text:
What are CNRS research units and how are they staffed
The Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) is the major funding body in France. With nearly 32,000 staff members it is bigger than the US NIH and US NSF combined, yet only has a 1/10 of the budget.
Both CNRS and NIH have multiple institutes (although the NIH institutes are all health related and CNRS covers a range of science). The CNRS then has 952 mixed research units, 32 proper research units, 135 service units, as well as 36 international units while the NIH has a large number of intramural labs.
What are these different research units and how are they staffed (full time researchers or academics with other teaching duties)? Is it at all like NIH intramural labs or MRC centres?

This question might well have been asked in response to the following discussion on meta: https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3895/questions-about-particular-institutions

It's important to note that the NSF and NIH employ many researchers indirectly; these agencies make grants to universities with the intention that the universities use the money to employ researchers.  For various legal, political, and cultural reasons, indirect employment is frowned on in France, so, instead of giving universities money to employ researchers, the CNRS employs researchers directly and assigns them to work at universities.

@AlexanderWoo I think that is the real answer I am looking for. It is a very different model from the US and UK and really any other system that I am familiar with. Maybe you will write something up. I am happy to move the green tick.

You can't even compare CNRS with NSF. NSF is a funding agency but doesn't do research directly.

@user4050 that sounds like a comparison to me ;) The NIH on the other hand does do research, which is why I focused on those more.

You can look up the intramural budget component of the NIH, which is what would be comparable.

What is a mixed vs proper reseach unit?

Wikipedia is your friend. Read the CNRS wikipage, and look at CNRS official website.
CNRS is the largest public pure research organization in France, with a staff exceeding 31000 persons, located in many geographical areas in France; many CNRS teams share office buildings with e.g. some French universities; several French research teams (UMR) have mixed staff, some funded by a University, and some other funded by CNRS, perhaps even working in the same office room on similar research. Getting employed by CNRS is really very hard, and there is a lot of competition. BTW, CNRS researchers are not very well paid, and most of them are not only very competent, but generally passionate about their research. They are not (contractually) tenured members of some University, even if most of them do teach a few courses somewhere (in addition of their researcher work), either at some University or at some Grande Ecole.

It's supposedly some unknown research center somewhere in Europe

CNRS is the largest basic research agency in Europe (mostly funded by the French public State budget). It is French (even if of course it gets some research grants from outside, e.g. from French ANR or European Commission's H2020...)
CNRS researchers are working in all kind of science and research (e.g. biology, history, computer science, physics, sociology, paleontology, chemistry, mathematics, etc etc etc ....). Most of them have at least a PhD (doctorat d'université), usually even their HdR (habilitation à diriger des recherches). Even if CNRS researchers are French civil servants, they are not all French citizens (even if most of them are).
There are some other public (French state owned) organizations in France doing research, e.g. INRIA, INRA, CEA, INSERM, (and dozen of other smaller research institutions) etc... Unlike CNRS, these other organizations are usually dedicated to some specific science or technological domain, and usually work on applied research.

Online material on the cnrs isn't helpful at all

Why do you say that? The Overview page of CNRS website is quite informative (and looks quite objective to my French citizen eyes)! And the CNRS wikipage gives a complementary look.
French economy is not used to fund research (in the sense that private corporations in France spend much less money in funding research, notably in public labs, than their counterpart in the USA or even in Germany). So the funding of French research works differently from North American country (and is lower, in terms of percentage of GDP).
BTW, I don't understand well what the NSF exactly is in the USA. My perception is that it mixes the role of CNRS and of ANR in France.

E.g., another national research institute is the LNE.

Indeed, but I won't list in my answer above all French-state owned research organizations. LNE is about 40 times smaller than CNRS.

Regarding the lack of habit of the French economy to fund research, interested people could read the Valorisation de la Recherche Civile du CEA report (in French) of France's Cours des Comptes -court of audit-

+1 Note that this answer was written for a slightly different question. While it doesn't hit all the points of this question, it is still an excellent answer.

Basile - to understand the American situation, you need to understand something about American employment law.  In the general economy, employment is at will; at least in theory, most employers can dismiss any employee without compensation at any time.  One major exception is anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits dismissal whose major cause is an employee's race, religion, gender, age, or sexual orientation.  Another major exception is direct employees of the government, who have civil service protections.

To make it easier to change the government budget, the government tries to avoid (not just in research, but in many areas) directly hiring employees.  Instead of hiring someone as an employee of the government, the government pays a university to provide research services, with the bulk of the payment to the university going to salaries and support costs (office space, et c) of the researchers.  This way, if the government decides to reduce research funding, it can end these contracts with universities, leaving the universities free to fire the researchers if they wish.

In contrast, in France, a university cannot just fire a researcher or reduce their salary (or even drastically change their duties) if the government decides to stop paying the university for research services.  Hence the university is not willing to take on the risk of being the researcher's employer, and the government is forced to directly hire the researcher instead.  (This is a little simplistic, since French universities are more like part of the government than US universities, many of which are essentially independent even if they are government-funded.)

@user2768 - In France, it is essentially impossible for any employer to fire any permanent employee.  Even the counter staff at Macdonalds have tenure.

@AlexanderWoo It would be useful if you posted (possibly after extension) your comments as an answer. I found them very useful.

As requested, I'm turning several of my comments into an answer.  Please note I'm giving quite a superficial view - both because I don't know much more and because a detailed analysis would be too long for an answer.
To understand the CNRS, you really need to understand the French legal, political, and cultural context.  France has very strong protections for permanent employees of any organization.  It is essentially impossible to fire anyone.  I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Pan Am, the airline that went bankrupt 20+ years ago, still to this day has employees staffing counters at Charles de Gaulle airport (with no customers) because it would not be worth the trouble to close down and fire them.  I might remember wrong, but feels like a reasonable exaggerated version of the truth.  It is also very hard to reassign the basic duties of an employee.  If their original contract says their job is to do X, then the employer cannot start asking them to do Y instead.
In the US, most of the NSF and NIH budgets are used to indirectly employ researchers.  The NSF/NIH contracts with universities, paying the university to conduct research.  The university in turn uses the money to employ researchers and pay their salaries (as well as pay for their office space, staff support, et c).  If the US government decides to reduce research funding, the university can fire the researchers, or at least reassign them to other duties such as teaching classes.  (Note that employees of the US government do have civil service protections that make them harder to fire, so it would be harder to reduce or reallocate research funding if researchers were hired directly by the government.)
In the context of French employment law, no university (or any other entity) would be foolish enough to employ someone they can't fire (or even reassign their duties) when the funding for their position is temporary!  Hence, the government is essentially forced to directly hire researchers (and assign them to work at universities) rather than giving funds to universities to hire researchers.  (This is not quite right, because the ordinary French universities (i.e. excepting the Grandes Ecoles) are much closer to being part of the government than in the US, where even universities that receive government funding are usually quite independent.)

CDG airport has a list of airlines which have counters in their terminals, and of course Pan Am is not there. A bankrupt company which has to keep people employed is nonsense.

This answer is mostly based on myths and does not provide any insight on the issues raised by the OP. Firing people in private sector organisations isn't difficult at all. There is a bit a of paperwork and some costs but it can be done easily. Firing people in public sector organisations is more complicated. The legal protections are actually very thin (public sector workers don't even have a contract and certainly aren't subject to French “employment law”). Instead, they are protected by unions and the bureaucratic nature of the organisations.

But the truth is that strong protections for academic staff is an integral part of the European university model. It's just as true for US universities (cf. the concept of tenure), other European research institutes, etc. They do not routinely downsize based on the vagaries of the budget. Meanwhile, French research institutions, just like their counterparts in other European countries, are choke-full of research staff on temporary assignments. That's how research teams grow and shrink everywhere so that doesn't really shed any light on the CNRS in particular.

@NajibIdrissi I alluded to that when I wrote that “firing people in public sector organisations is more complicated”. Actually, legally the state can change their status unilaterally, it's no protection at all and in principle easier than revising a contract. Historically, the whole point of having a separate administrative branch of law is that the state would not be bound by regular civil law constraints.

That's of course purely theoretical but the reasons for that are political, not related to any kind of legal protections or “employment law”. In practice, public sector workers can't be fired arbitrarily by their direct manager, that's what I meant by “bureaucratic nature of the organisation”. But similar systems exists elsewhere, especially in academia.


text:
ePrint Archive for PhD Dissertation in the Social Sciences
I understand there are a number of specialised ePrint archives or repositories where scholarly works could be posted for wider dissemination (for example, arXiv).
I am wondering if there is a preferred one for PhD dissertations in the social sciences?

Related question: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84/preprint-services-other-than-arxiv-for-other-fields

http://www.ssrn.com/

Did you check with the library of your institution?

You can always put a copy of your dissertation on your professional web page.  Google will find it.

Your university is likely to have an institutional repository. This is probably the most important place to lodge an electronic copy of your dissertation and should definitely be used.
However, but it won't hurt to lodge the manuscript in other places. As others have noted, there are various ad-hoc options here (e.g. commercial networks like Academia.Edu and ResearchGate, your personal webpage, etc.).
To the best of my knowledge, there is no open access repository for the social sciences that has the same recognition as ArXiv. However, there are a few repositories like SSOAR, SSRN, EconStor and HAL-SHS that are becoming more widely used.

Besides SSOAR, I think SSRN - Social Science Research Network, EconStor and HAL-SHS are worth mentioning.

Thanks @non-numeric_argument, I've modified my answer to include these.

Figshare is an easy and free option. It is not field specific. It has an backup archiving system. Submitted work tends to get indexed by Google and Google Scholar.

One more recent place for this is SocArXiv, currently found here, which was started in July 2016, so it is still in development. I'm not sure whether they will end up accepting theses or not (but, in principle, I'd go for a ¿why not? response), but it's worth a look.

There are certainly theses there at the moment, so that question seems solved :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Early Career Research Fellow Application
What does a research panel look for in the research proposal of an early career research fellow applicant?
An early career research fellow is defined as a person who has completed PhD within five years of the application deadline. A small university in my area is calling for applications for early career research fellow application. The research proposal is part of the application process.

This is probably very specific to the call. I'm not sure one can provide good answers without more information.

For very early career (few years after your PhD), most people will value signs that you are carrying good research independently of your Phd advisor. You gained you PhD, and presumably you did good (because you found jobs since then, you haven't left academia). Now, as an early career scientist, you need to show that you can design, implement and manage your own research projects. Basically, they want to see you as a leader with high potential.
So, in general these are the most watched points:

is the candidate able to put up a good and coherent research project, explaining its context and impact
did the candidate publish without his advisor?
did she mentor/advise (or even work with) younger students?
has she created new collaborations?

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


text:
Details to include on the cover letter for sourcing part-time tutoring/marking positions
Many universities have a job section and invite prospective applicants to submit their CVs that (as I understand) are placed in a database and sourced if a part/time tutoring or marking role comes up. The database (as I understand) is searchable. There is no deadline for this submission (i.e. ongoing).
From the point of view of the university (lecturers searching the database), what are some key things they look for when employing a recently minted PhD?

Key things to include are

Relevant experience - such as tutoring, teaching, marking,
Educational achievement - you have a PhD, presumably this is in a field related to the field in which you will be marking/tutoring,
Other experience relevant to the role, e.g. working with students in any role such as mentoring, personal development, group work, and
Some evidence-based statement relevant to the proposed work.

For number four, this is an opportunity to show that, for instance, you are able to work alone or as part of a team, that you are able to work to deadlines (important for returning marked scripts), and that you have excellent written and oral communication skills (important for feedback). Your comments in this statement must be backed up with evidence drawn from your past experience, work or training.


text:
How to do a flawless and natural presentation?
I have been attending a number of academic / professional conferences recently and one thing that really awed me was the flawless and natural way in which the speakers presented on their topics.
Sure, they had the occasional mispronunciations or awkward pauses but they spoke with authority and confidence.
Some of them used powerpoint slides but were not reading from the slides; they were just talking on the points and they had so much to say on each point that I felt they could not do it without notes, but they were not even looking at their notes most of the time.
(The advantages of not looking at their notes too much was that they could maintain eye contact and could use very interesting slides that were not crammed with the dot points of their speeches.)
I hate to think that they had memorised their speech notes but some of the presentations went for more than an hour.
I know rehearsal is important but I wonder how could anyone remember so much in a nervous situation. (Its one thing to know everything on your topic; its another thing to present that 'everything'!)
Question:
What background / foreground things do presenters do that make their presentations flawless and natural?

Practice, practice, practice

http://speaking.io/

Here is a related and helpful question/answers: What do I need to ensure my presentation will go smoothly?

I recommend reading: http://sitacuisses.blogspot.nl/2009/03/how-to-deliver-great-presentations.html. It is the best advice I have ever read.

What conferences are these? I honestly feel that the vast majority of all presentations at (especially scientific) conferences are abysmal, or at the very least not good. There always one or two exceptions, but the emphasis here is “one or two”.

This is not a full answer, but you have to be convinced that you have an interesting message to deliver. When you begin, it's hard to believe that you are THE expert in the thing you want to talk about. But it's true, and you are in a much more comfortable position when you realize that: the audience is there to learn from you and not evaluate you. They might be in a professional dominant position, but YOU are the reference regarding the content of your talk.

I know a comment and some answers reflect this already, but it's so important I want to say it again: practice.

A natural presentation comes from practice, and lots of it.
From practice comes confidence. Excellent speakers rarely have more than a few words bullet pointed on their slides. This means that the audience's attention is focused on the speaker. The speaker then tells the audience what the speaker wants them to hear, or directs the audience's attention to an image displayed on the screen.
Aside from not splitting the audience's attention between speaker and loads of text on-screen, having few words on your slides means that you are not tempted yourself to read your presentation to the audience. Such recitation is only suitable if you are analysing the text itself closely.
Further to that last point, having only single or few key words on your slides forces you to know your subject and what to say on each point. You don't have the slides to fall back upon, allowing you to lazily read them to your audience.
Which brings me back to practice. One way of getting familiar with what you want to say on each point is to write down a few detailed notes for yourself. When you practice your talk, you can refer to these detailed notes. Next time through, distil your notes down to only a few key words. Next time through - or when you are confident - your notes should be only the key words on the screen for the audience, and are therefore redundant. No notes, fluent delivery.

+1 for having a few key words on your slides. These become trigger-words to remind you what you want to talk about. They keep you focused on what's important.

@earthling I just don't get this view. Slides are for the audience. Notes are for you.

@Strongbad I use the keywords not just to focus myself but also to focus/ provide a roadmap for my audience, most of whom have a weak command of English and can easily misunderstand me.

@StrongBad Also, as a participant I'd rather have a slide with just The Point, rather than a wall of text. The speaker will fill in the details.

@AllenGould my point is that The Point might be different from the trigger words.

@StrongBad Ah. Good point.

Question: What background / foreground things do presenters do that make their presentations flawless and natural?

I don't think I've ever seen a flawless presentation by the way ... much like I've never seen a flawless conversation.
In any case, I think if you do not have a lot of experience, as ff524 says (edit: and Nicholas), practice is important. In particular, if you are going to present at a conference, for example, try present in front of (and get feedback from) your colleagues.
With more experience comes more confidence. With more confidence, presentations become less about "speeches" or memorised text and more about having a conversation with the audience.
At this stage, when you prepare a talk, you can imagine the flow of exposition, how the slides should be ordered, what the audience will understand at that point, what questions they might have and how they could be answered, how to order the points of conversation, how to clarify the "why" before the "how", how to ask the question and engage the audience's curiosity rather than just provide the answer. When you deliver the talk, you have the outline of the conversation you're about to have and you follow through with it, improvising the exact phrasing as feels right.
For me, it often helps to think about the audience as one person that I'm trying to engage with. An audience can be daunting -- a blur of faces -- but if you rather think of trying to engage directly with that guy/gal who came in late and is sitting right at the back of the room ... and make it almost more personal ... I think this is the attitude to have. (This is orthogonal to memorising exact phrasing, which I often find leads to unnatural talks. Having a few nice catchy phrases is nice, but they'll stick in your mind naturally when you prepare the talk.)

There's a lot of great answers here, and most of them say practice. Well, I agree, but I didn't see this particular point in any answer yet, so let me try and explain what usually helps me "keep the flow" and how.
Well, it's all about practice, but:

when I write the slides, I always have a rough idea of what I would like to say and try out a few (different) phrasings in my head (only the key points / words end up on the slides)
(ideally), I do multiple rehearsals, improvisation-upon-improvisation. At this point, it is not uncommon for the first rehearsal to last 4 or 5 times as much as the allotted time.
at early-stage rehearsals, I will try multiple phrasings for the same slide. If I start saying "Um...", my sentences get lost in the middle or something similar, I will just calmly stop at this point and try a new approach to what I want to say.
I tend to do around 2 more rehearsals after I get the presentation down to the allotted time (for me, personally, going on much longer I might unintentionally shorten the presentation too much)
now, what, concretely, I get from all these rehearsals is multiple, different ways to handle every slide.
The reason presentations sound flawless is because not just every sentence by itself is good, but the transitions between sentences, slides and sections are well done.
And, after doing 4-5-6 rehearsals for the presentation, you know multiple ways to say each thought, and then multiple ways to transition to the next thought, and even if you "slip" and say something other than the "perfect, planned version", you still have a rehearsed back-up strategy.
as for writing down the notes, I usually sit down after a rehearsal number 2 or 3, and focus only on difficult transitions.
If, in those few first rehearsals, I sill didn't find a fluent way to say something, or if I did but I stumbled around it, I will try and write down verbatim what I want to say, sometimes even multiple versions.
Just writing it down usually helps, but if I'm going to go over any notes minutes before presenting, these are going to be it.
finally, making a rehearsal if front of a test-audience helps. I dread anybody hearing me on the rehearsal number one or two, but I like for somebody to listen on around the pre-last rehearsal.
By this time, I usually "know" my presentation well enough so I can easily integrate suggestions in, but I still have a go to test if the suggestions fit fluently.
this all helps the presentation sound more natural. Since you can handle multiple "lingual" situations, you do not sound like you're reciting by heart. On the other hand, you're sure that you have multiple "fallback" options which allow you flexibility and that all of them will deliver the same idea.

The first thing that you need to know is that it is not "natural". If you're lucky enough to watch the same person give the same talk more than once (as I have) you will discover that it is a lot less spontaneous than it appears to be. Giving a live talk draws on several different kinds of preparation at once:

the talk itself is typically prepared and practiced over and over. There may be notes in the speaker notes section, or the bullets on the slide may be enough to remind the speaker what to say to each slide. The talk is organized in a way that makes it easy to remember all the points that need to be covered, to be able to drop some material if necessary, and so on.
the speaker has a wide collection of stories and jokes that can be used to provide time to think, to lengthen a talk that is going too fast and will run short, or to relax an audience that isn't interacting enough
the speaker knows a physical vocabulary: where to stand, how far and how fast to walk, what arm positions to use, whether to pause at the far edge of the stage or hidden behind the desk, and what effect all of these will have on the audience
the speaker knows the overall length the talk must be and often knows some milestones within the talk (finish demo 1 by 12 minutes; should have 5 minutes left when we get to dog picture) so that subtle lengthenings or shortenings can keep the talk on schedule
the speaker has learned to drop meta talk (oh, I see I covered these points earlier, hm, I guess there isn't time for this demo, ah, this is awkward I seem to have finished early) and to project tremendous confidence even while internally panicking over a demo that isn't working, a slide that has gone missing, or the sudden realization of the current time.

It's hilarious to watch a well done "spontaneous" demo that is exactly the same every time. I tell you what, the speaker says, let's throw some code together to let you see what I'm talking about. Closing the Powerpoint (or at least minimizing it) and bringing up a developer tool, the speaker goes on: I can do this in C# I guess, of course it works in other languages too. Let's make a .... pause .... look at the screen as though trying to decide ... Windows app, sure that can work, I'll put a button or two and a text box, yeah, that should work. ... the demo goes on and on to all intents and purposes just being made up on the fly, but I'm in the back of the room with the demo script and I know the speaker is doing exactly what we planned.
You need to know the material well in addition to practicing. If you forget to mention something, you'll need to spot a chance to work it in later. If you get a question from the audience, you'll need to be able to answer it. And if you get thrown by a technical glitch and need to speak really spontaneously, you will need to know where you were headed for sure.
All of this is something you can learn. If you think it is natural and flawless, you may think "I either have it or I don't." That's not true. You can learn the mechanics of structuring a talk, of laying out a slide so that it doesn't detract from the talking you're doing, of using your voice, your pauses, and your body to support your message. And you can practice over and over, and watch other people too, until you are good. Some people learn faster than others, but everyone can learn this if it's important to them.

So true. I watched a terrific presentation by Steven Pinker on youtube recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5J6BfToSw. Afterwards I clicked on some of the related videos to hear more, and to my shock some of the others were almost word-for-word identical!

As someone who has been trained in creating and presenting presentations, let me tell you the secret: it's practice.With practice and learning comes confidence, and with confidence you manage to make up for all the minor flaws most people might not even notice with nothing but a simple smile.
There is one technical aspect to it, which has something to do with how the brain works. In stress or panic situations, the human brain has a functionality to switch off all higher-level areas to focus on the situation at hand. While this is perfectly good and useful when i.E. fighting lions, it is absolutely not helpful when in a test situation. So the prime rule for good presentations is: keep calm and present on.
The second trick is to generate so called island-knowledge. Basically you take all the required topics, then learn enough about them that you could hold a speech for each one of them without having to prepare. Once you did that you not only have the knowledge to speak more freely but also the confidence when it comes to questions. Because for every question asked or for every mistake you make, you know which island to hop to, to find an immediate solution that at least sounds professional.
And then there is still the good old "sorry, I don't know" answer. If you preset something about a topic, it is perfectly fine if you do not know everything. Admitting that is a strong sign of confidence and the audience will honor you for not talking "bullshit". Knowing that the audience will react positively if you openly lack some knowledge will help you to present that lack as perfectly fine.

I have no idea how to give a flawless presentation, but to give a good one, follow points from:

Joseph A. Gallian, Advice on Giving a Good PowerPoint Presentation, Math Horizons, April (2006), 25-27 [pdf here]

(Don't be afraid of the word "PowerPoint" here - there is nothing specific to this program. Moreover, many points from there work for any presentation, including one only with blackboard or even one without it.)
In any way, to make in better and better there is no shortcut to preparation and practice!

Practice, as has been mentioned.
Here's one concrete points with respect to practicing:
I like to write exactly what I want to say in the Speaker Notes section of the slide.
This point is a little contentious, because the first thing people usually learn about public speaking is "not to read". I used to subscribe by this. Now, I've gone back to writing really really complete notes and reading for practice.
Before I get a whole community down my throat let me explain. When I was practicing in the past, I kept misstating things or adding 'um' or pausing and would have to retract my words, and then that led to even more awkwardness. So I thought, "Well, I'm just going to write down exactly what I want to say then" and not have to try to find the awesome phrasing by memory. So I did. What you then need to practice is delivery, not content.
The problem that people have is that they often associate reading with how you do reading out loud in school - you just kind of drone out the text in a monotone voice that's drab and boring. In reality, you can read and still make it dynamic and interesting and fluid and fun. Do practice that. Imagine your favorite speechgiver - a famous world leader, a CEO of a company, and so forth. A lot of them are reading their speeches. Think of your favorite newscaster or comedy anchorman. They are all reading off of the prompter and yet it feels like they're just talking to you.
It is pretty important that, when developing a dynamic reading habit, to get a sense of how you sound. Record yourself and play it back and see if it sounds like you're just talking to someone in conversation. That's how it should sound like. It shouldn't sound like you're reading a research paper. Figure out if it's the content that's doing this or if it's the delivery.
Once you practice this a lot - just reading dynamically - then you're going to start to know your talk so well that you won't need the notes, and you won't need the slides, and you won't need to worry about interruptions or anything.
Another thing: I don't write notes for every section for my talk: just the tricky parts that I stumble on. I often do it for the very beginning of the talk (Yes, I actually write "Thank you very much for the introduction. My name is Irwin and I'm happy to be here today" in my note slides because when I'm at my most nervous moment, I need to be able to start off without any ums, ifs, or buts), technical portions, and places where I have big "A-has" and "punchlines" and so forth.
Hope that helps.

Thanks Irwin!!! This is the most useful intervention especially for earlier career scholars. When I write what I want to say, it gives me confidence than panicking unnecessarily. It gets better with time I am sure.

Before all of my good presentations (compared to my many bad ones), I did essentially what you describe.  I memorized/scripted certain sections of my speech.  This really helps in avoiding clumsy wording and nervous repetition that comes from speaking to an audience"off the cuff".

I agree. Don't use the speaker notes section, though, use paper sheets or index cards. Often the computer isn't configured to show speaker notes, and you don't want to find out at the last minute. Also, you want to be able to move away from the computer.

A number of factors that are I have found to be important to giving a good presentation. I have not yet given a academic presentation yet, other than at undergrad level, but have attended some. In my professional career as an Accountant (I am also a part-time Post-Graduate) I have given some and attended many. The number of people I have normally given a presentation range between about 50 to 300.

Good knowledge of topic

This may seem like a given but you'd be amazed haw many poor presentations can be put down to this fact. This gives you the ability to expand on your presentation naturally if the need exists. It also can help if your preparation, for whatever reason, was not the best. Trust me it can happen.

Preparation

That said about knowledge; preparation is very important. I've found over the years that this can vary from presentation to presentation. At first & I still do I would type out my whole talk. This would serve as a template for my talk and I would follow it pretty closely but would go off script if or when I felt it would be of benefit. Sometimes with time you can sense a vibe off a room that you may need to expand on a point you were talking about. On other occasions I would just make bullet points to keep me on track when I am comfortably with the topic. For me preparation also includes being comfortable in the space in which you are giving your presentation. I have found it is good to get to the venue early to survey the room that you would be speaking in. Walk the room if you can; note how big it is. Is there equipment for you if you need to use slides, a podium or table for you to use and water available. These may seem small issues but it's good practice so as to keep yourself in a good frame of mind before you speak. Nothing worse than 30 minutes messing with a laptop and projector to frustrate you before hand.
- Practice
This has been dealt with in many of the answers so I won't dwell on it to long. It is important so the more you can do it the better. As said already if you can do a trial run with friends or colleagues that is good. I know in my university there are some workshops available that help with public speaking and I believe Toastmasters was also mentioned where you could practice. You can also practice on your own. Two techniques I use are 1. when out for a walk I run over in my mind little short sections of make talk and see how well I can present them and then check my notes when I get back; 2. (this may sound a bit vain) you can practice in front of a mirror which I think helps you get comfortable with how you look when talking and you may also notice bad habits you will wish to eradicate from you presenting style.

Confidence

This is noted in most of the answers as well. You can be naturally confident or it may be some thing you have to work on. If it come naturally then nerves can play less of a role in your presentation style and people can notice a nervous speaker. That said, all the confidence on the world will not help you if you don't research your topic, prepare and practice. Where confidence is of benefit even if it acquired over time is that it helps ensure you are more relaxed when giving the talk and when you are relaxed you are better able to concentrate on what is important, the material.

Note that presenting is a teachable/learnable skill. You may want to consider classes, if you can find them, or doing your presentation for friends and asking for feedback. Some folks suggest investigating the Toastmasters organization as a way to learn public speaking skills; I don't know enough about them to have an opinion.
As others have said, practice makes better, and  -- as with most arts and crafts -- this is more about being able to recover gracefully so nobody especially notices the mistake than about a perfect performance.
Afterthought: a flawless presentation is highly unnatural...

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


text:
Author Ambiguity in PubMed Search
Given a (rather large) list of authors, what is the best way to find the number of publications by each author?  The big problem here is author ambiguity (which John Smith, etc.) - the author list we have doesn't even include middle initials!  What we do have is the full name of a FDA Committee on which they have sat, which has some useful key terms (e.g., arthritis).
Ideally, some sort of API/automated search could be used given the large number of authors!  I've heard about some databases (eRA Commons, for example) but these don't seem to have a visible search page.
What is the best way to figure out publication number given these constraints?

Just for clarification: do you only want to search in/using PubMed, or are other databases okay? http://academic.research.microsoft.com seems to do an okay job separating the large number of Chinese name collisions. (Though of course, it is not perfect.)

Have you thought about emailing them and asking for a CV? Pubmed provides the ability to search by affiliation which might help, but it is really designed to find articles and not authors. Scopus's affiliation filter might be better since it is designed to find authors (as well as articles).

This is a little bit shaky, but let's give it a try. Apart from a programmatic solution where you would have to write your own web-scraping scripts which would construct appropriate URLs for each authors and extract their publication statistics, there might be another, though still quite tedious and technically involved approach.
Harzing's Publish or Perish program (PoP) has a feature called "Multi-query center". It allows you to create a set of queries and then generate publication/citation statistics for each of them in bulk. It is meant to periodically re-generate the citation statistics for a set of queries so that you do not have to laboriously write the queries again and again. Now the technical steps towards your solutions would be the following:

produce a set of queries corresponding to the list of authors you are interested in;
update all these queries at once by a single button click;
save the statistics for all the queries e.g., into a CSV file; and
extract the numbers you are interested in in your favorite spreadsheet program.

The most technically involved step is to produce a set of queries corresponding to the list of authors you have. If the list is not too long (e.g., up to 50), the easiest method would be to enter the queries manually. In the case you have a very long list of authors (several hundreds), then I would try to generate the set of queries programatically. The PoP program stores the queries you enter in it in a file Queries3.xml in the corresponding Program Files folder. The queries are organised into folders, the XML is easy to read. Producing a correct XML file with the queries is a little bit try-error process, but you can easily succeed when you create an empty query with an authors and then using a small script (or you favourite text editor/spreadsheet) copy the query entry and only change the Author attribute of the PoPQuery element.
Good Luck!

My answer is a supplement to walkmanyl's answer.
Can I suggest you to go through this paper? It is a very nice paper which gives you an algorithm to disambiguate author names and can be used in conjunction with the method described above.
Anecdotally, I know that it has been used in a number of scientometric/bibliometric studies already.


text:
Discipline clarification or field of study
The boundaries between academic fields have blurred to such an extend that many studies today are interdisciplinary in nature.
My PhD is in the social sciences. It was located in the Faculty of Arts at the university. It is a blend of sociology, organisational economics, public policy and a bit of psychology.
I am wondering if a term like "social economics" is appropriate to describe my study. (It is neither "social" nor "economic" in the 'pure' sense.)
My university will just award me with a PhD but I want my CV to be more descriptive.
How does the academic community view these types of descriptions?

My PhD advisor is unsure!

What does the front page of your PhD thesis say?

A dissertation submitted by ... for the award of Doctor of Philosophy

So you must be a philosopher, right?

How does that help?

I have been in similar experiences with some friends, and I'm willing to share:
Here in Japan the programs usually have the weirdest possible names, even in the University of Tokyo they have the "PhD on Creative Informatics" (What's that supposed to mean?), when is nothing but a good ol' PhD on Computer Science. Or the "PhD on Frontier Sciences".
I asked my adviser and he told me that those names are usually for the sake of attracting more students. But he also told me something I've been seeing in the Industry looking for a job (Academic/Industry): No one really cares that much about the title in your PhD, but rather on your specialization topic. Usually questions will be directed towards: "What did you do on your PhD" rather than "What's the name of your PhD"
I advise you to create a brand around this concept of "Social Economics", if you know different people doing that, try to be in contact with them (Twitter/Mail/Conference) so you'll get recognized in the field later and when you get interviewed you don't have to explain it all over again.


text:
Postdoc opportunities in mathematics
I am expected to finish my Ph.D in mathematics (if relevant, more specifically - in commutative/homological algebra) by the end of this academic year. I am studying in a somewhat minor university, although my supervisor is a well know figure in his field.
Following my supervisor's advice, I submitted applications for postdoctoral positions in about 20 top level universities in the US. As most of these universities already finished hiring for this year, I suspect I made the mistake aiming too high, and would probably get negative answers from all the different employers.
Assuming this is the case, I am now wondering what should be the next step in my academic career. One option is to stay at my current university for another year (but with a much lower salary, as my scholarship will come to an end). I should mention that my supervisor highly discourages this option, as he thinks that I should get more involved in the research community of my field, and my current university is a poor place to do so.
Alternatively, I am wondering if there are any other opportunities for postdocs in Europe or the US for the 2013 academic year, in my relevant field, of which the deadline still did not pass.
Any advice or idea for my situation would be helpful.
Thank you

Post-doc opportunities appear year-round, especially if you look internationally.  In my subfield (numerical analysis) there are new post-doc job ads every week.  Your advisor should know where to look.

I guess part of the problem is that my advisor doesn't really know where to look... He is out of the job market for 20 years, and I am his first graduate student.

You will find a lot of useful links here: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/952/where-are-mathematics-jobs-advertised-if-not-on-mathjobs-e-g-in-europe-and-else

I recommend http://chronicle.com

There are several major websites on which jobs in mathematics, including postdocs, tend to be posted.  Most importantly (in the US) mathjobs.org, but also the AMS's service and others.  (See this mathoverflow question for many more.)  Postdoc positions can take a while to sort out, since many of them are filled (or even created) in response to what happened earlier in the hiring season, so there may still be opportunities, especially if you're willing to look outside the US.

By the way, right after writing this, I went to check my e-mail and received an announcement of a new postdoc position.  So there are definitely new postdocs becoming available.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid your supervisor gave you very risky advice.  For anyone other than a real star (at the level of the top students at the top schools), applying to just 20 top departments is likely to lead to disappointment.  You may be at that level - of course I have no idea - but coming from a less famous university also puts you at a disadvantage, even with a well-known advisor.
As several people have pointed out here, there are still some jobs available for next year, but many of the most attractive possibilities will be gone.  At this point, you should look for advertisements but also explore other possibilities.  Write to departments to see whether they have any last-minute openings (e.g., a sabbatical replacement), write to faculty members to see if they have postdoc funding from recent grants, etc.
Ideally, a trusted mentor should inquire about these possibilities, not you, although of course this depends on whether you have someone who is willing to do this, such as your advisor.  A mentor can explain that you only ended up in this situation because of following questionable advice, and your application was excellent otherwise, so a department that gets you now will be seizing a great opportunity rather than hiring someone nobody else wanted.  (Of course, your advisor may feel uncomfortable loudly announcing that he gave you bad advice.)  A mentor can also contact friends in other departments, collaborators, etc. in ways you probably can't.  But it's much better for you to inquire than for nobody to.
As for staying at your current university, I'd recommend remaining a graduate student rather than getting your Ph.D. and becoming an intructor, unless there's a huge funding difference or you have already spent an unusually long time in grad school.  Continuing with a one-year position at the university you attended for grad school is tantamount to announcing "I didn't get a job last year" on your CV, and that can hurt your job search compared with simply graduating a year later.
If you stay in grad school, perhaps your advisor could help arrange for you to spend a semester or even year visiting another university, which could help take care of the "getting involved in the research community" side of things.  However, the funding situation for that can be complicated, so it may require luck or someone who can call in some favors.

I can only answer your second question, being in somewhat same kind of situation. (job in algebra)Let me first start with a job link:
http://www.euro-math-soc.eu/node/3432
Some of the European jobs have later deadlines. You can apply there. Try euro-math-jobs, nordic-math-jobs, and don't forget to write to people asking about whether there are groups having funding for postdocs.And do look at the mathoverflow question they mentioned above (I did too, and it helped).
Also, check this:  http://homotopical.wordpress.com/jobs/postdoc/
(You will find it very informative).
Best of luck!

Here's a list as a community wiki (feel free to edit), for primarily temporary Math. positions as researchers (a.k.a. "post-docs", "non-tenured", etc., etc. : the classification varies):
Mainly in North America

Chronicle
Canadian Mathematical Society
American Mathematical Society
Mathematical Association of America

Mainly in Europe

Société Mathématiques de France
EURAXESS
Nordic-Math-Job
MyScience.orq

Australia

Australian Mathematical Society

All Around the World

Math Jobs
MathJobs.Org
Academicpositions.eu
European Mathematical Society

Other Ressources

This post on math.sxe
This long blog post
The Mathematics Jobs Wiki

There is scads of postdoc money available both inside the U.S. and worldwide for people interested in doing research, really money exists.
There are not however faculty positions for all those postdocs, at least not in countries that pay anywhere near U.S. wages.  I know French people working as professors in South America, Americans working in Asia and the Middle East, etc.  It's certainly a grand adventure which you should consider, but it's effectively a one way trip because if you stay then you'd never earn enough to retire in the U.S.
American universities will look down upon your time abroad if you try coming back as an academic too.  Even very low ranked universities will realize you've taught in much more traditional systems that probably don't coddle the students nearly so much, meaning they won't trust your teaching.
Europe does not follow the U.S.'s job calendar, meaning you may apply whenever you wish, but you must watch the job sites like math-jobs.com year round, which is annoying.  I believe many asian countries have schedules, but not necessarily the same ones, watch the job sites.
There is an issue that the further you travel from the U.S. the more your school's standing hurts you.  I'd expect you can find postdoc money, references, etc. from Europeans or Asians who know your advisor, but this support counts for very little when you apply for a permanent faculty position.
You should imho simply take an industry job if you wish to remain in the U.S. long term, but if you want an adventure there is one to be had.  Adventure isn't for everyone but you only live once.  ;)
p.s.  Don't limit yourself too much when applying, retool into computational homological algebra if an opportunity presents itself (and you can program well).

I'd like to give you some advices:
1) Strong reccomandation: do not choose an university where to apply by focusing only on its excellence, but choose it only if there is a research group that studies your research stuff.
Working for some years in a research group that does not match with your scientific objective could be a very dangerous error.
2) After identifying which universities have a research group focused on your fields, try to apply for the best, basing on Times Higher Education Ranking, or another indicator.
Good luck!

THES's rankings are complete garbage.  I laughed out loud when I saw they ranked Manchester above École Polytechnique in frigging engineering, that's like ranking Ohio State above MIT in engineering.  THES exists solely to bolster the U.K.'s foreign student intake.  In particular, they place a massive wight on the number of foreign staff and students, i.e. they place a massive wight on speaking english.


text:
Do presentations given during interviews count as invited talks?
I am in the process of interviewing for faculty positions and trying to keep my CV up to date as I go.  Should I include research (or teaching) presentations given during on-campus interviews as invited talks? Or are they considered just a part of the interview process and better left off the CV?

I disagree with Dave.  An invited talk is, by definition, a talk that you've been invited to give.  Yes, interviews count.  (More-or-less inviting yourself is not necessarily different than a non-interview invited talk.)
I agree that you shouldn't reveal which of your invited talks are actually interviews, but that's only an issue if all your invited talks happen in the last semester before you submit your thesis.  (And maybe you should wait until after interview season is over to add them.  The people who are interviewing you are desperately curious about where else you're interviewing.)

Perhaps our difference of opinions could be due to interview formats in different countries. When I interviewed for my present position (in Belgium), the presentation was given to a very small group of people, namely, the interviewers plus some of the other professors in the group I would join. This talk didn't have the same look-and-feel as an invited workshop/conference presentation.

I've given invited talks to three people (where I was invited out of the blue and paid an honorarium) and to 200 people (where I volunteered and paid my own way).  Which was the "real" invited talk?

I agree here, but there may be cultural differences. In Germany, only a small number of those who applied for a professor position will be invited for interview (which are held publically). Therefore, competition for these interviews is (much) harder (and the talk thus more noteworthy) than for many a conference.

I would say no. Leave them off the CV.
Apart from the fact that you more-or-less invited them to invite you by applying for the position, thus they are not really invited talks, it's probably not a good idea to advertise all of the places you've unsuccessfully applied to or declined.

Here, competition for interview talks is harder than for conference talks.

@Dave if one shouldn't advertise unsuccessful applications, does that mean you don't think one should have a CV of failures? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17873/article-that-shows-the-complete-publication-history-of-acceptances-and-rejection/

I wouldn't say it's unethical to list them, since I think they could legitimately be considered invited talks, but I would strongly recommend leaving them out.  Partly that's because it's not worth the (probably small) risk of offending someone who really doesn't think they belong there, but mainly it's because in my experience most people don't list interview talks on their CVs, so listing them will look a little unusual.  In particular, it may make people wonder whether you felt you didn't have enough other talks, whether you're doing other unconventional things in your CV that they should watch out for, etc.  This isn't likely to cost you a job by itself, but it's not what you want readers to be thinking about.
There's a general meta-principle here: you should make your CV look like everyone else's, not because doing it differently would be wrong, but because you don't want readers to focus on the differences.

Curiously, in my experience the majority of CVs I've looked at do include interview talks.  Or at least a substantial percentage: it's hard to look at hundreds of CVs from people I don't know and notice the interview talks they haven't listed!

How do you even tell if something on a cv is an interview talk?  Mine are listed on my cv as they were announced (mostly colloquia, a few seminars).  It would seem weird to list them as "interview talks", but I've never seen that on anyone's cv.

You can't tell for any given talk, but if most of the invited talks on a CV took place during interview season in years in which the candidate was on the market, then it looks like interview talks.

It depends on which CV you are talking about. Hopefully you have better things to include on a one-page CV. Everything you do belongs on your "full" CV. I put departmental seminars in a different category from conference talks. I divide up my conference talks into invited and not invited (and maybe someday keynote). Interviews talks generally either go in external departmental seminars (as opposed to internal seminars) or guest lecturing depending on if it is a research talk or teaching demo. If the interview talk is only given to the search committee, then it goes under positions interviewed for and does not make the seminar list. My full CV lives on the web, but if I am asked to send a CV I purpose tailor it.


text:
Contract versus ongoing positions in academia
Why are a majority of jobs in academia offered on a fixed term basis?
I have noticed that most teaching or researching positions have a contract term (e.g. 3 year contract). Some contracts may be renewed, subject to additional funding, while others simply end.
I am wondering if there is an academic reason for this system (akin to the system being designed to compel the incumbent to continually publish in order to remain in a position).

It is cheaper...

I agree that there are many positions in academia that are fixed term. However, I would question your claim that a "majority" of positions are fixed term. Presumably this varies a lot by country and other factors.
From my casual observations in Australia, some positions tend to be fixed term or casual. E.g.,

Post docs
Research assistants
Positions filling teaching gaps (e.g., related to maternity leave, short term increases in demand for subjects, filling-in while)
A selection of lower-level teaching positions
Research only positions funded by external grants or contracts

while others tends to be continuing positions most notably

Standard faculty positions that combine both teaching and research

Standard faculty positions are often funded broadly out of revenue from teaching even if there is an expectation that you will secure additional sources of research funding. Teaching revenue is generally more stable than research funding that tends to be linked to particular grants of particular duration.
Continuing academic positions in Australia typically have a probation period lasting several years as one means of encouraging performance. That said, the promotional system means that there are other extrinsic rewards to continue performing well once a continuing position is acquired.
As can be seen from the earlier list pure research and lower tier positions tend to be fixed term. This can be because the funding is inherently uncertain or perhaps because the employer feels that they can recruit an adequately skilled employee without incurring the additional costs associated with continuing positions.

In 2010, 47% of American university faculty were part-time or adjuncts, and that fraction is increasing.  So at least within the US, a majority of open faculty positions are for fixed-term faculty.

This is a product of various reasons that are academic, economic, legal and institutional:
In many jurisdictions, it's easier and cheaper to remove staff at the end of a fixed contract: it can be very very expensive to remove staff on a permanent contract.
Enough able people are willing to work on fixed contracts that universities don't need to offer permanent contracts for every post.
Track record, CV and references are not enough to tell how good someone really is, nor how productive they'll be in your team; that needs an extended probation, which a fixed-term contract effectively functions as.
Funding tends to come in bursts, with no guarantee of follow-up funding; so while it can be possible to ensure a post can be funded for 6 months or 5 years, at the end of the funding, there may not be the money to fund that post. On a permanent contract, the resulting severance can be very expensive for the university. The fixed contract gives clarity to both employer and employee.
Productivity changes over time. Some employees are more productive when they have a lot of job security; others are more productive when their future employment depends on the current performance.  I'd love to see some studies on the impact on productivity of needing to repeatedly apply for funding: oddly, it seems to be one area where we academics don't take a scientific approach to analysing!


text:
What do reviewers look for in a paper?
This may be a naive question but it would greatly assist me in preparing my first paper for a peer-reviewed journal.
I can identify at least 4 papers that I can extract from my recently completed PhD dissertation in the social sciences.
What do reviewers look for in order to assess that a paper is suitable for publication in their peer reviewed journal?

Ask your advisor, this is what they are for. Also, you must have read papers in your field...

If only advisors knew all the answers!

Not all. this is definitely within the advisor's purview though.

Generally speaking, they are looking for something new which contributes to the current literature of the field.
If your paper fits in this context (i.e. you believe your paper will enhance/improve current methods or even solve particular problem, then you got publishable work regardless of the reviewing output.
For a particular journal, other factors are added to the significance of the work (for example journal scope, writing level, paper format and methodology).

This is definitely not a naive question.
The best you can do is to understand the position of a hypothetical (ideal/unbiased) reviewer and immediately from that you will get answers to your question. Particularities could depend on the field (theoretical vs. experimental, etc.). Hence, look for answers to the question "how to review?". Already answers here at academia.SE provide lots of relevant points. Answers to this question are probably the best starting point.

This varies from venue to venue where you are publishing the work. For top tier conferences and journals, the reviewers look for something very new and adds to the current research literatures and if the work could help researchers of other domains then its the most important point.
For example, If my work is on say 'X' for engineering discipline. Now, if the reviewers think that this work X could be applied to some other field say (MEDICAL SCIENCE), then there is a fair chance that X is going to be praised by reviewers.


text:
Where does the title Dr come from for PhD?
I have always wondered why a person is given the title of Dr after completing a PhD in a non-medical field. This is especially because of the confusion over the medical title of Dr. Why hasn't a better distinction been formulated by now?

The D in Ph.D. is an abbreviation for "doctor", just as it is in M.D., J.D., Dr.rer.nat., D.Th., D.Min., D.O., D.D.S., Ed.D., and S.T.D. (Sacrae Theologiae Doctor).

@JeffE I never knew having an STD could be a good thing.

@MarcClaesen Who said a Sacrae Theologiae Doctor is a good thing?

@TheAlmightyBob That's the most brilliant question I've seen for a long time! Well worth an exception to the meta rule "Don't ask new questions as comments."!

It's actually exactly the opposite: "doctor" is Latin for "teacher" and the title originally had no special connection with medicine.  Instead, a doctor was anyone qualified to teach at a university (in medieval Europe teaching qualifications were typically determined by the church).  The concept of a formal PhD degree came much later, but it continued this earlier terminology.
The confusion in English is irritating, but not problematic enough to make universities give up a 1000+ year old tradition.  It's not clear why this situation arose.  One natural explanation is that if you want to emphasize your medical skills, you can do it by explaining that you are not just a healer, but in fact someone qualified to teach other people the healing arts.  In other words, you're a doctor of medicine in the academic sense of the word "doctor".  Until very recently universities were fairly exotic, and most people didn't talk about academic doctors very much, so the medical usage was much more salient for the general public and for most people it became the standard meaning of "doctor".
Of course this difficulty with this story is that it doesn't explain why, for example, German does not confuse the terms the same way English does.  Maybe it's just chance, or maybe there's some cultural reason.
In any case, though, academia had the title first and is reluctant to change it.

It's worth noting that, in the UK (and presumably other jurisdictions), a physician does not typically have a doctorate; rather than the degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD, DM, DMed), the standard medical degree is Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (BMBCh or similar). 'Doctor' is then purely a traditional courtesy (and even more confusingly, surgeons traditionally decline to use the title). In the UK a Doctor of Medicine degree is a higher doctorate awarded for substantial research.

In which way do you think is the situation different in German?

@CarstenS In German, the words 'Artz' and 'Doktor' are different. In English the equivalents might be 'physician' and (academic) 'doctor', but the former is rather rarely used, particularly in the US, with the two reducing to (medical) 'doctor' versus (academic) 'doctor'.

It's also worth noting that the Latin root docere is alive and well in many languages (e.g. docent, docente, docencia, doctrine, docile, and so on).

Oh my, let me tell you about German! The differences between German-speaking regions are enormous. For starters, in South Tyrol anyone with an academic degree can use the title Dr.. In Austria, medical doctors get a professional degree called Dr. med. univ. that is quite similar to the American M.D.. If a medical doctor get a PhD, they become DDr.. In Germany, on the other hand, a medical doctor actually has to write a dissertation to get the title Dr. med. but many consider those disserations inferior to typical PhD dissertations. As @user84201 said, in common speech we call the job "Doktor".

It seems that the real question should be "why the title of doctor seems to be now more associated to medical sciences than other fields".
Doctor comes from doctum, that is a derivative of docere, Latin verb for "teaching".
The first doctors in the very first universities studied in four faculties: arts, medical sciences, law and theology. We still use PhD (Philosophiae doctor) but the meaning of the word philosophy has changed over the centuries. During the renaissance, the word philosophy had a broader meaning since philosophy at that time encompasses the whole spectrum of science.
In some countries (France for instance), it is forbidden to use the title of Dr for those who are not MD. In this case, Dr is a degree but not a title. Why do we not use MD everywhere instead of Dr (which seems to be the way to suppress the ambiguity while respecting history)? I don't know.

Interesting history lesson. Shouldn't that be "The first doctors..." (plural)? I don't quite follow the logic here "In some countries (France for instance), it is forbidden to use the title of Dr for those who are not MD. In this case, Dr is a degree but not a title."


text:
Where should I look to see if any funding is available for an industry-based research to attend and present at academic conference?
I am an industry-based researcher, which means that that I am not attached to any university or school. The research I do is basic and sector-based and some of them (as pointed out to me in this forum) is not even research per se (e.g. manuals and codes).
Notwithstanding this, I am always keen to engage in 'formal' research and I submit abstracts/proposals occasionally to conferences organised by universities/others where I can present my work. This is, of course, from a practical point of view which has certain advantages because it tells what works and what doesn't in the real world.
I have been accepted to present at a few conferences but I am discovering (to my surprise) that there is no financial assistance available to speakers (travel, accommodation and even registration). These expenses amount to thousands of dollars and are beyond my reach. It is also outside the scope of my profession so cannot be covered by my employer.
I am wondering what forms of assistance (if any) are available to assist non-academic researchers present their work to a wider audience?
Note: I checked with the conference organisers and they said there is no financial assistance available.

One way to overcome the registration cost is to volunteer at the conference. Look for local scientific communities in the conference area, some of them provide financial aid.

Unless you are invited to present as a keynote speaker, you're probably out of luck for getting sponsorship from conferences to present.  The expected cash-flow is generally in the other direction: conferences ask industry to donate money that supports the travel of academics.
Many companies, however, have internal "professional development" programs that allow employees to apply to use internal money to attend conferences, even if it is not directly connected with their current job responsibilities.  Check and see if your employer has an option of that sort: most large high-tech companies have some sort of formal program, and many small companies have informal options.
Another option is to see if you can convince your employer to run a marketing or recruitment booth, if the conference is within the company's general scope of interests (or public relations outreach).  Then, even if it's not within the scope of your current duties, you may be able to "pay your way" on the trip by organizing and spending part of your time manning the booth.


text:
Publishing while changing institutions
I'm submitting an mathematics article concerning research that was done entirely while I was an undergraduate at University A.  This August I will be a graduate student at University B.  The only funding I received came from NSF through a ten week program at University C at the very beginning of the project, after which I finished the research on my own while attending University A.  On the other hand, while University B has nothing to do with the publication, it is the most up to date institution as far as contact information goes.
Should I put University A or University B as my affiliation (or both)?

The standard solution for your question is to indicate your current address in a footnote:

Alexander Gruber a,†, Another O. Tor a
a University A, Department of Criminology, 221B Baker Street, London (UK)
† Currently at University B, Logic Department, Whitehaven Mansions, Sandhurst Sq, London (UK)

If you didn't use any of the resources of University B, that is the way to go. Otherwise, University B should be listed as an affiliation.
The situation regarding your University C is less clear to me: if you were affiliated with them, you need to list them. If they only “handled” the money given out by NSF, then simply mention them in the funding or acknowledgments section:

Acknowledgments
  A. G. is grateful to NSF program #132-1237 for funding, administered by University C.

Hum, would the downvoter care to explain what they think is wrong with the answer?


text:
Unexpected long delay to start review process and withdrawal of article
We submitted an article to a SCI journal 2 months ago. Since day 1 the status of article is "Editor Assignment Pending". In the journal introduction they have mentioned that on average 1st review response takes 70 days.
As the start of review process usually takes 5-15 days in my area of research; therefore, we sent an email after 30 days and 2nd email after 45 days but there is no response from editor. In second email we requested to withdrawal of article so we may submit it to another journal.
Can we submit the article to another journal before hearing the response from editor?
Usually in my area of research the articles goes into review process within 5-15 days and it takes 2.5-4 months to get 1st review response.

"Editor Assignment Pending" means that no co-editor accepted the article for editing yet. Whom at the journal did you contact? - one of the lead-/executive-editors? As an alternative: you might go through the list of co-editors and look for an editor you know from a conference (and where ever) and ask him, whether he/she would be editor of that article.

I contacted the editor in chief and assistant editorial office.

Could you kindly state your area of research? It might help us to give a more precise answer.

@ÉbeIsaac The article topic is related to computer networks and future internet.

@MuhammadBilal: CN is an area where many researchers take an active part with so many journals being submitted by the day. A review delay is usual, but there is no excuse for a prolonged wait for a single response.  It is advised that you submit to a different publisher.

I've added more details to my post that you might find useful.

I received the response from editor. but I have a concern that the decision is made as "reject" instead of withdrawn or sent back to author. However in decision letter it is mentioned that the article has been withdrawn.

Today it is very difficult to find reviewers, especially good and timely ones, unless the journal is very prestigious or rewards them highly (eg with editorials).
Having said that, this journal seems to be handled poorly. Thus, I would suggest you to pursue another scholarly venue.
If your email was clear in stating that you were definitely withdrawing the manuscript, then you can submit it wherever you want already.
Be prepared though that they may try to dissuade you stating that the revision process is already quite ahead (which could be true but not necessarily).

The delay in review can vary widely between journals and it does depend upon many factors such as availability, field of specialization, and the procedural overhead of the publisher. However, the delay in response is something that cannot be overlooked, especially if it is as long as 45+ days.
As you have already sent the manuscript withdrawal note to the journal, then it would be ethically acceptable to send the manuscript to a different publisher altogether.

A real life experience from my colleague in multimedia: the paper was submitted to a very reputable publisher. Alas, the number of reviewers for that field is minimal. Adding on to this is the editor's negligence. After two agonising years, the result was given: out of scope.


text:
speed of problem solving in grad school in mathematics
I wonder if anyone in graduate school in mathematics had managed to improve considerably his/her speed of problem solving.
I had failed to get my PhD pass and obtained only Master Pass on my qualifiers.  I have been trying to increase speed of solving problems but alas, achieved only slight improvement.  I know that most problems on these exams are manageable and may be few are hard. Problems of similar level of difficulty would take me days or even weeks of solving. Any suggestions and especially real life examples of improving problem solving speed would be highly appreciated.

Success in well-designed qualifying exams in mathematics will depend very little on "problem-solving" speed or talent, but, rather, will depend on whether you've already done problems nearly identical to the problems which appear.
That is, as you observe, it would be prohibitively slow to "solve" many of those problems "in real time". Thus, that is not the expectation. Rather, the "test" is whether examinees have studied sufficiently broadly so as to have seen examples resembling the instances occurring in the given exam.
And, no, it's not about "memorization", either, which tends to be insufficiently flexible to allow easy adaptation to slightly changed situations.
So, really, it's not about "speeding up in problem-solving", but to be able to merely "remember" instead of "solving".

Then I imply that about 3 to 5 thousand problems solved from major graduate textbooks on few main subject areas would do the trick of speeding up on exams:) wouldn't you agree? :)

@TooOldToLearn, ah, then the point is that it is also infeasible to look at such a body of material in an unstructured way, the point being that one is compelled to take a "higher" viewpoint, rather than looking at seemingly disjoint individual problems. And, yes, it takes time to see the commonalities that are not obvious. Thus, yes, what is being tested is somewhat subtler and different from what might be perceived.

Yes I agree, the joy of reaching "higher" viewpoint is the real motivation behind solving math problems, it is just the relative scarcity of that joy that concerns me.  But then again, there is a plain universal answer "do more problems" that in some case does not seem to work.

@TooOldToLearn, indeed, "doing more problems" is itself not productive beyond a certain point, but people like that prescription because it is a simple answer (even if partly incorrect), and seemingly translates "failure" into the moral failing of mere "laziness".

I don't think speed of problem solving is a criteria for graduate school in mathematics. You're doing research and inventing new mathematics, and that usually requires slowing down, not speeding up. If you're in a graduate program where not solving problems quickly leads to failure, I'd say you're not in the right program.
This is not to say that slower is better. If you're unable to solve problems relating to your subject area, that might point to deeper problems. But speed of problem solving should never be a goal (unless you're competing in a math competition like the Putnam)

Before creating new mathematics, graduate schools expect their students to show abilities to do so.  This is what I refer to.

indeed. But I'm still not sure where speed comes into the picture.


text:
Is it feasible to pursue PhD with BE Degree/16+ years of experience, and is it worth it?
Is it possible to pursue PhD with only BE degree and 16+ years of Software Industry experience? I know that most of the institutes expect a Masters degree to pursue PhD.  Do they consider Industry experience to relax this criteria?
And, then the big question - Is it worth it to pursue a research/academic career after 16 years in Software Industry?  Has anyone done this? what are your experiences like?

Your assumption depends on your location. If you are interested in obtaining a PhD in Computer Science at a school in the US, then in fact many programs do not expect you to have a Master's degree prior to beginning your doctoral studies. However, if you've been in industry for 16 years, it may be difficult to secure the letters of recommendation required for entry. Certainly letters from employers are accepted, especially in your case, but if they do not show a strong desire and aptitude for research, they will not be worth as much. However, don't let that dissuade you. Apply anyway, if that's what you want to do.

Jonathan: Your answer is region-specific. US schools do not require a master's. In most other countries, a master's degree is required to pursue a PhD, regardless of discipline.

@aeismail, I was not aware of that. Thank you. Should I edit my response?

Well, at the very least, you should mention that your answer applies to US schools. The rest of your answer is generally applicable to anyone out of school for so long.

@aeismail duly edited.

From my experience, even in the US, the situation apply to specific subjects of study. I would suggest you do a masters degree because it will help you and open up your ability to do a wider range of research. If the PhD subject your want to study has a coursework before research then the best way go about it is to do a masters degree because in most PhD coursework exams, you're required to know most of the things done at undergraduate and masters level. The best thing about doing a masters before doing a PhD is that studying masters degree takes only one year in most universities around the world. You can manage one year.


text:
Proper way of refering to yourself, according to graduate level
I currently have a degree as a Master in Computer Sciences, and i was always wondering on how to call myself in a more "short" manner. For example, a PhD might introduce himself as a "Doctor" to other people, but how does a MSc call himself: "Master"? "Mister"? "MSc"?.
Talking to some PhD and MSC acquaintances, they had the same doubt about it, and i think this might be a good place to inquire about such topic, and i could not find another related question to answer myself.

As someone who works in software, I would hope you only consider using a title like that within academia. Using a title like that on your résumé to apply to a software job will likely get you laughed at.

Perhaps, but the scope of this question is focused on academia, rather than workplace.

While my Internet search has come up sparse, I think most etiquette guides suggest that you do not refer to yourself with honorifics. There are some exceptions where the honorific carries immediate pertinent information. For example, it might be acceptable for a medical doctor walking in a exam room to introduce herself as "Dr. Jane Doe", to indicate their role in the relationship, although I prefer "Your doctor Jane Doe" since it clearly separates honorific from role.
As for how to refer to an individual with a masters degree, there is no associated honorific.

Well, for example, my previous advisor was trying to get a certain information from a gov't institution under the name "XXX", and was once turned down. Then, someone "recommended" her to address herself as "Dr XXX" (to add the "Dr" part to her name) and VOILA, the process went smoother as a baby's tush. Of course my motivation is not to get such treatment, but it would be good to know how to "shorten" my degree at one point.

While writing that comment, i remembered an scene on TBBT (The Big Bang Theory), where the head chief of the lab addressed every one of the protagonists (Dr Cooper, Dr Hofstader, Dr Koothrapalli, MISTER Hollowitz), but "Mister" sounds kind of "not that proper".

According to proper etiquette you may use Master as a title (as in “Master Segovia”) if and only if you are:

the heir apparent of a Scottish viscount or baron
a boy not old enough to be called “Mr.”

The New Oxford American Dictionary (which gives the above information) also lists the archaic use as a  “title for a man of high rank or learning”, but (a) that is archaic, (b) it was not linked to a specific degree, just a courtesy title.
There is no formal title in British English or American English to designate someone who holds a Master's degree. Get over it, and earn a PhD! :)

As of now, i'm currently assessing if getting a PhD would be a wise move on my carreer (as my advisor's fellow PhD said to me once: "If your heart is not into it, even not 100% into it, don't pursue a PhD"), but that's another question altogether, out of the scope of this "discussion". Thanks for the encouragement though :).

You would not address yourself as 'Master so-and-so' but there are circumstances where is it not inappropriate to include your graduate degree with your name; 'So and So, MSc'. The obvious examples of this type of use are publications and presentations.

...depending on your field.  In some fields (like mine), including your degree in a paper or presentation would be considered gauche.

+JeffE, it does depend on the field somewhat. In the information security field it's not uncommon to see signature blocks or attribution lines that read like a mini-resume but I suspect that it is highly variable. I think that this is also going out of style somewhat.


text:
How to reference other people's work
There are a few reference citing formats around but I'd like to know what's the relevant information to put in a reference in general. If I want to cite a book, what should go in the reference other than the title which is obvious, same for other media? By formatting I mean content, punctuation, font, size, typography, etc...
My second question is: do references undergo any modifications when the medium in which they are referenced changes (paper, article, tutorial, etc...).

For book citations, you may want to put the relevant chapter(s) if there are not too many and if the formatting convention allows it.

@Khaur What's the dissertation format mostly used in Computer Science?

Please clarify what you mean by dissertation format, I don't see what kind of answer you expect.

Every publication type has some specific metadata that should be given in any citation.
For a book, these would be:

Authors or editors for an edited book
Title
Year of publication
Information on the publisher (mostly name and address)

For a journal article, you should include:

Authors
Title of the article
Title of the journal
Volume of the journal
Page numbers or article identification number for journals without page numbers.

Generally, looking at the required fields for a bibtex entry may give you an idea of what are the required pieces of information for any publication type.
Note that some journals don't generally include the title for journal citations, but I find that inconvenient for the reader. There may by additional information depending on the citation style, for example the issue number for citing journal articles, URLs, ISBN/ISSN. But these additional pieces of information, the formatting and even the ordering of the information in the reference generally depend on publication venue, as Suresh wrote in his answer. The key information however should be the same for each citations style.

Formatting and desired content depend mostly on the publication venue. Most journals have a citation style, and will often provide a style file for the bibliography manager that you use. So it depends on what venue you have in mind.
If you don't have a venue in mind, then you can use any standard format that's used in your area of study.

Equivalently: How do the works that you're planning to cite do it?  Do that.

@Suresh Have you read the question? It says 'in general'. I don't consider this to be an answer.

@saadtaame my point is that there is no such thing as "general". There is only the venue that you are considering. As JeffE also says, different communities have their own customs, and so you should look at the papers you're citing. For example, it's common in biology not to list the title of a paper, but merely the authors and the venue. In my area of CS, this would be a weird thing to do. Now one might think that the title is unquestionably part of the reference "in general", but this examples shows that it's not.

@Suresh Okay, do you have time to give some CS examples?

For a typical CS venue, title/authors/conference/pages/year is sufficient.

Here are some CS examples: http://arxiv.org/list/cs/recent  (But expect minor variations in different subfields.)

Check out the IEEE citation reference [PDF] for an example of how the IEEE (Institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) does its citations for different media.
They definitely change what information appears, depending on the medium.


text:
What items should I ask for in my startup package?
I have offers for tenure-track computational biology positions at a couple of U.S. research universities. What sort of things do I need to budget for in my startup package?

As it may be useful, what sorts of things are normally covered in grants. For example, can you get grant funding for support staff, or computer hardware?

Congratulations, btw :)

COFFEEE!':) and computers

I'll hopefully be in your position in another year or two, so I'm not speaking from experience. But a few things come to mind:

Laptop (be specific) and associated technical support
Any software licenses you need to complete your research and teach
Office space and furniture
Lab space
Lab equipment (be specific)
Access to shared lab equipment as needed (be specific)
Access to server(s) where you can test your code/algorithms/etc.
Access to cluster computing resources (if that fits in with your research)
Lighter teaching load your first 1-3 years
Lighter service load your first 1-3 years (not sure if that's something you would explicitly ask for though)
Salary (and benefits where applicable) for any students, staff, post-docs you will need to be successful in getting papers and grants written
Money for other miscellaneous expenses that you envision will be necessary
Money to travel to 1-2 conferences per year

I'm sure others could think of more to add...

I would want to stress the point Salary (and benefits where applicable) for any students, staff, post-docs you will need to be successful in getting papers and grants written. This and your salary is usually the biggest chunk of any negotiation. Most other things on the list are cheap, but how many staff you get are deciding expenses for the faculty, but vital for you.

In many departments, while it might seem like you're negotiating with the department, you're actually negotiating with the dean and the department is really trying to help you. If there's a way to determine this (talk to recently hired faculty at the department), then it changes your strategy, because now your goal in the negotiation is to provide the department with plausible arguments (not iron-clad) for why you need what you need.
There are probably comp bio specific needs you have for which you should consult colleagues who've recently joined other universities, or even any senior mentors you have who sit on the other side of these negotiations. For generic things, Steve P's list is great. Just remember that each department at each university has their own customs and things they "usually" give out - you don't have to stick to that, but it's good to know what the baseline is.
Also, it always helps to provide justification (for equipment, student support, postdoc money, and so on). It's a lot harder to argue for salary raises unless the school is private (since public schools often have fixed scales).
Bottom line though: there's no harm in asking as long as you can provide a reason. Definitely ask for all that you need, and let them whittle you down.

Good point that you are often negotiating with the dean, rather than your department.

Congratulations on the offers.
With respect to negotiations, you should privately keep track of what you really need, and then ask for a bit more than that in the negotiations. Since the department (or university) will likely want to negotiate downwards, starting with just what you need might leave you after negotiations with a somewhat undersized package.
To borrow from Steve P's answer, however, perhaps the single most important component that can help you get the group off the ground is to get as much salary support for additional employees as you can. Having that first postdoc and grad student can make a huge difference in a new group.

I would add to the list of @Steve

Summer salary
Duration for which start up capital is good (if you get a grant, you want to be able to keep your startup)
Lab renovations
Moving expenses
Web page design
Page charges

You want to provide whoever you are negotiating with justification, and ideally quote(s), for everything. In general, they want to give you as good of a startup package as possible.


text:
What lessons have you learned over the years as a TENURED FULL Professor that you wish somebody had told you when you started as an Assistant Prof?
As a Tenured Full Professor and given your long experience in Academia, what valuable lessons have you learned over the years that you wish somebody had shared with you earlier when you started as an Assistant Professor? Given these experiences what would you do differently if you had the chance?

So only Tenured Full Professor can answer this question?

@Pacerier no if you feel you can contribute given the context, please do.

GC Rota's 10 lessons

Learn how to say NO.
It is very easy to say yes to every PC invitation, every paper collaboration, every committee, every this and every that. But this spreads your time too thin and means that you perform far less than optimally at everything you do. Ultimately, work encroaches too much on family time, and life becomes less enjoyable.
Also, learn how to teach properly. Take a teaching course or two. It will make your job easier and increase the amount you enjoy teaching.
See also: What is expected of a postdoc?. Many of my comments there are applicable.

What do you mean by "follow courses"?

Take courses. Attend courses.

I was going to answer with exactly the same first sentence.

I always tell my department chair "No". Then I have time to prioritize the requests and decide what to go back and tell him, "You know what, I do have time for ...".

@BenNorris, Wouldn't you get fired if you say "No"?

Actually: say no politely…

You do not have to accept responsibility without appropriate authority.
It's a classic problem in any organization, and it's related to Dave Clarke's answer. Some concrete examples:

Rather than extend the deadline for homework when the bookstore doesn't have enough copies of the course textbook, give the students the email of the manager of the bookstore so they can write him directly about their situation.
Rather than ask meekly for a bigger classroom when there aren't enough seats for the 47 students enrolled in your class, give the email of the department coordinator who's responsible for assigning classrooms and say this is the person to whom you should vent your unhappiness.
Rather than teach a course that is watered down because it has no prerequisites, teach to the higher level students and explain clearly in the syllabus what you expect people to know. If students complain, explain to them your predicament (if you teach the basics, half the class will feel they wasted their experience). Students have more power to change an academic program by organized, constructive complaining than a non-tenured professor.
If the department chair doesn't involve you in selecting TAs for the course you are responsible for, and students are not happy about the quality of the TA (or the TA hounds you for a lot of help because he wasn't qualified to teach the course), encourage the chair to allow you to be involved in the selection process (refer to the principle of authority and responsibility).
If you're asked to be on a committee, insist that the committee have a clear mission that's feasible within the authority of its members. If a mission cannot be clarified or you can't identify with the mission, then minimize the amount of time/energy you put into it.

Yes! This general dynamic/concept deserves much more emphasis. I have spent far too much time arguing/negotiating to compose documents/policies that are ignored completely, for example. Don't allow yourself to be "set up" to take responsibility for other peoples' decisions. Do not repeatedly show that you can "do more, with fewer resources". Avoid "advisory" situations where you have no control over the final decision, but will be blamed for it nevertheless! :)

While on the interview circuit I ask this question of almost every faculty member I meet with: "What advice would you give to a new assistant professor who's starting up?"
Here are some of the universal, non-conflicting advice I've heard.

Put enough time into your teaching to do an adequate job, not an excellent job. Save the rest of the time for research. It was emphasized that you want to teach courses that involve the minimum amount of preparation as well. You can have a tenure case stopped in its track for poor, unacceptable teaching, so you want to ensure that it's maintained to a minimum standard, but it is rare to have a weak research program that's propped up by teaching excellence. (Yes, it's somewhat unfortunate that this is the state of things in the United States's higher education, but that's the culture).
Develop your research program so that it is deep, rather than spreading out into too many research areas peripheral to your main research. Stay focused and specialize first.
Be aware of how you select students and especially how the department selects students. This varies from department to department, but in general I was given advice to be reasonably careful when choosing students, and to consult with other faculty members to see if others know the student who's looking for an advisor.
One faculty member I spoke with mentioned concern about getting all of the hardware set up (for computer science), and mentioned that was something that took a little longer than expected, so have a contingency plan to continue research while your own hardware's going through purchasing. This faculty member used another faculty member's cluster until he got his own up and running.

Put enough time into your teaching to do an adequate job, not an excellent job. — Or, you know, you could take some pride in your work.

I've heard that advice given as well, and while it's cynical, it does reflect the underlying realities of the evaluation process. Of course one would like to do one's best, but there's only so much time and so many choices.

@JeffE An excellent job in teaching never makes up for lackluster research performance. I agree with the pride comment, however. It's a tough balance pre-tenure.

My university has started shooting down tenure and promotion cases for lackluster teaching, not just for lackluster research.  Our assistant profs are expected to do both well.

Well, lackluster suggests "below adequate". As the advice I received mentions, you need to spend enough time and energy to ensure that your teaching is adequate.

This may unfortunately be the reality at many research universities but it is not the case at most liberal arts colleges, where teaching is a very high priority.  So the value of this advice is context dependent.

@Irwin, No wonder traditional schools are  such bad environments for education. The interests are all misaligned. Those that are responsible for teaching do not get rewarded for teaching better.