publications will almost always trump poor GREs.
What your bad GRE scores will do is raise the eyebrows of the reviewers.  The reviewers may then read the rest of your application package (contact your references, etc.) that much more carefully, to try to understand why you bombed the GREs.  For instance, if you bombed the verbal GREs, then reviewer might start wondering: can this person write?  are they completely inarticulate?  am I going to have to spend the next 5 years teaching them how to write and remedial English?  And they'll peruse all available information to try to figure out what's going on.  So, if you have any explanation (even if it's just "I screwed up and didn't take the GREs seriously; in retrospect, I know it was a dumb move"), it might not hurt to share this story with your letter-writers so one of them can slip that into their letter, to minimize that sort of speculation.  The other approach is to mention it in your statement of purpose -- though for some people it may feel a bit less awkward if one of your letter-writers does it.
P.S. A 3.5 GPA is not a great GPA.  My sense is that it is a bit on the low side, for PhD studies in a top-5 CS PhD program.  That said, grades are not the most important aspect of your application, and will be outweighed by research experience and great letters describing research potential.  Research experience that has led to publications is great and a huge plus for your application file.

I think a 3.5 GPA counts for a lot in most of the top universities in India. Especially if you directly translate the GPA via linear interpolation.
We typically have 1-2 students up to a maximum of 6 getting an A in a subject. This is typically more so at BITS and some of the IIT's.
So, typically only ~ 5% of the people get a 3.5 GPA overall.
I think this also applies to Princeton University now days.
So I think it is generally University dependent.

@Naresh, OK, I hear you.  That said...  even being in the top 5% of a graduating class is not great, when it comes to admission to a top-5 CS PhD program.  Standards are very high.

3.5 is often the highest GPA possible for some of the streams at these colleges. Simply because a single person struggles to get A's in more than half the courses unless he goes over the credit limit required for graduation.
While a 3.5 GPA might not be great in itself, most colleges look for research potential. Which in turn makes the 3.5+ GPA above acceptable if his university has strict grading criteria.
For top 5-CS Ph D Program, being in the top 5% might be sufficient GPA-wise, but you have to show research potential.

@Naresh, Thanks for your comments!  I certainly agree that research potential far outweighs the GPA, so this discussion is probably moot.  However, I do have one question, out of pure curiousity (even though it probably won't affect X.Crew's particular case).  How could 3.5 be the highest GPA possible?  I'd be interested to learn more about that.  Do you mean it's very hard (or very rare) to get higher than a 3.5 GPA? Or do you mean there's something that prevents getting over a 3.5?  (I admit I don't know what a stream is.)

It would typically be very hard to get above 3.5, in these colleges for branches such as civil engineering/chemical engineering.This has much more to do with the way the admissions take place here rather than anything else.The top ranks typically take CS/EE/ECE as their subject, making the intellectual pool of students in a Civil Eng course to be lesser.Therefor,Civil Eng. students almost never end up with an A grade in any of the common courses. That's almost 2 years of 0-1 'A' grades.Typically the gold medalist or the valedictorian of the batch alone would get a 3.5 in the Civil Eng. program

A 3.5 GPA is not a great GPA. It is very much on the low side, for PhD studies in a top-5 CS PhD program. — Nah, not really.  (I work in a top-5 CS PhD program.)  It's certainly high enough to get your application past the point where grades matter.

Despite being nearly the exact opposite question, I will give the same answer that I gave about the importance of GPA

The importance of any single metric is binary and its value (important
  or not) depends on the size of the department. If the department is
  big, admissions committees use metrics to weed out candidates.
  Basically anyone with GPA/GRE below X is triaged (doesn't matter what
  school you went to, how good your references are, etc). Smaller
  departments generally look at all applications. Once your applications
  is looked at, it is considered as a whole. There is no formula by
  which good GRE scores can offset a bad GPA. Obviously a better GPA
  doesn't hurt, but you really want to worry about the things you can
  control. For example, good research experience tends to trump
  everything else.

I don't think it's universally true that everyone with a GPA/GRE below X is automatically triaged, without reading the rest of the folder -- at least, it is not true of the departments that I'm familiar with.  That said, I agree with everything after "Once your application is looked at"... this is very helpful advice.

@D.W. I didn't say it was universal. I said it depends on the size of the department (and even that is a simplification). As soon as you read the rest of the folder, you are not performing triage. In my experience many departments and/or individuals perform triage and attempt to quickly make three piles (yes, no, maybe). In "big" departments you run out of funding before you get through the yes pile. In "small" departments you often make it through the maybe pile and still have funding.

What I'm saying is that your statement does not match my experience.  I'm not familiar with any large PhD program who reviews applications in that way (they may exist, but I'm just not familiar with them), whereas I am familiar with several large CS PhD programs that don't work that way and would not triage you just because your GPA/GRE is below some threshhold.

As far as I experienced last year, a high GRE score by itself may not directly bring you an acceptance from a grad school. However, low or moderate scores may result in an early elimination in the process. I think this is often the case for other standardized tests such as TOEFL (for an international applicant). Plus, you can consider GPA in this respect as well.

I think TOEFL is a little different in that there is often a university mandated minimum.

Personally I think if a department throws out a person just based on GRE scores, you should neither apply to such department nor feel bad that you were not accepted. You will be better evaluated somewhere else. I am not sure how the GRE is supposed to rank good researchers. And for admission purposes it is used only in the US.

The GRE isn't used to rank anything. It's used to do triage, as Daniel mentioned. Having said that, I personally don't use GRE scores as triage so much as one element of a more complex filtering strategy (that starts with the research statement)


text:
How should "et al." be used for parenthetical versus non-parenthetical citations using the APA citation style?
Someone told me that in APA style you treat parenthetical versus non-parenthetical in-text references separately when applying et al.
For example, let's say you're citing Smith, Jones, and Roberts (2012).
You would write

Smith, Jones, and Roberts (2012) write that bla bla bla bla.
  Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (Smith, Jones & Roberts, 2012).

That is, because in the second line it is the first time you mention the authors parenthetically, you have to restate the authors' names....
I always thought you treat parenthetical and non-parenthetical citations the same.  So it would be the following:

Smith, Jones, and Roberts (2012) write that bla bla bla bla.
  Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (Smith et al., 2012).

Can anyone confirm or clarify this for me?
The reference they gave for this rule is table 6.1 on page 177 of the APA Manual, 6th edition.
They interpreted the column titled "First citation in-text" and "Parenthetical Format, first citation in text) as indicating that those two formats should be treated separately.  However, this doesn't make sense to me and I think that APA would have made this more explicit if it had intended this interpretation.

I asked apastyle.org and received the following response from an Editorial Supervisor

Your interpretation is correct, and your interlocutor is wrong. Table 6.1 simply gives examples of citations in different circumstances.  The rules of APA Style are stated pretty clearly in the APA Publication Manual; there is no need to deduce additional unstated rules. If something in a table or figure appears to contradict the text, follow the text.

Therefore my interpretation (and Joel Reyes Noche's interpretation) of et al. is correct.

I think that the form

Smith, Jones, and Roberts (2012) write that bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (Smith, Jones & Roberts, 2012).

does not follow the recommended APA style.  That is, I think the correct way to write it is

Smith, Jones, and Roberts (2012) write that bla bla bla bla. Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (Smith et al., 2012).

where the first citation is the first citation "in text" and the second citation is the first citation of this work "in a parenthetical format."
Look at page 43 (figure 2.1) of the 6th edition of the APA manual.  Lines 2 and 3 of page 6 of the sample paper has the first citation of "Hahn, Carlson, Singer, & Gronlund, 2006" in parenthetical form

(consistent with Hahn, Carlson, Singer, & Gronlund, 2006; Mather & Knight, 2006)

and on lines 17 and 18, a citation of the same work in text is given as Hahn, et al. (2006)

Similarly, Hahn et al. (2006) also found no age differences [...]

Now, it is not certain that the latter citation is the first citation in text of this work (because some text in the sample paper is obscured).  But looking at other papers in journals that follow the APA format seems to confirm my answer.
For example, a paper in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (vol. 43, no. 2, p. 133) (which explicitly states that manuscripts submitted to it "should conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.)") has a first citation in text

In their article in Mathematics Teacher, Cirillo, Drake, and Herbel-Eisenmann (2009) situated their work on curriculum vision as described below.

Then a block quotation from this work ends in the first citation in parenthetical form

(Cirillo et al., 2009, p. 71)

This is mostly a nonissue for APA 7th edition because three or more authors are now cited as "et al." from the first mention, whether parenthetical or not, except where it would create ambiguity.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Ask thesis supervisor for permission to include his name as co-author of a journal paper and risk being denied?
I did my Masters Thesis at a reputed organization, under a supervisor who is an expert in the field. The organization is notoriously protective about the data I acquired from there which I need in my calculations in my thesis. I would like to publish a paper with his name too, though he had very little to do with my actual work. But I am afraid that if I ask him, he will say no, owing to the over-protective nature of the organization (though it was I who took the readings and collected the values myself). I have the option to publish it without naming my supervisor or the organization. What would be the right approach here?

Why are they notoriously protective about the data [you] acquired?

@user2768 Their materials, their measuring instruments and a (minute) part of an ongoing project. Also organization policy it seems.

I'm confused: They're secretive about their materials and measuring instruments? Perhaps don't answer this question: Is the organization government or military? If not, why are they secretive? Protecting work-in-progress makes sense, but universities typically want research published. Understanding the rationale for the organization policy may help you navigate a route to publication. Speaking to your supervisor is probably the easiest way forwards.

Most likely, if your supervisor says no, it would be for a reason that precludes you from publishing with or without him.

It sounds like you need to consider three distinct issues:

Trade secrets / copyright: Is the data truly yours to publish? I am not a lawyer, but depending on location, type of employment and contracts / NDAs you may have signed, the simple fact that you took the readings and acquired the data might not make you legal copyright holder. What you may need - given that the organization in question is notoriously protective or even over-protective of their data - is permission to publish by the head of that institution, even if you do not intend to publish the entire data set but merely results derived from it. Formulations like notoriously protective make it seem highly advisable to look through any formal papers you may have signed prior to starting there.
Academic integrity: Even if advisors seem to have very little to do with a project, they still may have provided guidance or maybe even just the opportunity to acquire data (as in, they did the work of putting together equipment necessary to acquire the data). In those cases, it is still necessary to put the supervisor in the author list.
Affiliation: Putting the organization in the affiliations is - as far as I understand the situation - necessary, because without their equipment / setup, you could not have collected the data. Think of the CERN or DESY: Sure it's you spending the night on site when you have beam time, but you'd still put that organization in the affiliations.

I may be mistaken, but your question sounds like you feel that academic integrity warrants putting your advisor as co-author, but if you do that, people might notice that you publish work based on data acquired at that institute. And that institute might object to you publishing that data, hence you'd rather avoid "waking sleeping dogs". If that's the case, i.e. if people at the institute could object to you publishing the data, you should ask before publishing.
If it turns out they'd rather not have you publish but have no legal way to keep you from publishing, there's no harm in asking and you can always publish anyways. But if they have legal means to keep you from publishing, just publishing anyways could be a very bad idea with potentially serious consequences for your reputation and your career (plus perhaps penalties to be paid, but again, I'm not a lawyer).
Email your supervisor, ask them how to proceed. It is very likely you're not the first who wishes to publish somthing based on research done there.

Having used an organizations facilities, does not automatically make you affiliated to that organization, and those not necessarily imply that that organization should appear as an affiliation on a paper. More typically the use of facilities is acknowledged in the "acknowledgements"  section. E.g. having used the Hubble space telescope for observations does not make you affiliated to NASA.

@mmeent True, just using their equipment only requires acknowledgements, so my example was off, thanks for pointing that out. But the OP states they did their Masters Thesis there. That makes an affiliation, in my opinion.

Excellent answer, but a nitpick re “In those cases, it is still necessary to put the supervisor in the author list.” — at least in my field, that’s not quite the case.  OP should certainly offer the supervisor co-authorship, in such cases, but the supervisor may well decline the offer (in my field, this is very usual), in which case it’s fine to publish without them as author.  It’s of course good to then include thanks for their support/guidance in the paper acknowledgements.

Email your supervisor: Ask them whether they'd like to co-author a paper derived from your thesis. Move forwards from there. You needn't write the paper before getting your supervisors input. You should ask for guidance whilst writing the paper.

I have the option to publish it without naming my supervisor or the organization.

Actually, you don't.
Publishing without naming your supervisor could be considered plagiarism, because they had an input. You say, he had very little to do with my actual work, but you should question whether you could have completed your thesis without him or whether he guided you, if so, that's his input.
Although you might be able to publish without being affiliated with the organization, you should acknowledge their support. (They provided resources for you to conduct your research.)

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


text:
How Can I Specialize In Two Different -but related- Areas
I am a freshman math major. I am very excited to be in university because I want to be a scientist, researcher. I have interest in different areas like sociology, economics, artifical intelligence, neuroscience etc.. I used to think that I can specialize in just one area then I have heard about a professor named Richard Bagozzi and I loved his career because he publishes papers in different areas such as economics, sociology and psychology. What should I do in my college life to be able to make research in more than one area? I am waiting for your advices, thank you.

It is too early for you to commit to a final field of study. It is good that you have a lot of interests and the opportunity to learn some things about many of them. Studying math at a liberal arts college, as I did, or at place that otherwise permits a broad education is a good way to build up a body of interests, any of which you might later decide to focus intently on. But you don't need extreme focus yet.
Your interests are likely to change, at least a bit, in the coming few years. Wait until you have more knowledge and experience before committing too deeply to any one area.
A note on math. A professor of English once told me that studying math gave me an almost perfect education, since the university also required those other subjects you mention, and more. Had I studied, say, sociology, instead, then my education would have missed something (logical, mathematical, computational thinking) that I wouldn't get otherwise. He was, of course, measuring against an Medieval notion of an "educated person." An educated person has a lot of opportunities. Strive for that.

thanks for your advices! I think I will take classes like psych101 too see if  I have interest in these areas. Then I will chose my area to go and make a program for it in the third year.


text:
Professorship without PhD in the United States
In the discussion made in comments to this question, it has been stated that in France, it is possible (though improbable) to become a professor without having PhD. It made me curious if there is such possibility in the United States. I know that in 1970s there were leading professors in the US university who had only MSc. However, I think the main focus was on knowledge in the past, but now formalities are much more important.
Anyway, I am curious if the current regulations in the US universities allows this at all? For promotion to full professor, one needs to be assistant/associate professor. In the past, having a PhD was privilege, but it is now mandatory for holding any assistant/associate/full professor.
Does the current regulations allow a professor without PhD to teach PhD students?
This question is about impossibility vs. improbability.

If somebody proved the Riemann hypothesis without having a PhD, I am willing to bet that they could get a tenure-track position at a quite good university. Some of the top universities might have rules prohibiting it, but one of them would surely make an exception in this case. And if they produced some more good research, tenure would certainly follow. So I would say it is definitely possible.

@PeterShor You mean it is currently impossible , but if an exceptional case appears, some would be flexible enough to bend the regulations.

I have no idea whether M.I.T. has any regulations against hiring professors without PhD's. I can tell you that if somebody without a PhD proved the Riemann hypothesis, all the top math departments would definitely consider hiring him (whether or not there are regulations against it at the university level), and I am sure that, assuming he was otherwise suitable as a professor, at least one of them would make an offer. I think this demonstrates that it is not impossible.

@PeterShor I didn't mean to disagree with you. I just meant that as you said current regulations prohibits it at this time. Or maybe it is my perception and some universities have more open regulations in this matter.

If somebody proved the Riemann hypothesis without having a PhD, I am willing to bet that they could get a tenure-track position at a quite good university. — Yes, but I'm also willing to bet that any university that had a regulation about only hiring PhDs and wanted to hire her would offer her a PhD as well.

@JeffE you mean honorary doctorate (or something like that) or normal PhD but without academic works?

No, I mean a normal PhD.  And what do you mean "without academic works"?  They have a proof of the Riemann hypothesis!

@JeffE I mean normal academic works such as courses, thesis, etc. That person has proved the Riemann hypothesis, but not part of his PhD thesis. In a normal case, a PhD student is not credited for his past research achievements, he must conduct research in the framework of his current academic PhD project. In other words, when awarding PhD for proving the Riemann hypothesis, I am curious how the official transcript of this PhD would look like ;)

@JeffE Doesn't a PhD student need to pass courses? Doesn't a PhD degree have a transcript of courses and grades?

Discussion should take place in chat, not here. Please continue this conversation there.

Trivia: in Italy, PhD programs were only introduced in 1980, so most Italian scholars in their late fifties or sixties, including top ones, do not hold any postgraduate title.

I.G. Macdonald (algebra) is a not that recent example of this in the UK.

Robin Milner and Tony Hoare, having won Turing Awards, have never received PhDs. But then they're both in the UK...

This is solely a decision of each university. It has happened in the past. It was rare then. It is surpassingly rare today. Most universities would have some expectation for teaching of undergraduate students.

At most US institutions, you need the terminal degree in your field. For many fields this is a PhD, but in some it might be an EdD, a DMA, a DPH, a ThD, etc. However, all of these degrees are considered to one level or another to be research doctorates. Presumably faculty positions at a medical school require an MD or equivalent. Likewise for other professional schools. Positions in the visual arts, theater, dance, creative writing, cinematography, etc., may only require the MFA (Master of Fine Arts) degree, as it is considered to be the terminal degree in those fields.
"Regulations" about the requirements to hold certain academic ranks and perform certain academic duties (like mentor graduate students) are made at the institutional level.

Any citations for this claim?  It certainly seems plausible, but I'd like to see some actual examples of schools with that as an explicit policy.

The University of Connecticut. See the first item in the qualifications for an assistant professor. http://www.hr.uconn.edu/employment_services/facdicttp.html

Accrediting bodies, both of institutions and of individual programs, may also have requirements that X percent of their full-time faculty have a specific terminal degree.

I was thrown out of a small mid-western college (not a university) in my first year.  I was persuaded to apply to Harvard about 8 years later. I took the exams and was admitted. I paid my way by working a 40 hr/week full-time job, admittedly against the rules, at an electronics firm throughout the 4 years.  I graduated with a decent, but not outstanding A.B. in a scientific field, and had, incidentally, become Chief Electronics Engineer at the firm where I had been employed.  This was followed by employment in diverse research environments, then in a think-tank in Cambridge and, finally with two offers of tenured full professorship at major universities. I took one, and thus became a full professor at a major university without ever having taken a course in graduate school or having had any prior appointment as Assistant or Associate Professor. I am currently Professor Emeritus and continue to direct PhD candidates. The answer to the question is, therefore, YES

Welcome to AC.SE. As you are currently emeritus, can you just confirm that your appointment as a professor was "recent" as the question is specifically focuses on can it be done "today" and not 40 years ago. Even better would be if you could explain any departmental policies/politics associated with not having a PhD.

Andrew Casson never completed his Ph.D. and is a Professor at Yale University (and was previously a Professor at UT Austin and UC Berkeley).

Good to have an example, but his appointment was in 1980s, and it is not strange to offer a professor position to someone who already has a similar position in another university of same level.

He was hired by Yale in 2000, so they can't have had a hard rule against it then, and probably don't now.

Whether you get special consideration probably depends on how special you are. Lynn Conway joined the University of Michigan as a full professor of EE and CS in 1985 with only an MSEE.  But she had some other stuff going for her, like having co-created the Mead-Conway revolution in chip design.  She didn't have a PhD but she had already become a Fellow of the IEEE.
Lynn is a friend of mine and when I've asked her about her appointment, she's waived the question away, insisting that exceptions can always be made.  But I'm a lecturer today in that same UM EECS department where she held her appointment before retiring and when I recently asked our chairman if it could still be done today, he insisted it would never happen.  Not anymore.

The ability to enter academia without a PhD varies substantially by faculty.  In faculties that train people for "the professions" it is more common to encounter academics that have come from a professional background but do not have a PhD.  For example, many academics in Law faculties are professional solicitors and barristers and their expertise comes from this background, rather than from a postgraduate research degree.  Many academics in Medicine faculties are medical doctors who do not have PhDs (though they still have the title "Dr" from their medical degrees).  The same is broadly true of other "professions" such as Actuarial Mathematics, some areas of Business and Commerce, so areas of Engineering, etc.
Having said this, there is no doubt that the situation is changing rapidly over time, due to a rapid increase in the supply of PhD graduates in all faculties (see e.g., Cyranoski et al 2011, McCook 2011, Larson, Ghaffarzadegan and Xue 2014).  As the pool of PhD graduates increases, there is greater competition in credentials for academic positions, particularly at entry level.  This seems to be leading to a situation where entry-level academics are expected to have a PhD.  In some places this is now mandatory (see e.g., Gibney 2018, Baker 2018).  Growth in PhD graduates and the resultant inflation of entry-level qualifications has been so rapid that there is growing concerns of an oversupply of PhDs that cannot be absorbed into academia
(see e.g., The Economist 2010).  Senior academics who entered the university system prior to this boom have usually achieved enough in research and their profession that having this degree is not an important addition, so there are still many academics at higher levels without PhDs.  However, for people seeking entry into academia at lower levels, the proportion of entrants with PhDs is increasing rapidly.
Speaking from personal experience (though not at US universities), when I went through university in the late 1990s and early 2000s (in Australia) there were many academics without PhDs, mostly in the faculties listed above.  In the Law faculty at my university, most academics were professional lawyers, and less than a quarter held a PhD.  In the Actuarial school, the academics were actuaries, and none of them held a PhD (though one was working towards it).  Encountering an academic without a PhD was extremely common.  Since this time it has become uncommon to encounter an entry-level academic without a PhD.

Short answer - it depends. You mention teaching PhDs, so I assume you don't mean community or state colleges where a PhD may not necessarily be required. If you mean tenure-track or tenured professor at a "University", then I would say it's difficult, although certainly not impossible. To make a blanket statement applying to all U.S. institutions would just be silly. But I would consider it a rare occurrence for a non-PhD to step into the tenure-track role.
There are a number of non-tenure track professorships (adjunct, teaching, practicing professional, or whatever title an institution gives them) that don't necessarily require PhDs. Note that these professorships are typically focused on teaching rather than scholarly research and usually don't come with any tenure guarantees.

Another counterexample: Walter Russell Mead, who joined the Bard faculty in 2005 and received tenure in 2010 if I am not mistaken. Admittedly, Bard does not grant doctorates, but it is regarded as a strong liberal arts college.
I'm under the impression that there are strong incentives to have faculty with terminal degrees for accreditation purposes, but historically it was not unusual and you can find more recent examples, though they certainly fall in the improbable category.

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


text:
Who should recommend applicants for administrative positions?
In a related question, Who should write a recommendation letter?, I came to the conclusion that letters of recommendation should be written by academics in the same field who knows the applicant's work, though, they may not know the applicant in person.
I wonder who should be named as references when applying for a senior administrative job such as dean, vice president, provost, president? In this case, the search committee should be interested in the applicant's skills for administrative tasks, rather than achievements in his or her academic discipline.
For example, a dean is applying for a provost position. Shouldn't the references be persons who have been directly involved in the applicant's role as dean in his current position?

For such high-level positions, just get references from the most powerful people you can get on board. That's a political process, so play it as such.

@F'x you mean somehow letter of support? e.g., recommendation by other university presidents or senior administrators? In other words, if senior administrator from other universities recommends an applicant, then he is a suitable candidate?

@F'x I am not sure that "name dropping" is really the way to go (although I really have no idea). Wouldn't you still want people who can comment on how good you can administrate.

Speculating, I'd guess your bosses from earlier administrative positions.  Your chair when you were vice-chair, your dean or provost when you were chair, the chair of the important university-wide committee you sat on, the president of the professional organization that you were vice-president of, etc.

@NoahSnyder when 3 - 5 references are needed, only one can be the immediate past boss (where holding the senior position). What should be the list of references?

I didn't mean to imply immediate bosses only.  The provost from when you were chair is even better!

The key when soliciting recommendation letters is to find persons who can provide insights into your credentials applicable for the job you are looking for. From this perspective the view you shared that letters "should be written by academics in the same field who knows the applicant's works" is only a special case.
When applying for a high level administrative job you need to find people at as high a level as possible. These should know your background, experience etc. but also be aware of the demands of the job for which you apply (this can be seen either in general or specific terms). There is thus no limit to whom you ask for letters but they will definitely not be as limited as for a regular academic position. Clearly anyone who has seen your capability to lead and administrate, for example, large projects, a department or research group will be appropriate. I can also add that you will most likely mostly look for letters from people in positions at similar or higher level than you (within academia, not necessarily so if you ask for letters from other professionals). But, the key is still to solicit support for the key aspects of the job to which you apply.


text:
Doubt regarding authorship
One of the master's student is working on a research problem. I am a PhD student. I have an idea which I proposed to my advisor on the same problem. Now he wants me and the masters student to work on that idea and publish a paper. Would I be treated as a first author in that paper or would I be a second author?

You should discuss this with your advisor BEFORE starting to work on it if this is a problem for you. Usually he makes the final call.

i am a 5th year phd student and need papers for passing from PhD

Wouldn't it be better to work on your own projects instead of shoehorning your way into someone else's?

What you "need" isn't the issue here. As others have said, you MUST discuss this openly with your advisor AND the MS student. In my opinion, if this is the MS student's project, they'd get a right of first refusal on involvement and author order, but that depends also on the specific context.

Are you sure you need to be the first author for papers in your PhD? Where I am, a major contribution to a paper where one is second author also counts. In fact, a paper I've done with a colleague will be part of BOTH our PhD's — as long as we clearly state in your theses what our own personal contributions were.

A PhD student insisting on being the first author on a master project is something not welcoming sometimes. Specially if the master student understands the problem and she can solve it by herself. In this case, unless you will bring a new major perspective to the solving method, you won't be the first author.
I have worked with master students and my role was very clear from the beginning. I was involved either as

supporter to the master student
(i.e. checking the literature, suggesting improvements, studying the problem, brainstorming for better ideas, help with writing)

or

the master student is supporter for me
(i.e. doing code implementation, graphic design..etc).

If the research problem is the student thesis, then most likely you will not be the first author (it is the student thesis, right?)
The authorship thing is the supervisor responsibility. If you are very concerned about it (i.e. you wouldn't work unless you are the first author), then you should speak with the supervisor before starting. Tell her why you want to be the first author.
This said, if you took the leading position as an experienced researcher you might be the first author without asking for it (unless alphabetical ordering took place).

You give a partial version of the story using pejoratives instead of trying to stay based on facts. So it is difficult to answer your question with that information.
What we can say is that authorship is something to be discussed with your advisor. It will be his decision, in the end. A good way to help yourself is to work hard on that idea, and clearly make your point. The best way to help yourself be first author is to write the paper, or at least the more significant portions of it! Start already with introduction and methods, and as soon as results are gathered, write it up and then submit it to your advisor. If you have done a large part of the work and wrote the manuscript, you should have no problem being first author.

If I work hard and do most of the parts..then can i be the first author even if it is the masters students thesis project

@user5715: You should be careful with this, since the master's student probably also wants to work hard and be first author.  Of course what's right depends on the circumstances, and if you do most of the work then you deserve to be first author.  However, competing too hard with junior students is generally frowned upon, and it could look bad to spend lots of time trying to be first author on someone else's master's thesis rather than focusing on deeper projects.

How is this a partial story and where are the pejoratives?

The pejoratives were removed, @PatrickT, as they should have been.

Why not see this as an opportunity to supervise an able student? Prod them, needle them, cajole them. Do whatever it takes to get the student to generate a good result.  It seems to me your adviser is giving you an opportunity to grow your professional capabilities.
If the master's student does all the research work, then they should be first author.

Authorship is always controversial, but the general rule is: Contribution of authors determines the order of the authors on the scholarly publications. The first author is the one who has contributed the most and usually writes the paper. The last author is usually a professor or senior researcher who leads the team, and his role is almost supervisory.
In your case, how significant was your idea to produce outputs? If you had a significant idea, you have designed the research. Even if the MS student has made many experiments, you can make a contribution by writing and preparing the manuscript.
Finally, you can ask a senior researcher to judge between you, if still there is any controversy.

The advisor is the person who's decision will be final in this matter. I don't think it's a good idea to bring in an external senior researcher to the discussion (and I don't think any reasonably cautious researcher would accept to step in).

Your bold rule is not universal.  In mathematics, theoretical computer science, and similar fields, authors are ordered alphabetically.

@JeffE is this believed to exist also in AI publications (i.e. AAAI,IJCAI,FLAIRS,CP) ?

@seteropere: Apparently not: http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/journals/ijcia/ijcia11.html

@seteropere: sometimes, it depends on the tradition particular authors associate themselves with. E.g., publications by KBS Group of TU Vienna have a strong tendency to follow alphabetical order (see all the Eiter et al. papers). I saw this elsewhere too, but it's quite rare.


text:
How do I prepare for the UK Research Excellence Framework submission?
I want to strengthen my return for the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). My publications are fine, but how can I improve my REF "impact"?

Get people to cite your papers.

@DaveClarke I think paper citations influence the quality rating of the publications and at least do not directly influence impact. Would you care to elaborate in an answer how citations can improve my "impact".

My mistake. I understood impact to be, essentially, how much your work has affected the field, measured roughly by citations. But isn't REF about assessing institutions, not individuals?

"For the purposes of the REF, impact is defined
as an effect on, change or benefit to the economy,
society, culture, public policy or services, health, the
environment or quality of life, beyond academia" - and in particular, influences on either research or teaching are specifically excluded. So citations are not the answer - but I can't tell you what is, except to suggest that you read http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/02_11.pdf and the other documentation very carefully!

Necessary disclaimer: I have not had to be involved in REF. This is what I summarized from my experience of the recent French evaluation system. Reading the REF guidelines, it seems pretty similar in focus (although to be honest, for all their wordiness, I prefer the very detailed REF guidelines over the French way of not explicitly detailing every rule).
So, with that out of the way, I would say there are two ways to “improve” what is essentially one’s societal impact. Both are important.
On paper
This is the short-term way of improving your impact: just present it better. Peruse the guidance documents (and possibly other guidance, including documents your local university might issue in order to help its staff), write down the relevant keywords, list all items that can be counted towards “impact”. Then, brainstorm (possibly with colleagues or friends!) for ways to tie your already existing contributions to these items. Sometimes it is just a matter of remembering stuff you didn't think of (in my case, I remembered that we had some colleagues from an industrial company who showed up at a series of tutorials).
For real
Of course, you can also try to influence your plans to include more activities of clear societal impact. There are unlimited number of things you could come up with, and they depend widely on context (which you did not give). Keeping it short and generic, here are a few good examples that I can think of (some of them more applicable in some fields, obviously):

organize panel discussions on your favorite topic, open to the general public
open lab day
“cultural heritage” research
create visualizations of your research (pictures, movies, whatever), and publish it
interviews or other interventions in the media (even local)
being listed on experts registries: courts, journalism schools
all kinds of work with local artists
workshop or discussion groups involving academic and industrial communities
being a member of a standardization body

It looks like some sort of random list, cause I tried to list diverse activities. I'm sure others will have plenty of ideas to add!


text:
Difference Between Unit Cost and Salary (MSC Fellowship)
I am trying to understand the difference between Unit Cost and Salary.
I receive a MSC Fellowship and the different types of allowance on the surface appear like a good salary. All numbers combined they should add up to 66-76k per year. However, this is nowhere near what I actually receive as my salary (which is much lower ~30%).
There are two questions here:

The discrepancy between unit cost and salary has been explained to me comes from social security contributions – including health insurance, accident insurance and severance pay. However I still pay all of these things from my low salary? It feels like I am paying this cost twice.

I understood that the mobility allowance will be paid in full to me. Again More than 30% have already been deducted before tax. Where does that money go?

What can you ACTUALLY expect as a gross salary from the MSC? Without hidden fees and shell game tricks?

This is in Italy

I added italy tag to the question.

Please spell out acronyms the first time you use them. And if you're talking about specific fellowships post a link to the actual regulations.

I'd suggest you talk to the person at your university or fellowship body who explained this to you and have them clarify the things that don't make sense to you. They should be able to explain exactly what is going on.

Mobility allowance: maybe this money are allocated for your trips to conferences/visiting periods et simila. This was the case with some Marie Curie grants. It was a lot of money (up to 30% of the total fellowship). It will be paid in full to you if you spend it, i.e. you are expected to travel, to pay travel expenses and then get them reimbursed. Is it removed from your total scholarship (do you mean this with "deducted before tax")?
From your scolarship of 100, you have 30 reserved for travelling (+obscure uni overhead),on the 70 remaining you  pay all sort of social contributions&taxes.

Thanks for the comments. I think I now understand where the money goes.

It looks like you've run into a common surprise for first-time grant holders. In many countries employers have to pay a significant contribution to pension funds, social security, national insurance, or similar programs, based on employee salary. On a normal salary statement you don't usually see this, since by convention employee salary is specified net of these employer contributions.
However, when universities fund research, these contributions are also claimed as part of the grant budget. Different funders specify that in different ways.
In the case of MSC fellowships, a fixed total gross employment cost is specified inclusive of both employee and employer taxes. The university then takes the employer contributions (pensions, national insurance) off that total. This reduced amount is then paid to the funding recipient as their salary, who then pays their personal taxes out of it. That does look like you're personally being taxed twice, but it is two distinct taxes, one of which is usually hidden from the employee.
I am not Italian so cannot comment for sure, but a quick Google suggests this is what's happening here - Italian employer tax contributions look to be 30-35% of gross salary, in the ballpark of the reduction you're seeing. So, although it's disappointing, that sounds like a reasonable deduction, and not some trickery by the university.
(Note: This is not the same thing as 'overheads' which go into other university funds and which can be used for purposes outside your direct salary costs. That's a separate heading for MSC fellowships, and none of your salary should be going towards that.)

This is the likely explanation. This happens in exactly this way in Germany and probably also similarly in Italy and various other European countries.

Thank you! I think this is what happens and your numbers match very well. This is really dissappointing to be honest.

I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice.
It is impossible to answer your question exactly without looking at the documents you refer to and also precise laws in your country.
However, generally speaking, funding documents explain how much money the funding body gives to the University. The University spends the money as follows:

It pays your salary
It pays the employers (theirs) contribution to taxes, social security, etc. Depending on your country and salary, this can be quite high (~30% of salary). I am not sure if this applies to Italy.
It may also keep some money as "overheads", to cover the costs of maintaining buildings, labs, etc. Depending on your University, this can be quite high (for example in the UK, ~50%+ of all funding goes to the University)

Thank you for the response. I am familiar that a lot of the money is assigned to the overhead. However, there is no transparency in the allocation of the money. I have x amount of money allocated to unit cost. What happened with the other money is not communicated with me and I want to understand where this money goes.

@Kai It is not uncommon for University budgets to lack transparency. Some may say they don't want academics to know how much of their hard won funding are held under various budget codes and obscure rubrics and spent on fancy buildings and promotion activities rather than actual research.

Thanks. Your comment describes exactly how I perceive this.


text:
Quit PhD abroad vs job at home country
I’ve just moved to Canada for PhD studies at one of its best universities.
One day during my master studies, I felt that I wanted to live the international student experience and decided to move to Canada which is far away from my home country (at least 16 hours by flight!). But before moving to Canada, I thought I needed to save some money as such I decided to work and save money. I worked at a good and well-known company with very good salary and benefits, my boss really liked me.
I left the job after a year and everyone there was shocked because I was so good at it.
I have to mention that during my work there, I also met my boyfriend whom I love very much!
Despite the fact that I met my significant other, had a great job and stable life, I went on my way and moved to Canada.
After only one month in Canada, I discovered a few things.
1) It feels bad to be away from my family and friends, although I used to live away from my family during the past few years, the increased distance makes it worse.
2) I've been thinking of going back to my home country since I arrived.
3) I miss my boyfriend very badly although we talk everyday.
4) I had a great job with very good salary and now I get less than half of my previous salary.
5) My social life here sucks, I’m working on it but things are moving very very slow!
6) The main concern: I joined a small research group; only 2 PhD students and 2 masters students and no Post docs. The supervisor is very busy (we booked a meeting and he has never showed up in time! In a best case scenario he is late by an hour), he doesn’t show any interest in guiding me or helping me define my PhD project, I thought he might be busy but after taking to the students it seems that he’s always like this. He never seems to have time and I need to chase him down to talk about research and ensure things move forward. Even one of his masters students said that if I wanna have a good PhD, I must find a co-supervisor because he’s not organized!
Besides, it seems that the supervisor does not have available projects as of now and he is currently away for the next two months.
I feel like I’m sinking and made the biggest mistake of my life! I'm no longer sure I want to continue my PhD studies! I only think about going back home. I don’t know what to do. Should I look for job back home? Stay? Ask the previous company to hire me back?
I’m afraid and nervous and have no one to consult!! Please help me cause I feel like I’m wasting time here while being unhappy and very far away from my loved ones :(
?

How long do you live in Canada so far? 1 week, 1 month, 3 month?

Have you thought about attending school much closer to home? I assume there are good schools nearer.

change advisor ASAP @lala

@SSimon thank you! I'm considering changing my supervisor.

@jmh I'm also considering a closer good school while looking for alternatives. Thank you!

First and foremost your mental/physical health is the most important thing. I was in your situation as well, and did my studies away from home. Here are my thoughts hope it can help you:

Temporary break: It might be the case that you are just exhausted yourself. What about a short break? You could have a honest conversation with your supervisor and take a break.
PhD is not a silver bullet to all of your life problems: I see in your question that you are suggesting that "you are wasting time" or "bad social life". So is it the PhD or you? Are you organized and keep room for your social interactions? Or the PhD itself is stressing out to a point that you need to stick to your desk. You need to take control of your life, with or without PhD, we all have personal traits that might be good or bad; but this is what is life about. You need to learn and grow and create a life you want to be in.
Supervisor Issue: Based on your question, I doubt that it is your supervisor, but if you feel the need; you can always have a discussion with the head of your research group about your supervisor.
Schedule your Holidays: It seems your boyfriend is not with you and this is sad to you, so you could always schedule your holidays around the year.
Do Exercise: This is important, to keep you motivated; keep yourself in shape; go for a walk, go to your university gym. This will help you in physically and mentally.
Leaving PhD: After all these, if you still think you don't like research and/or PhD; then leave your PhD; it is your life and journey.

this should be cannon answer,

why not add chaning advisor?

Thanks for your advice. I know that pursuing a PhD is not easy and might be hard and challenging. I cannot allow myself to have a temporary break since I've just joined the research group.
I'm doing exercise and attending social events. For my supervisor issues; there's no head of research so I only have my supervisor to talk to, He's super nice but is not good as a guide for PhD students. That's why I'm considering looking for another research group.

@LALA If you were a second/third year PhD student that says well, I want to change my research group; then I would understand that maybe it is based on some experience. However, because you just got started, it is hard to believe that you are making a good choice by changing your research group. You see what I'm saying here?. Also, little break could be traveling outside the city you are in during the weekend. Anyhow, I would be honest and at least talk to the head of the research department about this. Hope my comments could help you. Best of luck.

You need to fundamentally evaluate why you are doing a PhD and if you think the end goal is worth it.
If your only reason to get a PhD is "I wanna live the international student experience", then you have already achieved your goal. As you have discovered, "the international student experience" is often very isolating. It takes at least one year to build a new social circle, and unlike undergraduate studies, a PhD is more like a job and you're unlikely to find your friend group in your lab. That said, most of the time this is a temporary condition: keep working on making new friends and finding new places to go, and you will start feeling more at home in your new city. Consider how long can you hold out for those changes. For another month? Six months? A year? Until you graduate?
Ideally, your goal is that you really, really want to become a researcher. Now is the time where you get to see up close how that works out. Observe your advisor (and his colleagues, since he is apparently a less than ideal specimen), and imagine yourself in their place. Does that appeal to you? Can you see yourself doing what they do, five to ten years down the road? Also remember that academia is quite international and if you choose this career you will likely have to go through multiple international moves again in the future. Do you have a closely-held dream that makes it all seem worthwhile?
You also note that you are unhappy about the lower salary. It depends on what field you are in, but in most fields a PhD doesn't increase your earning power much compared to a master's, and may even reduce it if you choose to work at a university. Get a PhD because you love what you do, not because you want to earn more.
After pondering these questions, you should have a good idea of why you are "doing this to yourself", i.e. getting a PhD. Being able to tell yourself "I chose to do this, and I continue choosing to do this because I am getting something I want out of it" helps a lot. On the other hand, if you're only doing this because it seemed like a good idea at the time, you might want to write this PhD off as a failed experiment. (Or rather a successful experiment with negative results.)
Assuming you have some reasons and want to continue, there is a second question: should you persevere with this PhD. Your advisor's lack of involvement is frankly concerning. You should heed your colleagues' advice and look for ways to work around him. Explore your options actively: Find another professor at your uni to co-supervise, find your own project that you can manage with limited help, or if nothing seems to work out consider finding a different PhD position, maybe even in your home country or somewhere only a day trip away.

Thanks for your advice. I know exactly why I'm doing PhD and my ultimate goals are well-defined but it's only hard for me to be away from the family specially that I'm quite disappointed about my supervisor and his research..

Yes, I've had an uninterested advisor in the past and it is very demoralizing. If you can find an engaged co-supervisor or even a new primary supervisor, that can totally change your experience. It seems like you aren't yet committed to a project from what you wrote above, so you should be fairly unconstrained for finding something to work on with a different prof.

We can't advise you on what you should do, but we can talk about some of the issues.
Homesickness This is real issue. There's no telling when it would spring up or what triggers it. However, it does get better over time. It comes from losing immediate connection with friends and family. It can help for you to find new people you have affinity with (religious, cultural, ethnic, hobbies, etc).
Supervisor An inattentive supervisor can stifle a PhD. At this early phase, you are exploring the problem space. You need to find out the limits to the state of the art and carve out a niche big enough to spend a few years researching yet small enough to complete. You'd want to gain credit for something novel, so you don't want it to be something that someone else is just about to publish.
It really helps to communicate with established experts in the general field. They will know where the unknowns are, and they should have a fair idea of what others are working on. Ideally, your supervisor would be such an expert. However, you can also ask to join research labs / teams during their regular discussions, or even just gather a few others in your position (not necessarily from your supervisor's small research group) and look up recent conference proceedings to browse through their "further work" sections.
In later stages of your PhD, it can also help to have co-supervisors or mentors who can coach you through papers and conferences, as well as the final write-up. You don't need to switch supervisors, but if your supervisor is inattentive, you will need to seek alternative assistence.
These are simply practical tips. The first thing you need to do, though, is to decide whether you still want to pursue a PhD. The opening paragraph of your question indicates that this was your ambition - so you're 'living your dream'! The thing to ask yourself is whether this is still your dream.
One more point: going back. It's a common experience among students studying abroad and ex-pats alike that in a sense, there's no 'going back' after several years away. You will be changed by your new environment, language and culture, and your friends and family will also have changed in the interim. Even the company that employed you would have filled the vacancy you left. Special consideration is also needed about how to nurture long distance relationships. This isn't to say that it's all uphill, but it's important to recognise that studying abroad (PhD or otherwise) is a potentially life-changing endeavour.
You sound like a resourceful person, so you're probably going to be able to work out a lot of the immediate issues yourself, and you're probably going to land on your feet whether you continue with your PhD or return now. It's the longer-term issues that can easily be overlooked during this emotionally-charged initial phase.

It seems (simply said) like everything is bad in Canada and everything is good in your hone country. So you should go back. A PhD is a huge commitment of time and energy, one does it out of passion for research and the field - it does not make sense to do a PhD when you hate it.
It is not a character flaw not to have a PhD.

I didn't say Canada is bad, there's nothing wrong about Canada. I'm taking specifically about my situation.


text:
If the purpose of a registered study changes, is it still a registered study?
A study was registered in 2004 at ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT00080171. It defined its purpose as:

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in adults. The "Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI): A Knee Health Study" is a nationwide research study that will help researchers gather more information about the physical changes that occur prior to the onset of arthritis symptoms or before OA gets worse. The purpose of this study is to examine people who have knee OA or are at high risk for knee OA; information will be used to better understand how to prevent and treat knee OA.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a paper, Fried potato consumption is associated with elevated mortality: an 8-y longitudinal cohort study, with the stated conclusions (emphasis mine):

The frequent consumption of fried potatoes appears to be associated with an increased mortality risk. Additional studies in larger sample sizes should be performed to confirm if overall potato consumption is associated with higher mortality risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00080171.

On closer inspection it appears that the fried-potato paper relied on data collected for the osteoarthritis study. But the study registration mentions neither fried potatoes nor mortality.
Given the divergence of purpose, should the paper make the claim that the trial was registered?

First off, as you state it your worry is as follows:

Given the divergence of purpose, should the paper make the claim that the trial was registered?

Unpacked and clarified, I think this worry contains the following assumption:

A paper should only claim that it is a registered trial if the purpose of the trial that is registered and the claim that the paper looks at are closely connected.

I think this assumption is basically false and misunderstands the purpose of registration.
Looking over clinicaltrial.gov 's explanations of why and when to register trials, they suggest five benefits of registration and five benefits of the data, one of which is:

Facilitate systematic reviews and other analyses of the research literature

Several of the other things they state are similar in function. (There's also public benefit, ethical review, avoiding bias in the use of the data, and other features).
The data from Clinicaltrials.gov is free for anyone to use subject to these terms and conditions. The relevant item is :

In any publication or distribution of these data, you should:
Attribute the source of the data as ClinicalTrials.gov
Update the data such that they are current at all times
Clearly display the date the data were processed by ClinicalTrials.gov
State any modifications made to the content of the data, along with a complete description of the modifications

Thus, if you use data from Clinicaltrials.gov to produce research, you must cite that you took it from there and presumably should say which trial you are working from.
The specific method to correctly cite would be a conjunction of these terms and the journal's policies for citation.
On a general level, there's nothing ethical wrong with saying where the data came from. In fact, it's an obligation.

Returning to your final question, I think we can nitpick them for their English a bit. The authors might be better suited using a different phrase than

This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00080171.

which they use in this paper and another publication where in the full-text they state:

Data for this trial (NCT00080171) were obtained from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) database.

This leads me to believe they are using "trial" in a somewhat odd way (at least from the perspective of a native AmE speaker who works in the humanities).
Something like:

This research is based on the registered trial NCT00080171 from clinicaltrials.gov.

seems better in both instances.
But while nitpicking for English, I think that they must state that trial they used is registered but shouldn't make it seem like this was that trial's purpose.

The bias issue mentioned in that clinicaltrials.gov link is specifically publication bias, and that does become a concern when a trial is "mined" for findings that aren't connected to its registered purpose. If I have a large data set I can invariably find something that's "statistically significant" (cf. https://xkcd.com/882/ ) - part of the point of registration is to prevent that by requiring researchers to be honest up front about how widely they're casting their net.

@GeoffreyBrent okay, I've tried editing that in. Feel free to improve as you see fit.


text:
How may I calculate Research Contribution as Per UGC rules?
The University Grants Commission (U.G.C) is the autonomous and statutory body in India responsible for governing the rules and regulations of the universities and various other academic institutions
that come under its purview.
The rule for appointment of teachers in the important academic institutes of India is governed by its rule, "UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010".
It is generally taken as the order of the day.
In this regulation, there is a provision for calculating the points for research papers, research contributions etc. I tried to go through them, but feeling slightly ambiguous. It is given generally in Appendix III.
My question is in the tables given against each item maximum score is given.
But how should we take the count of each item. I tried to go through the same but did not find anything.
What is the value of each item and how does it contribute to the maximum score as given in the tables in the aforementioned report.

I was able to download the paper using the link provided, and thus the link is functional.
I have looked at Appendix III briefly, and will offer my interpretation. However, I am not Indian and have no experience in India, so my interpretation is strictly based on what I have read and my background (US, academic + industry, where we do not use such explicit scoring systems).
My interpretation is that the maximum number of points would be awarded if the requirements for each item are fully met.  E.g. if you publish a research paper in one of the specified refereed journals, you get 15 points for that publication, regardless of the number of citations that paper gets or the ranking/reputation of the journal, or even your own opinion of the quality of that paper.  Though it is not stated in Appendix III, I would interpret "max points" as meaning that a lower score might be awarded if the criteria is only partially met.  For example, if you published an essay or commentary in a journal rather than a full research paper, you might award yourself 4 points or 7 points rather than the full 15.  (E.g. I had a letter published in PNAS critiquing a published article.  It went through a review process, but at 500 words would hardly qualify as an "article". So maybe it's worth 1 point in this category.)
In part I base my interpretation at the fine granularity of the scoring system and the many explicit rules and criteria that go along with each item.  I also base my interpretation on the lack of any mention of "quality" or "impact" or "significance" in the criteria.

What my interpretation leaves out is the cultural norms, both across Indian colleges and universities, and also by regions, fields/disciplines, etc.  What ever the official and explicit rules of any scoring system, there are always unofficial and tacit norms as to how they are executed and interpreted.

First of all, the link you gave us in your question is not working. So, I can't figure out what you are talking about.
If you are talking about  API (academic performance indicator), then I think you should look for the application form issued the university where you wish to apply for the post of assistant professor. You will find all the information about API including how to calculate your own API in that application form itself.


text:
Importance of Undergraduate Research
How important is it for an undergraduate student majoring in Physics and Mathematics (or any other science) to have experience in research (e.g., have a peer reviewed paper to his name most probably in collaboration with a professor) at the undergraduate level, keeping in mind that he will be applying for a master's or other postgraduate degree?

If you want admission to the very best PhD programs in the US, prior formal research experience is very important, if not necessary.  Admissions committees are primarily looking for evidence of research potential.  The best possible evidence for "I'll be a good researcher someday" is "Look, I'm already a good researcher."  So having formal peer-reviewed publications is better than having publishable but unpublished results, which is better than having research experience but no publishable results, which is better than having no research experience.  If you're applying to the top PhD programs, you will be competing with applicants (yes, plural) who have peer-reviewed publications (yes, plural).

What if someone is seeking admission to a MS or an Integrated MS/PhD programme (not a PhD, let us say that he will be applying for his PhD after his Masters). Do they also look for "evidence of research potential"  like published papers?

Applying for an MS program in the US is quite different, and varies from university to university, based on whether the MS is terminal, or is a pre-screen for a Ph.D.

But if you mean a research masters (prep for a PhD), then yes. Not as much, perhaps, but only because most applicants with publications apply directly to PhD programs.

In the U.S., in mathematics, it is a bit unusual to have a peer-reviewed publication from an undergrad, despite the recent years' push for "Research Experiences for Undergrads". In some cases there are group-written papers in second or third-tier journals, but nothing too serious. Or the undergrad gets to be the tag-along on an applied-math research "team". Indeed, it is exceptional, and only rarely happens, that an undergrad in mathematics has adequate background (disregarding future potential) to make a serious contribution. It does happen, but rarely, and is not at all "expected". Evidently the situation is much different in other fields.
In terms of literal admission to good-but-not-elite programs, the usual "publications" we on admissions committees see are "nice", but not really evidence of future potential so much as enthusiasm, ... which is a good thing, for sure! ... but the level of focus and effort required for these little papers is far, far different than the level of commitment required to do a Ph.D., with or without "talent".

So, what you are saying is that though a not-too-serious paper looks nice on the CV yet it really does not affect the committee's decision? And this is restricted only to Mathematics?

@AhiralSarkar: yes, not-too-serious papers on the CV have little effect on admission committees, for math grad school. I don't know about expectations in other fields.

During my studies it was relatively rare to publish as an undergraduate. The level of research needed for a peer reviewed publication is imo higher than what an undergraduate can produce. Maybe if the supervisor writes a paper based on your results, and with a lot of help with producing the results, this might lead to a co-authorship for the undergraduate. Therefor, I think that in the Dutch system (my experience) a peer reviewed publication would be a plus, but definitely not a requirement for admission into a masters program. Ofcourse, you need have written a thesis, but it does not have to published in a peer-reviewed journal. I do not know how this experience translate to, say, the US, but I know for countries like Germany it is not even always usual for a PhD to write peer-reviewed articles.

I am from India but I have seen universities in the US prefers candidates having some publications co-authored with a professor and/or fellow students..However, you mentioned that one needs to have a thesis. Do you mean, like a special paper that one does during his masters? I don't think one has to do a thesis during one's bachelors under the usual curriculum in India.

In the Netherlands it is normal to write a thesis at the end of your Bachelor. It is meant to be the first independent research project you do. It normally takes around 3 months. But by publications do you mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, or conference publications (which can also be peer-reviewed, but often less stringent in my experience)?

I meant an arxiv paper or one in a journal (not as high profile as the Letters of Physical Review but something having an impact factor of (say) 8). And no, most Indian universities do not have this thesis requirement at the undergraduate level. However,some meritorious students often do such projects in association with a research institute but that is by the virtue of the benefits they  receive if they have won a scholarship or a fellowship of sorts. It is basically, a personal effort, not a formal requirement.

The level of research needed for a peer reviewed publication is imo higher than what an undergraduate can produce — Nonsense.  I can show you dozens of published counterexamples.

for countries like Germany it is not even always usual for a PhD to write peer-reviewed articles — This obviously varies greatly by field.  In computer science, it is very rare for a student to get a PhD without at least one formal publication.


text:
How do you get started organizing a class?
As an academic in the university, how do you organize your self from the beginning of a  semester?
For example:

How do you take the absent students names?
How do prepare your materials?
How do you write a syllabus for students and do you hand them out?
What computer programs do you use to plan your lessons?

I started my career as a lecturer last semester and I found myself not organized so I need to learn from your experience.

How do you take the absent students names?

I don't.  If a student finds my lectures boring or useless, they shouldn't waste their time coming to class.  (As others point out, there are very good reasons to require attendance in laboratory-, studio-, and discussion-based classes.)

How do prepare your materials?

Coffee and LaTeX.  Lots of coffee and LaTeX.

How do you write a syllabus for students and do you hand them out?

When I started out, I modified the syllabus from the previous iteration of the course, which was taught by an experienced instructor, so I could be sure to include all the necessary details.  I used to hand out the syllabus on the first day of class, but now I just post it on the well-advertised course web site.

What computer programs do you use to plan your lessons?

I write everything in LaTeX (specifically, TeXShop) and distribute everything as PDF files on the course web site.  (See the first question.)  I also use SubEthaEdit to edit the course web pages themselves.

And don't forget coffee stains in latex: http://hanno-rein.de/archives/349

For a lecture course, compulsory attendance is admittedly pointless. However, for a language or lab course, having such a system is probably necessary.

Unless the end of the lab has a test, attendance should not be compulsory. A university has a broad audience, some people might be following the class but already taken the labs, and they'd just waste their, your and the other students' time. It's university - if they think they can pass without the lab, and they can't, well... that's a lesson too.

One issue is not mentioned above, and is very important.
Make sure to state and post policies ahead of time for:

how you'll deal with late submission of homeworks
what your policy on cheating/plagiarism is
any related university policies that students need to be made aware of.

These are more important than you might imagine. At the very least, having the policy allows you to be consistent when dealing with student excuses, and prevents you from having to make up policy as you go along. If someone is caught cheating, it will be important to have an up-front policy that you can point to, otherwise it will be difficult to penalize the student.

This semester I'm teaching a brand new course at my university. It's an elective course, so I can be much more of the "mad scientist experimenting."
I have a generic list of topics, and a general plan for the number of lectures during the semester. That means I can organize things loosely, rather than specifying in exhaustive detail what will be covered in each lecture before the start of the semester. Some topics have taken me much less time than I anticipated, and others have run much longer.
I have been using a combination of LaTeX and MultiMarkdown to prepare my lecture notes. I have also made the conscious decision not to use slides, but instead to go "old-school" and lecture at the blackboard. I've found this makes the pace of the course slower, and allows me to focus on the major concepts, rather than trying to cram too much material into a single lecture. However, I do publish the lecture notes following the end of each lecture, making it easier for students to keep up with the material.


text:
Is doing a PhD just for the university requirement is a good idea?
I have an MSc degree and I work at university as a lecturer. However, the university has a  policy where you should do your PhD within a given time frame. The problem is that I'm not interested in any area yet, nor am I interested in doing the work associated with a PhD.
Should I just go with it because the university forces me to do it, or should I just quit from the university and look for another job?
What do you think? Can I succeed if I start doing my PhD while i feel that I'm forced to do it?

If you don't really enjoy research, it's not a good idea to get a PhD.

nor I'm interested in doing hard work — Um.  No, you don't want a PhD.  And you probably don't want to be a lecturer either.

@JeffE : And I wouldn't want this person as my lecturer!

In my university back in Mexico, they had something similar, if professors want to get ahead (income, professional, etc) they had to an additional degree (Masters, PhD)
I think that if you do not have the motivation, you'll have a lot of problems, doing a PhD is already a taxing endeavor, in the sense that many times you'll start wondering wether this was a good idea or not.
As in many things in life, if you do this because you are made to (like students that go to college because their parents want to) you'll have lots of resentment.
However, not all is lost, you can try looking for something you are really passionate about, and then try to do a PhD on that.

A PhD has the potential to open many doors. Its better to do it when there is some motivation than regret later. Think six years from now and where you want to be and whether it would require a PhD.
Do note that it is not easy. It requires hardwork and dedication. There would be many times when you would want to quit. So have a strong reason to pull you through when this happens.
Most importantly, in my view you would be better placed in whatever field you choose with a PhD. You may be afraid of sacrificing three years of your life now but what about the rest of the years ahead. As the say, time flies. Only you can make the call.

Above all, a PhD is about learning how to become a researcher. You mention that you have a lecturer position, does it include doing research? If you want to become a researcher in addition to teaching, a PhD is the way to go. If performing research is what you want, doing a PhD is logical, and should be worth it. If you have no ambition in being a researcher, a PhD is going to be a very painful process, similar to doing any other job you do not enjoy.
In the end, it is all about what you want. If you want to be a reseacher, do a PhD. If not, I would not recommend it.


text:
What can I do if one of my referees falsifies information in a Letter of Recommendation?
I am in a difficult situation in regards to letters of recommendation and I would like to ask for a bit of advice from all of you.
This past June, I applied to several different medical schools across the country and each one required me to submit at least 3 letters of recommendations (1 from a non-science professor and 2 from science professors). All of the faculty members that I asked were happy to write me letters of recommendation. However, one of the faculty members delayed writing the letter of recommendation for a very long time (almost 5 months) despite several reminders. One of the medical schools had a strict deadline by which they wanted their application to be completed and because of the delay from this one letter writer, I was automatically rejected from the school. At this point, I decided to return to my university (I already graduated) and speak with my letter writer in person.
From the discussion with my letter writer, I found out some very disturbing things about his intentions. He was very displeased with my in-person visit to his office (even though I did email him several times beforehand without him bothering to respond). It was at this point that he began accusing me of things that were 100% false and was threatening to include this false information in his letter of recommendation. He eventually submitted his letter of recommendation, and, at this point, I could not stop him from doing so.
Now I know that many of you will say that I should have been able to see this coming and avoid asking this faculty member for a letter of recommendation. But, with all honesty, I was completely under the impression that this professor will write me a strong letter of evaluation. I viewed this person as someone that was a true mentor to me throughout college, and this situation is very disheartening. In my honest evaluation of the situation, I believe that writing a negative letter of recommendation that includes false information about a student out of spite is completely unethical. I also believe that I should have the opportunity to defend myself.
There is no way that I can see what he wrote in his letter of recommendation. If anybody here has any sort advice in regards to this situation, please I would greatly appreciate it. I would hate to see a letter of recommendation that contains false information ruin my chances of pursuing my academic goals. Is it possible to take legal action in this matter?

Often with people like that, their bark is worse than their bite.  If not, the writer will probably destroy his credibility by writing link a crank.  //  I wonder if you could have an additional letter of recommendation sent -- and then you could hope they'll eliminate the bad one (or write and ask that it be eliminated.

I viewed this person as someone that was a true mentor to me throughout college — Ouch.  I'm so sorry.

As mentioned by Dan Romik, this is indeed a very unusual situation. This is perhaps less relevant for your main question, but since it seemed that you were not expecting this reaction at all, it would be good to find out why he has such a negative perception of you(r work).

If you are already rejected, wouldn't the long-past-due recommendation quickly go into the trash?

Don't forget that writing letters of recommendation for students lies squarely in the job description of a professor.  You'd be within your rights to protest this prof's delay to the dean, as well as his poor professionalism. If he didn't want to write the letter he should have said, "you should find someone else." At any rate, don't sweat it. If the letter was that late the med school admissions krewe will, possibly, not worry about it.

Thank you for the responses, one of the immediate actions that I took was ask another faculty member to write a letter of recommendation on my behalf in the hopes that it can eliminate any negative comments made by my original letter writer. Unfortunately, only a couple of the schools to which I applied were willing to accept it. Once the application cycle is finished (at which point this professor can no longer do any more harm to my application), I will be sure to file a complaint with University officials.

Also, I was able to find out why he had such a negative perception of my character, but I can assure you that his assertions are 100% false and I can prove it. This is partly why I am so frustrated with this situation.

If you know what they are, and you can prove they're false, can you prove they're false, to this former mentor?

I can definitely prove they are false to this faculty member. The problem is, he never gave me the chance. Within a few days of my meeting with him (where he made these threats), he submitted his letter of recommendation. It's simply too late.

Since it seems like that's the cause of the bizarre situation, if you think you can clear it up that way, that seems worth doing. As Kakoli wrote, he may not have actually sent a bad letter, and if he did, but you can clear it up, he might write or call in an amendment. If he didn't, and you clear it up, you can also know and not worry about it.

If the opportunity presents itself, I would love to clear this up with the professor. It seemed like he never wanted to speak to me ever again after my in-person meeting with him, which is truly saddening. Regardless of the letter of recommendation, I learned so much from him when I took his class I even gave him thank you notes. It's truly unfortunate. I can honestly say that I never expected him to ever react the way he did.

The possibilities for legal action will very strongly depend on your jurisdiction, which you have not specified. (For instance, in some countries there are freedom of information laws that open channels for applicants to demand access to their referees' letters.) Legal action, however, is unlikely to get you into med school - what you need is quick, concerted, effective action towards cancelling out its effects. If you later want to show to this person that this behaviour is not acceptable, you should really consider a route within your old institution.

Thank you for your response. I agree and I would never try to use legal action to get into medical school. I want to get into medical school based on my own academic merit. I asked another faculty member to write me a letter of recommendation and I am just hoping that this will negate anything bad that my original letter writer potentially wrote. But, yes, I agree. The best thing is to go through my old university. Like someone mentioned earlier, I have every right to complain about this faculty members lack of professionalism and respect.

Has the professor ever done this before?

Given what you say I wonder if the professor has developed some sort of mental problem.

Contrary to a lot of comments this type of situation is more common than one would think. I knew of a high school teacher who would do this for undergraduate college application essays (thats something not NEARLY as important as a grad school application) , one unfortunate student was informed by the institution they applied to that this was going on, and finally the cat was out of the bag. Again I doubt it is the majority of people but some people just like to do harm. At least this professor admitted it before the action happened.

This is a most unusual situation. It's extremely rare for there to be such a large discrepancy between what a student thinks a professor thinks about them and what the professor actually thinks about them. Considering also that in this case the professor's opinion is wrong (as I will assume for the purposes of the answer, though I know nothing of the details of course), this scenario falls right through the cracks of the whole system of letters of recommendation, which was simply not designed with such situations in mind.
With that said, I think that somewhat ironically, the very strangeness of the situation offers a glimmer of hope, since it means that you can consider unusual steps that would not be acceptable in a more normal situation. Specifically, two such steps that I can think of are:

You could write a letter to the schools to which you applied (specifically, email it to the admissions committee, and make sure to cc a staff member and ask for an acknowledgement) in which you explain the situation. If your letter is well-written and the explanation that you offer is credible, this may counter the effect of the hypothetical damaging letter from the professor. You may want to line up another letter writer in advance of sending your letter to substitute for the bad one.
You could complain about the professor's behavior to the department chair or another professor you trust at your university, explain the details of the story, and ask them to write to the schools you applied to. This would not be a normal letter of recommendation. It should be an email sent directly to the admissions committee (rather than uploaded via some kind of automated system for LORs), again explaining the situation. Having the explanation come from the chair or another faculty member, if they agree to do it, will be more credible and increase the chances of success. In fact, the chair may very well know of similar stories of odd behavior involving your professor that you were not aware of, which he could mention or hint at in his/her letter, further strengthening the credibility of your claims.

Note that in both of these suggestions you will have to disclose all the information about what took place between you and your professor to make the explanation credible and have a realistic hope that the professor's false accusations will be ignored. If some of what took place is embarrassing or damaging to you due to real rather than imagined reasons, I'm afraid that's just a risk you'll have to take. Good luck!

Thank you for the response. You provided with me with very useful information and I highly appreciate it. I do have a plethora of faculty members that I personally trust and that I can approach if ever I am in need of help. One of these faculty members is also very close with the Dean of the college. I will be sure to be in contact with this person.

You're most welcome, glad I could help and I hope things work out for you.

The professor had probably (and hopefully) just threatened to include these false accusations, but in reality has not. Apart from the fact that most people would not ruin someone's career prospects just out of spite, he would probably be aware that the other letters of recommendation from the other professors would not corroborate with this view. You clearly do not have any way of finding out what he has actually done. Additionally, if he has not actually written those lies, it might appear extremely odd if you write to the schools where you applied, explaining the situation. I don't think there's much you can do now. If you are rejected, you should apply to some other institution with a letter of recommendation from someone else.

Thank you for the response. You bring up a good point. I can't see the contents of the letter and, thus, there's no way I can confirm my fears. If I send a letter to schools explaining this situation, and it turns out that no negative comments were made in the first place, it could work against me. Honestly, the damage (if any) has already been done and all I can do is learn from this situation. I was sure to share my story with other students at my university as a warning. Once the application cycle is done, no more further damage can be done, I will report this to University officials.

Why can't he find out? If he sues, it'll come out in discovery (I assume. I'm not a lawyer); purely inside-academia notions of confidentiality with no legal standing in the real world shouldn't affect that.

I don't see how you could take legal action, the content of the letter is confidential. In my institution at least, there would be no way for you to ever see it. So, effectively, you would be taking "blind" legal action, regardless whether the letter was positive or negative. This might be construed as if you intended to have a back-up in case of rejection. That is why the institution probably won't take into account any objections from your side (including a legal action). The only thing that you might hear from them, if you brought it up, is that you should've chosen your letter writers more carefully.
That being said, I really don't think anyone would on purpose sabotage someone else's career just on a whim and on top of that being a nice person (as you describe the professor in question). So, if the letter was sent, I'd assume that it contains no lies in it. As being noted in the comments, that might very well also damage the professor's reputation.
In the end of the day, there isn't much you can do at this point. If you get rejected and still think that the professor had sabotaged you, re-apply (possibly somewhere else) and don't ask for any more letters from them.

Thank you for the response. You are absolutely correct, there isn't much that I can do at this point. The only reason I was exploring possible legal action is because letters of recommendation are part of one's academic record (much like transcripts). Thus, I believe that anyone that falsifies information on a letter of recommendation should be held accountable by the law. Please believe me, I DO NOT wish to take legal action against anyone, I was just looking for a way to defend myself.

This sounds like a situation where mediation could be extremely effective.  If your town or university has a mediation office, you could formally request mediation.  If not, you could still approach your dean and broach the idea.
As part of the mediation, after clearing up the misunderstanding, you could ask the professor to submit a corrected letter, with a brief explanation that there had been a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up.
Mediation can be very effective.  However, there's no guarantee of success, and no guarantee the professor would accept your invitation to have a mediation.  It's generally an entirely voluntary thing.
It shouldn't be you who invites him.
Some mediators are better than others.  Choose carefully.

If the professor doesn't accept your invitation to mediation, I think it would still be worthwhile to go to your department, describe your predicament, and ask for assistance.
Please keep in mind that departments like to see their students get placed well after graduation.

authors: 上门赘婿岳风 吻天的狼_我是赘婿岳风柳萱目录

authors: 原来的我蔡健雅南柯一梦_原来的我张信哲见微知著

authors: 吻天的狼赘婿当道最新章节_赘婿当道免费阅读全文

authors: 哥哥放18颗荔枝锲而不舍_三位哥哥 拿葡萄星火燎原

authors: 富德保险是正规公司吗峰回路转_系统逼我做娇妻免费看玩世不恭

authors: 此花亭绮潭动漫尸位素餐_此花亭狐假虎威

authors: 闫盼盼单手解扣3分21秒视频_盼盼端午节三分钟视频下载