text:
Acknowledgment of funding and adding an affiliation in exchange of permission to use experimental data?
Since it is required to be precise and ask one question at a time, I had to split my problem into two. The first part (background) is mentioned here:
Gifting co-authorship if the topic of research was suggested by my boss?
The second part is here. So, I had finished 40% of a paper 1 as a postdoc in institute X. And, I had resigned from X on 31st of May. After completing the paper 1, I am planning to work and write paper 2 which will be an extension; probably a much advanced version of paper 1. I will start working on paper 2 from July/August and probably submit it in November if everything goes according to the plan. But for paper 2, I need experimental data and even though I had many options for sources to get the data, I thought it was better to seek permission from my boss at X before I use their data.
Also, note that the topic of research for paper 1 was was suggested by my former boss at X, please see the link I mentioned above.
But my boss at X has two conditions: First, I am required to have affiliation of his research unit for paper 2. Second, in the acknowledgement section, I will have to strictly mention that the research of paper 2 was funded by a project grant from his research unit.
In reality, he had the data from the year 2008, from a private seismic survey company XYZ and such data is very regular thing to obtain in any seismic survey. I have such data as well from my previous job profile as a geophysicist. I can easily get more of such data and permission to use them from other companies without any hassle.
As a result of this conflict my relationship with him has also got strained. I tried to clear things with him through a meeting, sent him two emails, but he did not replied. He has probably burnt the bridges and avoids confrontation. He may also be upset from me as I am going away from his clutches. He had even restricted me that I cannot contact the company XYZ directly for asking them for the permission to use the data.
Is this not a form of bullying?
Also he made it sound as if I was stealing their data, on the contrary, I was merely seeking permission to use them. I was kind of miffed with that, not acceptable to me.
I was thinking, that if I am allowed to use the data, I will acknowledge the company, my boss at X and his research unit. Also I would acknowledge him for suggesting me the topic of research for paper 1. Regarding the data permission, I have done this before as well in a different institute with another professor. It was never a problem. A simple acknowledgment sentence in the paper has been sufficient for such purposes.
So how fair are the demands of my boss at X?

Overall, your old Boss' requirement 1 about affiliation seems fair to me,  I have certainly put double affiliations on papers myself, and it is not uncommon. For you, though,  it might be a steep price to pay given your history.  No one but yourself knows the answer to that question.
The second requirement about mentioning his funding agency, strikes me as a bit more odd. Depending on your situation, you should tread lightly. If the data is obtained under this research grant, you should write something like: "The data for this study was graciously provided by prof. X, funded by grant Z".
"Why?", you might ask. Most likely this is just a formality. But it could  be such that prof. X has a grant provider, which he promised to deliver some amount of papers. Since your research is (I assume) in fact not funded by this grant, you would be lying by writing that it is. This could potentially come back to haunt you later, eg. in case you want to apply for grants in the same place.

From what you describe here, the requests for the paper are fair: nothing is asked but a proper description of what you did where, and who funded you and who provided the data that is analyzed.
The crucial point is that you say paper 2 is an advanced version/extension of paper 1 you plan to do using data you got at affiliation 1, which I read as  both papers are part of wrapping up your scientific output at affiliation 1.
(To me this sounds as if paper 1 is describing the theory and paper 2 describes the application to experimental data - if that's the case, you have two papers closely related to project 1.
Also, how closely related is your project at affiliation 2? The more different that is, the more related to affiliation 1 will paper 2 be seen.)

I am required to have affiliation of his research unit for paper 2. Second, in the acknowledgement section, I will have to strictly mention that the research of paper 2 was funded by a project grant from his research unit.

At least in my field (not geophysics) it is perfectly normal to list an author who changed affiliations with 2 affiliations. From what you say, you'll anyways need to refer to paper with something like "this is an extension of [paper1]" in the introduction. In addition, you can clarify your affiliations in the acknowledgements saying that you started working on the project while at affiliation 1, funded by project 1, and now are at affiliation 2, funded by project 2. If you like, you coul dbe even more specific in describing what was done where.
If your project at affiliation 2 is unrelated, you may give affiliations as "1, now working at 2".

In reality, he had the data from the year 2008, from a private seismic survey company XYZ and such data is very regular thing to obtain in any seismic survey.
  I have such data as well from my previous job profile as a geophysicist. I can easily get more of such data and permission to use them from other companies without any hassle.

Whether you could have used other data as well does not matter at all. The point is that you give the proper origin of the data you actually use.
And, regardless whether you use data you got at affiliation 1 or at job 0, you need permission by the respective employer to use that data for new studies or papers. (I'm talking German legislation, things may vary somewhere else, but I guess this is something you can safely extrapolate to other parts of the world).

The only thing you describe that sounds somewhat unusual to me is that prof. 1 asked you to no not contact company XYZ on your own. But we'd require background information by prof. 1 to judge whether this is fine or not.
I do have the impression from your posts, though, that you are still thoroughly stressed about your situation and still too upset to think calmly. One point that triggers this impression in your post is that you write in length about prof. 1 being upset - and are - judging from what your write -  thoroughly upset yourself, but never mention taking into account even the possibility that you are also upset.
Seeing this, prof. 1 very clearly spelling out the IMHO usual points in wrapping up publication plans after a change of affiliation may even just be a reaction to you being as upset as you are. (Which does not mean that prof. 1 is not upset, but we academia.sx readers of your question do not have the neceassary background information to judge who else but you is upset.)

@ cbeleites. Thanks for your time to write that reply. Paper 2 will show one of the applications of the theory developed in paper 1, so yes they are related. I am doing paper 2 from scratch in a new place, so how can I give the former affiliation and write research was funded by the former institute, when I have already resigned from there. Moreover, I do not intend to use their data anymore. I was ready to acknowledge them for giving access to use their data but writing research for paper 2 was funded by them pushes the boundary too far. Isn't it?

@vikash: Well, it is of course difficult to judge these questions from the outside. The important question is how much from scratch is is actually? If your new project were to develop applications for the theory you developed before, the situation would be rather clear cut that paper 2 belongs to the new project. On the other hand: did you really develop the theory without any thought to the application? Or was it developed to solve a problem, and as the work was too much to reasonably fit into 1 paper, the publications were divided into "theory" and "application"? => affiliation 1.

I think of the question this way: did cbeleites¹ contribute sufficiently to become co-author? Did cbeleites² contribute suffic²iently to become co-author? Would cbeleites² have been able to write the paper without the intellectual contributions of cbeleites¹? In your case, without the theory development? I'd say, e.g., if the application served during the development of the theory at affiliation 1, then you did work at the application paper already at affiliation 1. It is sometimes very hard to realized for how long you've been working in the back of your mind at a problem/towards a paper.

@ cbeleites. The two papers are related to each other, I agree. Combining both 1 and 2 will make the paper lose its focus and will be too lengthy. The theory is very general and complete. In paper 2, one of the possible applications will be demonstrated. I am ready to formally acknowledge the previous institute in the acknowledgement section of paper 2, but having that as an affiliation and writing paper 2 research was funded by the previous institute is too much. is it really fair? What if I do not use their data?

I have one paper that in my mind feels as if the main work was done in one night. That is, I had kind-of a "Heureka!" moment where I realized that I had a way to answer some important question. Honestly speaking, though, this moment of realizing where the solution lies would not have been possible if I had not been thinking about the parts of the puzzle for years (without realizing that they'd fit together for the solution in the paper). In that sense, the paper has much older contributions. Such recollections are also subject to cognitive biases, thus are difficult to answer at best. On the..

... other hand, I think it may not be worth while trying to unravel this in all detail. From what you write, I cannot judge with absolute certainty whether or not affiliation 1 should be affiliation. But just as there's a danger of having ghost affiliations, there's a danger of omitting proper attribution. Think of poor coauthor vikash¹ who was denied the co-authorship they deserved because their supervisor was so hard to work with... Honestly, the fact that your experience at affiliation 1 was bad does not imply the work you did there did not take place. BTW: as you are at a new affiliation

I agree with your point. But how can I write that while working in institute Y, my research was funded by institute X? Also though the seed thought may have come while working in X, but all technical work and paper writing is done in Y. If I write another 5 papers in next 5 years about applications, I will have to carry that former affiliation, and also keep writing that research was funded by X? Its a bondage.

now, the proper attibution will be "part of the work was funded by project 1", and as you report work you did also at affiliation 1, affilitiation is also one of your affiliations. If your new affiliation pays you via grant 2 now, then that will also have an acknowledgement. And 2 it will also be your affiliation.

Future papers where you do not yet know that you'll ever tackle the application will not carry affiliation 1. My point here is that if you are ready to type in a paper within a month at the new affiliation which is application no. 1 for your theory work, and where you had suitable data at your old affiliation, those are strong indications that the paper has at least some roots in your work at affiliation 1, if not stronger roots there than in affiliation 2.

See, due to all this my relationship with my collaborator has got strained. I have been trying to reconcile with him. This is what I have suggested. parts of my email are: For paper 1: Joint affiliation of 1st and 2nd institute.
In the acknowledgement section: make it clear that the work was started at 1st insti and the current affiliation is the 2nd insti. Accordingly, acknowledge the grant number of inst 1 for research funding.

For paper 2: Again, joint affiliation of two insti.
In the acknowledgement section: make it clear that the current affiliation is 2nd insti. Also clearly mention that paper 2 is an application/extension of paper 1 that was planned and developed at inst 1. So, acknowledge the grant number of inst 1 for research funding.

Sounds fair to me. But I'm puzzled now, as that is how I understood the "conditions" in your question? I don't see the difference!?

I have tried to be flexible as much as I could, make the collaborator happy. And still be honest in saying that paper 2 was done at inst 2, yet it was thought of through paper 1 in inst 1. I did this because I do not want him to have any hard feelings for me.  Ideally i would not like to have inst 1 as affiliation in paper 2, but it seems I will have to let that go-off.

By the way what do you think of, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111033/gifting-co-authorship-if-the-topic-of-research-was-suggested-by-my-boss

Thanks for refining the question, adding relevant details and linking the previous question. I will simply add a few points to cbeleites' excellent answer.
(1) It isn't bullying because you are asking for permission to use data you got from him. He has the right to give it, deny or something in between. You, reciprocally, have the right to accept it or to negotiate through cajoling, coercing or litigating. It seems pretty symmetric, though unfortunate.
(2) About the fairness of it- the condition to not contact XYZ  company seems unfair, especially if he doesn't furnish any reason. I don't know if he can hold you to that. Maybe he has some sort of agreement with them that constrains him, one can't say.
On the other hand if you can access such data as easily as you say, would it be possible to repeat your study with different data? If no, presumably there is something unique in this dataset, which may contribute to the resistance to sharing?
[This last point is only speculative logic as I am not from your field]
The part about mentioning the grant seems alright to me, because he isn't constraining you to NOT mention the present affiliation/grant alongside.


text:
Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis
I am currently writing my master's thesis in computer science. In my topic, I had a lot of papers to read and my main result relies also heavily on some theorems from especially one paper.
In the common literature there are some standard theorems for which the proofs are usually omitted bescause it is common knowledge or radically shortened as in "an easy application of the KKT theorem" and the authors do not want to waste any space for that.
In a master's thesis, however, I would assume that it is good practice to write down those proofs more extensively, since it also shows that you really understand your topic in-depth.
My question is: Would you agree on that and would a citation as in
Proposition 3.14 (see [5]). A nice theorem.
Proof. My extended proof.
be sufficient?
I checked out When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? already where the answers suggest that my intuition is right here (for a PhD thesis). My thesis advisor also agrees (which is probably most important), however, I am unsure to what degree this is appropriate.

Why do you need to re-prove something? Why can't you just state the theorem?

@DanRomik and "see" is "q.v." (quod vide) if you're feeling all fancy. (Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur, an' all that.)

@user2768 As stated in the question, part (often, all) of the purpose of a Master's thesis is to show understanding.

@DavidRicherby The question assumes, rather than states. Regardless, re-proving a theorem might suggest a fundamental misunderstanding, namely, that there is a need to do so. So, I'd suggest the OP seeks advice from their university. (It is mentioned that "[m]y thesis advisor also agrees," I'm just not sure what they agree with, because I haven't read the related question and I didn't follow the OP's summary.)

A (non-review) paper is typically narrowly focused on presenting new results to experts in the field, and is not meant to be read in isolation. A thesis, on the other hand, is more like a book and may later serve as a gentler introduction to other master's or PhD students who follow after you. I think it is good to give a general overview of the topic in the thesis, including the proofs of important results, especially when these proofs give some general insight (e.g. they make it easier to follow your own new proofs).

There are three reasons to include a proof in your master's thesis - two of them good, and one of them bad.
1: As part of your background section
If your work relies on important results in your field, including those theorems' proofs in your introduction and background sections makes sense. This is true even if the proofs are well known. A thesis needs to show that you understand your field thoroughly to your committee, and as a bonus, including your field's well-known results will make your thesis a good introduction to your topic for someone coming in from another field. Theses are actually read this way!
When you cite proofs in this way, there's no need to give an expanded proof. Paraphrase or quote the standard proof (citing it clearly) without much commentary. You're just giving an overview of what others have already accomplished.
2: Because the details of the proofs are important for your own work
In the sections describing your new contributions to the field, your work might depend on the specific details of a previous proof. Either the detail is directly relevant to your own proofs, or the intuition behind the proof you're citing is similar to your own approach. Calling out these specific details is helpful.
When you cite proofs in this way, it makes sense to expand them - but only by focusing on the specific details you want to discuss. Briefly describe the rest of the proof. And again, clearly cite the proof as it's not your proof, you're just commenting on it.
3. Because you want your thesis to be long and detailed
Part of good writing is knowing which details are relevant and concisely sticking to those details. Don't include well-known proofs just for the sake of padding out your thesis or because you're including proofs by default.

+1 for including both positive and negative examples.

It would be a good idea to make it slightly more conspicuous that the theorem (and proof) are not original, e.g.:

The following theorem is due to [5]; for the clarity of our exposition we give a more detailed version of the succinct proof in [5].

This leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that the work is not original, and also explains why you chose to include the proof.

If you leave the proof in the main text, make it obvious that your work is not original (or at least that A proof of the thereom was done earlier).  Prominent caveat.
You could also put it in an appendix.

I am less negative and more positive than Buffy on the benefit of showing this explication.  Theses can serve a lot of purposes.  Just make it clear that you are not claiming some discovery, but showing an exercise.  But I think there can be benefit in it, both to you and to following lab mates--they will have the same issues dealing with the sparse literature that you did.

I'm not sure why you assume that the proofs are necessary. I would think that a citation to the theorem is enough, especially as you say, the proofs are "common knowledge" or easily derived. It seems like just padding.
However, there are exceptions. If the main ideas in your thesis would be made more understandable or otherwise enhanced by some proof technique of one of the cited theorems then certainly include such a proof. But if there are, then, fewer such proofs you can make a bigger deal of the citation as user Tom van der Zanden suggests. But note that I'm referring to something in the proof itself, not just the theorem.
This would make the thesis a bit tighter and put more of the focus of it on your own work rather than just explicating the work of others.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is IRB approval required (by publishers or otherwise) for volunteer human subjects research?
Update: Thanks for the answers. I reworded and numbered the questions for clarification.
As a volunteer endeavor, I want to do online survey and education research. I am not being paid for the work, and the research participants are also not being paid. I am in the United States.

Legally, do I need to obtain IRB approval to conduct the research?
Legally, can I self-publish (e.g. blog)?
Would any reputable journal accept results obtained without any IRB approval?
What might the legal consequences be for not obtaining approval?
If I'm not associated with any IRB, how would I get approval?
Does it matter what my job is if I do the research in my personal time?
What about a collaborator at a university who is helping as a volunteer researcher in their personal time?

IRB approval has nothing to do with whether the researcher or the subjects are paid or are volunteers. It is to assure ethical standards of research with human subjects.

Search for "Belmont Report" and give that a read in order to get started understanding what constitutes human subjects research and the ethical issues that accompany it.

@Buffy That is incorrect because an IRB approval often requires that the subjects be paid (but not too much).

I was on three IRBs. None of them required that subjects be paid. Most social research, survey research, and public health research makes no payment. Payment is usually standardized by a sponsor. Often, payment cannot be so great as to amount to coercion. I have been on IRBs that discussed whether a research project did this. Often, payment is limited to the reasonable expenses incurred by a participant, eg, transportation, meals, and a hotel stay.

Your questions don't always have straightforward answers. It is necessary to keep in mind that there are two major components of Federal law regarding human subjects research. These are the Food and Drug Administration laws and regulations and something called 45 CFR 46, the code of Federal Regulations for Human Subjects. There are also Federal laws regarding the treatment of animals in research, which have their own CFR.
In addition, there are state laws governing human subjects research.
Starting in 1947, there were some ethical standards called the Nuremburg Code, which covered medical experimentation. The Federal Government initiated a commission in 1974 which resulted in a report called The Belmont Report, which was a statement of ethical principles for human research. Following the Belmont Report individual institutions and the the Federal Government established procedures, laws, and practices to review and approve human research.
You have to go read all these to resolve all of  your questions.
The Federal regulations only apply to Federally funded research. One of the components is that researchers get to have their research approved by their local peers. So every research institution had to establish a review committee and procedures for review. Virtually every institution has decided to review all research using the same standards and procedures for all research, regardless of the funding source. They have also applied the same standards to all research done by staff they employ. There might be exceptions to both of these.
There is a lot of variation among institutions. There are explicit requirements in the 45 CFR 46 that not all institutions follow. There is also an accreditation process for institutions and their review boards.
If you now think that this is confusing, that I do not know the answer, and that you do not know the answer, then you are right.
However, it is essential to understand that the Federal government makes its review regulations only for Federally funded research, large research institutions make rules and procedures that they are certain comply, and journals that publish human research do their part to assure compliance. If a research institution does not comply then all its research funding can be suspended.
These rules and procedures than fall over into all the research that staff of institutions do and that journals publish. Nobody wants to look like they are not complying.
538 and commercial firms do research without Federal funding self publish or only write reports for clients. They are not covered either FDA regulations or 45 CFR 46. They can do what they want until someone sues them for an injury in state or Federal court. Moreover, 538 benefits from the constitutional freedom of the press.
Congress made laws about how the Federal government spends its own money and how it approves drugs and devices through the FDA.
A lot of research is just exempt anyway. The regulations tell you which. The regulations must be interpreted, of course, which isn't always easy.
Start by reading the Belmont Report and the 45 CFR 46,especially the exemptions from review.
In addition to Federal laws and institutional regulations there are also state laws that govern research. You have to find these out also.
There are some laws about calling cell phones that apply also.
"As a volunteer endeavor, I want to do online survey and education research. I am not being paid for the work, and the research participants are also not being paid. I am in the United States."
This has nothing to do with whether review and approval is required, except the volunteer part, which indicates that there is no Federal funding. Also, if you were in a different country you would have to comply with their laws.
1  "Legally, do I need to obtain IRB approval to conduct the research?" Doesn't sound like it. See 45 CFR 46.
2  "Legally, can I self-publish (e.g. blog)?" Probably, why not? Federal regulations are about conducting the research, not about publishing it, despite mistaken beliefs to the contrary.
3  "Would any reputable journal accept results obtained without any IRB approval?"
It is entirely possible. There are mechanisms in 45 CFR 46 to achieve this. One would be to make the data a public source by giving it to anyone who asks for it. Better yet, deposit it with a data archive where anyone can download it.
4  "What might the legal consequences be for not obtaining approval?"
Nothing. if approval is not required. You could be sued, but only if the complainant can show actual damages. There are criminal penalties, enforced by the Attorney General Office of Civil Rights. I don't think they have ever brought a case.
5  "If I'm not associated with any IRB, how would I get approval?"
You can pay an IRB to review and approve you research. More likely, you could ask the staff of an IRB to tell you if review and approval is necessary. A remarkable amount of research is determined to not be covered by 45 CFR 46. This is done by a staff member and/or the IRB chair. They might do this pro bono.
6  "Does it matter what my job is if I do the research in my personal time?" That depends solely on who you work for and what their employee handbook says.
7  "What about a collaborator at a university who is helping as a volunteer researcher in their personal time?" That depends solely on who they work for and what their employee handbook says.

In my experience, it's unlikely that an institutional IRB would be willing to review and approve a research project that wasn't in any way connected with the university.  One issue is that there's no effective way to actually supervise the research and intervene if there are violations or other problems with the project.

A smaller research institution often contracts with a nearby university to be included in the university's IRB. The IRB of the larger institution usually meets frequently and can afford a bigger staff. An IRB might agree to do an occasional proposal from a very small organization on an occasional basis. I have seen both as an IRB member.

Many journals have policies that require authors to have obtained IRB approval (or its equivalent in countries other than the US) as a condition of publication for any paper that involves human subjects. Here, the consequence of not obtaining IRB approval would be that your paper isn't published.
If you are employed by an institution that has a policy on human subjects research than you may be required to obtain IRB approval for any research project involving human subjects by your institution's policy, whether or not the research is sponsored by the institution or makes any use of the resources of the institution.  Here, the consequences of not obtaining IRB approval could include being fired from your job.
There are Commercial Institutional Review Boards that provide review and oversight for research involving human subjects outside of an institution with its own review board.  These are used, for example, by companies that do human subjects research as part of the development of new products.

I edited my post to number the questions from my original text. Your answer is clear regarding #3, #5, #6, and #7. Would you be willing to update your answer regarding the other issues? I also provided an answer with my best guesses.

Here are my best guesses from reading the Belmont Report Wikipedia article and from my academic experience.

No, collecting informal minimal risk survey data without IRB approval is legal in the US (as far as I know, but I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice). I am unsure what the legality is if the information contains personally identifying information or information that could put the participants at risk (for example, medical history or embarrassing history).
Yes, self-publishing results obtained without IRB approval is legal in the US (but I'm not a lawyer so am not sure). For example, I have never seen FiveThirtyEight describe IRB approval for the survey research they conduct, and I assume a major institution like that is following the law.
No, most journals have a policy that human subjects research have IRB approval. The reviewers and editorial staff might miss it and let a submission slip through, but in general reputable journals require IRB approval for research reported in the manuscripts they accept.
For a simple survey that is of minimal risk to participants (for example, does not contain any personally identifying information, medical information, nor other information that might risk embarrassment or other harms), I have never heard of any legal consequences for conducting and self-publishing research. I don't know the legality of conducting a survey with personally identifying information along with potentially harmful information, and then publishing the individual participant-level data. Regardless, I believe survey research conducted without IRB approval could be accepted by a pre-print server like PsyArXiv.
Find a collaborator at an institution with an IRB and have them submit the paperwork, or pay for a private IRB to approve the research.
No, considering the research is conducted in your personal time, your job does not matter with respect to the legality of the research. I believe your job does not matter regardless. It might matter to your employer though, depending on the contract you signed. People might feel differently about the ethics of the research depending on whether it is conducted by an amateur, a businessperson, a journalist, or a university professor.
I have no idea how most university contracts impact their staff's ability to collaborate on a minimal risk survey study that does not have IRB approval.

Re/point 7.  Most university policies (everyone that I've looked at) say that faculty/staff and students aren't to participate in human subjects research that hasn't been approved by the IRB.  The university stands to lose federal funding if someone does research that would have been stopped by an IRB review.

If you can, it would probably help if you could find an academic partner interested in the study. This way you could apply with the ethics board at their institution, and it would probably strengthen the impact of your survey.

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


text:
Right to see the proof of cheating and privacy
A person accused of any wrongdoing should have the right to see the proofs of such a wrongdoing. Then, a student accused of cheating because having presented the same answer, work or file as any other student, should be allowed to see the answer, work or file of that other student.
On the other hand, students have the right to privacy, so their answer, work or files shouldn't be shown to other students, and this right conflicts with the former.
Then the question is: When two students are accused of cheating and the only proof is that they gave works or answers that we can be sure that are copied, how does the school balance the right of each student to see the proof (the other student's exam or work) and their right of privacy?
I'm not asking for advice for a particular instance of that problem, because until now all I've only had close calls - the students already knew what they had done or found out by themselves and no student actually requested to see the proof of cheating - but I'm interested on how such a request should be dealt with.
Additionally, in a specific case, I would escalate the issue to the Dean to be given specific instructions, but I'm still interested in the general answer.
If location matters, I'm under Spanish legislation.
And just to keep the question focused, we can assume that we can be sure that the answer is actually the same because of cheating - like when two students or teams turn on very similar Access files with each table created at the same exact time (to the second) that the equivalent table in other team's file.

In my experience, it would be unusual to allow privacy issues to inhibit communication of relevant evidence in these cases.  When dealing with alleged academic infractions, due process is extremely important and so the usual thing would just be to make all relevant evidence available to all the students accused of cheating.  Since it is an allegation of collusion between these students, typically the students would all be called in together and their answers would not even be anonymised --- you would just allow all students in the group to see all the answers of the other students in the group so that they have the same information on the matter as the academic admininstering it.

This is a great answer because it shows the fairness of the academic institutions and the discipline process.

The difficulty here is that, if any allegations are found not to hold, then others with no active part in the scheme will have become aware of the false allegations; this could impact the reputation of students who has been found not guilty of the allegations.  In other words any process must also preserve the identity of the alleged cheater should the allegations be found not to hold.

@ZeroTheHero: It is great that you're cognisant of those kinds of dangers.  In cases of alleged collusion, it is typically the case that the entire group is either found to have colluded or not.  I haven't yet seen one where some parties are found to have colluded and others not, though I suppose it might be possible in rare cases.  Irrespective of this, my understanding of the usual practice in these matters is that students involved in an academic misconduct matter are still under an obligation of confidentiality with respect to other students.

@Job_September_2020: I'm glad you like the answer.  Unfortunately, many universities have done a terrible job with due process protections in their complaint processes (as evidenced by the high number of lawsuits that succeed against them).  Hopefully practices improve over time as they uffer damages against them.

@Ben what a strange comment: as if I were making random comments.  You cannot and should not assume collusion: it may be that A copied on B without B colluding with A.  Of course you may allege that B was involved in facilitation i.e. knowingly or actively allowed A to copy, but that's not the same misconduct (in fact is much more serious) as plagiarism.

@Ben we must live in a different part of the world because as far as I know there are very few successful lawsuits agains universities on misconduct issues.  Indeed the process at various institutions is now largely similar because fancy lawyers dissected the processes to make sure institutions were largely bulletproof as long as the process was followed.

You can find a fair number of examples of successful lawsuits against the universities through TheFire and other advocacy organisations for rights in education.

@Ben this is a very interesting site and I thank you for the link but searching “plagiarism” and filtering using “due process” yields basically nothing of relevance.  Maybe you can tip me on how to better search for the cases of the type you have in mind as I’m quite interested in reading more about cases.

@ZeroTheHero: Unfortunately, commentary and reports on the actual cases are very much spread around (TheFire seem to succeed in getting favourable pre-trial settlements in most cases).  My understanding is that there was a flurry of successful cases on due process circa 2017-onward mostly relating to sexual assault accusations at the universities (see e.g., here and here).

(Sorry I can't be more help; I haven't made any effort to bookmark the cases I've heard of so it would be difficult to find them.  If you do a general search for "successful due process lawsuits against university" you can find some material scattered around various law blogs and advocacy organisations.)

@Ben ok thanks.  The site is very interesting and indeed covers lots of topics.

It’s not that hard.  If A is accused of cheating by copying from B, it’s usually pretty easy to anonymize the copy or specific answer produced by B.  This can be done for instance by rewriting B’s answers (so B's handwriting is not apparent) or typing/typesetting B’s answers.  In other words, there is no need for A to see the actual physical copy or writing done by B.

When two students are accused of cheating and the only proof is that they gave works or answers that we can be sure that are copied, how does the school balance the right of each student to see the proof (the other student's exam or work) and their right of privacy?

I am in the US. So, I will provide you with the answer based on some events happening in some colleges in the US.
The first event is a true story at a US college as follow: a professor called a group of 4 students in her office, and told them that other students accused these 4 students of cheating during an exam. The 4 accused student protested immediately, and after 1 hour of meeting and discussion, the professor dropped the accusation as if it never happened. The point is that, in that case, at that US college, all the accused students were allowed to meet at the same time with the professor and with themselves to defend themselves.

So, I would think that when a school accuses 2 students of copying each other's answer, and proceed to bring both students to the discipline committee, the school must announce to both students the name of the other student, and show both students the 2 answers and how similar or identical the answers are. This way, both students will know exactly all the details, and can plan the appeal process sufficiently if they want to.

Furthermore, you can read a recent story in the US about 2 identical twins who were medical students. They were accused of cheating by the medical school. These students sued the school for defamation and won $1.5 million USD. Here is the link:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/identical-twin-sisters-accused-of-cheating-win-1-5-million-test-scores/
So, accusing students of academic dishonesty is a serious matter. If a school accuses students of cheating, they must show all the evidences and the people involved so that the students can defend themselves. (I think that, in this case, the school did provide the students with all the names of the accused and other evidences during the discipline process, which is a fine).
If that medical school had hidden the identity of 1 twin from the other, how can both students successfully file a lawsuit on behalf of both students and present a clear and logical case to the jury in the civil court ?  (They can't just tell that civil court "I was accused of cheating with the UKNOWN student. So here is my case...")
For more info about this case, here is the link to PLAINTIFFS’ PRE-TRIAL BRIEF: https://docviewer.charlestoncounty.org/Home/Index
Note: The students did not sue the school because the of unfair discipline process as the students appealed the case to the school and the school already overturned the initial judgement where they accused the students of academic dishonesty. Instead, the students sued as they alleged that someone from the school leaked the info about the case to the press, which is the ground for their defamation lawsuit.

certainly NOT.  Confidentiality rules absolutely prevent the naming of students involved in the alleged scheme (at least in all schools I know).  An instructor would never states “I think your teaching with A” but will simply allege the student has plagiarized their answer, without naming anyone.  Student A need not be named or even involved (and indeed may not be aware of the cheating).

@ZeroTheHero, Read this link about 2 twins who are medical students. They were accused of cheating by the medical school. The students sued the school and won 1.5 million USD. Here is the link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/identical-twin-sisters-accused-of-cheating-win-1-5-million-test-scores/

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


text:
For non-English-speaking countries: Can I use my PhD to prove my knowledge of English for a UK visa?
I was browsing through the needed documents for a skilled worker visa and I found that I need to prove my level of English as a requirement, but I've also found that I need a UK PhD certificate (I have to be accredited by NARIC).
In their [website][1], they have a service called PhD verification with English proficiency. This service means that I can use my PhD to prove my English level if it was "taught" in English at my home university, but I don't know what the word "taught" means exactly.
During my PhD, I wrote my dissertation in English. The articles were (obviously) in English, but the diploma is written in French. Can I still use that to prove my English proficiency? Perhaps, I should have a statement from my previous supervisors?
I come from a non-English-speaking country that uses French as a second language; So normally, I need an IELTS test. I need to know if I can follow the NARIC route instead of having to take the test...
[1]: https://www.ecctis.com/visasandnationality

What kind of visa do you want and what level of English profiency do you need to show? A PhD written in English usually implies a very high English profiency but it doesn't give you anything formally. Depending on what you need it is still possible that the English profiency is just counted as fullfilled by your PhD.

@quarague It is fulfilled by your PhD -- this fact just needs to be verified by NARIC if you want to use it as a proof of language proficiency.

I went through exactly the same thing (PhD in France, all publication and thesis in English, diploma in French, I come from a non-English speaking country and don't actually speak French, then applied for a postdoc position in the UK and needed prove my level of English for my immigration documentation).
So, the answer is yes you can, but it will (likely) be very very slow. The procedure is as follows: You send in your diploma (with a certified translation, you can get those for about 30 euros). Unless you finished your PhD at a super-famous French University (think Sorbonne), you go at the bottom of a very long pile. This is for "previously unknown Universities" (to NARIC), the ones they have to check in detail. When inquiring, I was told that this would take at least 3 months. Knowing how much some of the gvt admin ground to a stop during the pandemic, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a couple of months longer at this time.
Normally I would recommend going for IELTS test. Despite them being quite infrequent (I am told there used to be more dates some 8-10 years ago), I only had to wait about 2 and a half months to take the IELTS (compared to "maybe 3+" for NARIC approval). It is also quite neat that there is a "scientific track" for IELTS, so the writing assessment is focused on describing and reading out simple graphs, which helps if your vocabulary is science-centred.
However, these are not very normal times. Right now, you might feel more comfortable waiting 3+ months for the NARIC route instead of travelling to take a 2-day test with a group in a small classroom, even if the latter is quicker. As far as I remember, price-wise it was about the same expense (not sure if that included my travel to take the test or not).

Yes, I have read that it's going to be very slow.. I don't think it's worth it to use a PhD to approve my English level, but there is also an option of using your PhD (with NARIC) to get points for your skilled worker visa..


text:
What is the best way to improve English vocabulary for academic writing?
As a non-native English speaker, I struggle sometimes during my academic writing because of lack of some academic vocabulary.
I have bought many books for academic vocabulary, but I found them to be boring, and even when I memorize a word, I don't remember it when I start writing.
So, what are the other methods that I can improve my academic English vocabulary?

Do you mean technical terms, or general formal-sounding words and phrases that you think sound better in academic writing? Can you give some examples of words that you think are good, or a sentence that someone criticized for not sounding academic enough?

There is no "right way" - what works for one person may not for another. That said, your English in this question is clear. That should be the goal for any writing. There's no need for fancy words when they are not necessary. Have readers complained that your vocabulary is not  "academic enough".

Memorizing obscure words leads to poor quality academic writing.

Unfortunately, there is no quick way.   My main advice is to read lots of good papers, especially by authors who have good academic writing.   You learn by osmosis.   It may not be obvious now, but you will find academic writing is 'simple', meaning authors tend to use a restricted set of words and write in similar styles. Second, get a teacher or someone who is willing to provide feedback.    Third, focus on one rule at a time.  For example, I noticed that you wrote 'I struggles', which is not correct.  So you may want to focus on singular and plural rules first.   Fourth, give yourself time.  Becoming proficient in a language takes many years.

Note, however, that English has few "rules" that aren't routinely broken. This is largely due to the many distinct language roots that led to modern English. Spelling, pronunciation, subtly different words for very similar concepts (French and German derivatives, perhaps). It is quite chaotic compared to many other languages.

There is a trend amongst academics to assert that scientific communication should be simple, and therefore vocabulary is overrated. In my opinion, this is a little misguided.
Vocabulary doesn't have to mean the use of obscure or complicated words; it is simply the use of the right word in the right place. Scientific literature is littered with imprecisely used words. Native English speakers are not immune to this either.
My suggestion is to spend more time understanding words and their actual context rather than trying to learn more words. This often involves developing a better appreciation for the scientific concepts that you deal with.
As example, consider the use of the word 'spectrum' in the physical sciences. It is often used inaccurately when 'variety'/'range' would suffice. A spectrum specifically requires a (usually continuous) range of measurable quantities that vary in one particular aspect. Frequencies of electromagnetic radiation can form a spectrum, but stating that 'the spectrum of chemical reactions is composed of...' is inaccurate, and 'range' is better.  (Usage like 'a wide spectrum of people' instead of 'diverse set' is plain silly).
Likewise, authors often write 'chemistry of an alloy' when they mean 'chemical composition of an alloy'. These authors ignore the fact that chemistry encompasses far more than chemical composition.
My central point is that academic vocabulary can only be built in the context of your academic field. Words have different usage across fields (and in everyday use); so it is necessary to truly understand what each technical word conveys in your particular domain.
This can come from a combination of mindful reading of good literature and conscious reflection. Once you've reflected and understood a word, you will use it precisely. Building a habit of precise use will make you seek precise words when a common word won't suffice. That search will lead you to more literature, where you will see how others have tried to express the same ideas. When you reflect on their words/phrases, you will be able to judge whether the context matches yours.
If it is, you have added to your academic vocabulary. If not, the search must continue, but you have still learnt one way not to use those words/phrases.

If readers could reasonably be expected to understand what is meant by "chemistry of an alloy" in the context, then I think that phrase is fine. You don't have to spell out the full details of things every time you mention them. You just have to make sure you are clear and accurate.

@gib- I agree, but that's a big if considering that many authors and readers, like OP are non-native speakers, and may take these phrases literally (and use them inaccurately in some other context).

A very strong +1, I think focusing on having short concise sentences far outweighs the use of new words when it comes to readability. I think a better technique to improve the quality of writing is rewriting with an aim to aid clarity and succinctness.

In my observation, it is very difficult to find a "rule-based" description of writing or speaking language that sounds "natural/correct". Rather, it is by immersion and imitation. Instead of trying to compose a sentence in a somewhat alien language, try to remember how a more-or-less native speaker said what you want to say. :)

The best way to learn to write is to read the works of good writers
One of the best ways to learn to write well is to read the works of good writers.  To begin with, just read through these works without worrying too much about the writing technique.  Good argument structure and good prose can both be "absorbed" subconsciously to some extent, without explicit instruction.  If you regularly read good writing (and avoid reading bad writing that crowds it out) you will find that you start to enunciate your thoughts more clearly and eloquently without having to think about it.  Don't start by reading books on writing technique; these are likely to be boring to you if you read them too early.  Instead you should read novels and articles on topics that are of interest to you, written by good writers who have a clear and powerful writing style.  Don't confine yourself to academic writing; read widely and include interesting fiction and non-fiction works.  Most importantly, if you want to expose yourself to good writing avoid excessive time on social media and read books instead.  This is likely to raise the average quality of the prose you are reading, expand your vocabulary, and train you to lengthen your attention span, all of which will benefit your reading and writing.
Once you have become "well read" by reading some good books, you should then take the next step of consciously examining some of the techniques that your favourite writers use that make a powerful impression on you.  See if you can decipher and explain their technique, and explain how it differs from other writers.  See if you can articulate why you find the style or technique to be powerful and persuasive.  As you learn the different styles and techniques of different writers, you will expand your own writing "toolkit" and learn to find your own preferred style.  In some cases you may be lucky enough to find a favourite writer who has also written explicitly about writing technique.  (One of my favourite writers, George Orwell, wrote some useful articles on his writing where he sets out some writing techniques to make your writing more powerful.)  When you are at a point where you are ready to practice writing yourself, you will be ready to read books on writing technique without them boring you.
For example, one of my favourite writers is the economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell.  One particular technique that Sowell uses ---which makes his writing powerful--- is to gradually build up the case for a particular conclusion in an anti-polemical style, using a steady drum-beat of empirical evidence and historical examples capped off with a significantly understated conclusion.  Sowell begins by setting out a hypothesis or question in a neutral manner and then bombards the reader with a mass of empirical evidence pointing to an answer, almost to the point of exhaustion.  As he delivers this evidence he maintains a dispassionate and clinical tone and avoids suggesting any inference or conclusion, relying entirely on the reader to draw their own inference from the evidence presented.  Once the proper inference is inescapable, he then finishes with an understated statement of this conclusion, which tends to leave the reader ahead of him in their normative conclusion.  This kind of anti-polemical style is one that is contrary to what you see from many polemicists, who tend to put forward strong normative conclusions before they have convinced their reader, leaving the reader behind the writer.  It is an interesting and powerful technique.
I could point to other good writers who each have particular techniques that I've found to be useful in writing.  Some strong writers that I've found to have helpful writing styles and techniques are George Orwell, Thomas Sowell, Jean-Françios Revel, Ayn Rand, Michel Houellebecq, Noam Chomsky, H.L. Mencken, T.S. Eliot, and Mark Twain.  (There are probably plenty of others that I'm forgetting now.)  In any case, the above example is just one writing technique that I have observed amongst the best writers I've read.  By reading good writers, absorbing their works, and then learning the techniques they use expliclity, you can expand your "toolkit" for writing and learn to write

Make reading scientific literature a habit. Do this regularly and not just before writing a paper, drafting research proposals, etc. Actively reading about things that you enjoy will not only help you get familiar with academic English but also help you identify your area of interest. You can also try writing opinion pieces on a personal blog/social media account to retain what you’ve read and develop a critical point of view.

English is not my first language. It takes time, patience and sometimes years to learn it. I consider myself as fluent speaker/writer, but my English is not perfect yet. The key is constant practice and immersion.

Academic or scientific writing has a style and patterns different from others. I would argue that it is just as hard to write it in your native language. So I think perhaps your issue is not just vocabulary, but more importantly, the writing style, how do you start, how to articulate what your research is about, why it is important, what questions are still not addressed by other research…etc.
The fastest way for me was reading other research papers for their writing style and format, and find the key phrases, transition patterns that you are comfortable with and use them as a template to work for your own words or terms suited to your research topic.

This may sound counterintuitive, but try to master regular English first. To be able to write nicely, you don't necessarily need a big topic specific vocabulary, you rather need a natural grasp of the language.
I am not a native speaker myself but have reached quite a good level of English by now, and I still often have a dictionary website open in my browser when writing texts. If I don't know a word, I can look it up. In my experience, don't waste brain capacity on things you can fast and easily look up somewhere - as you said yourself, it is tedious and boring.
I would rather suggest to get immersed in the English language in easier and more enjoyable ways: if you watch a movie or a series, watch it in English instead of your native languag, if possible even with subtitles. Try to read as many things in English as you can. Listen to English language audiobooks. Have conversations with native speakers (that one might not be as easy).
From my experience with peer review, if there was a problem with the language level, it most often was poor grammar and poor grasp of the English language in general that made the text hard to read and not the lack of "academia specific vocabulary".


text:
What's the main reason that fewer people learn mathematics by themselves?
In the 17th century, there were some mathematicians who learned math by themselves, such as Fermat. They were amateur mathematicians, and didn't have a degree in university. But, in the 20th century, there aren't, and the only counterexample may be Ramanujan.
There may be two reasons caused this difference:

Mathematics gets more difficult so that amateurs aren't able to learn it by themselves. Only professional mathematicians have enough time and resource to learn it.

People have more chances to get into university. If someone wants to learn math, theoretical physics, or other science subject - he can easily apply to a university, and for talented students, there are full scholarship awards so he needn't worry about tuition fees. And, in the 20th century, before the internet was invented, the usual way for self-teaching math is reading books in library. However, the city which have libraries usually have universities - and they can just apply for it if they want.

The other problem is the concept of "amateur" is ambiguous. For example, this word usually denotes people who work during the day-time and learn math in the rest time. However, the situation is vastly similar to some international students who work part-time jobs to pay for their tuition fees. These students usually don't want to be seen as amateur learners.

I think this post should have been posted on HSM

Note that the last time it was possible for a person to know all of mathematics was quite early in the 20th century. The expansion was too rapid after that point.

Look at the mathematics posts at Arxiv.  You will find that there are scads of amateur mathematicians out there.  Even if you limit yourself to proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis, you will find many every year.

Comment upvoted for Even if you limit yourself to proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis.

@edelweiss, What does HSM stand for ? Please share a link ?

@Job_September_2020 https://hsm.stackexchange.com

I do think that the premise (that there are few mathematicians nowadays learning math by themselves) is inaccurate: quite a few mathematically precocious kids, unless they have the unusual socio-economic-intellectual situation to be recognized and given serious support, will/can learn more things from books/internet than from typical school teachers, or from their parents.
So, I would seriously claim that any current population of the most mathematically talented kids will have necessarily taught themselves waaaaaay more things than their school, or even "enrichment" or "accelerated" programs will have taught them (or even exposed them to).
In particular, I'd wager that the fraction of the population that "teaches themselves" math is not so much smaller than it was 100 or 150 years ago, despite the drift in agrarian/industrial employment.
My mother's mother's father, a small-time farmer in rural Indiana in the mid-1800's, sent away for an "algebra" book, whose exercises actually included many Diophantine problems, etc. What strikes me here is that he farmed all day, but wanted to do math in the evening...
EDIT: oop, and, by the way, I myself "read" (in some sense) all the "math books" in the county library, while, in high school, being somewhat repelled by the culture of high-school math. Rules. Antique terminology. Disallowing complex numbers to explain things about trig functions. It was depressing. I did not quite realize that "math" could be a positive, forward-looking thing, until a few years later, by accident. I do still say to the grad students here at my uni, that "school math" is a bad perversion of the sense of math. :)

Many years ago I thought about it as well when I was drinking with my friends, forming some stupid hypotheses to keep the conversation going. One of them was about economic specialization. This could be partially or totally wrong. I wrote in hurry, so I might probably provide some absurd examples.
Unlike previous eras, it is not easy to find someone "who knows everything" (relative to what people know nowadays). Even if you manage to find one, maybe you will be disappointed because they do not have deep understanding for things they know.
Does it mean that we get less smart? Absolutely not true. I argue that it is better for modern society to have less people who know everything. We have learnt that collaboration and specialization will increase our productivity significantly. Having too many prominent figures who knew everything was probably an indicator of a much less advanced economy/society.
In a particular poor pre-modern society, there was probably not much difference between those who wanted to learn everything and those who decided to become farmers. Of course, the former was highly respected, but economically they were much poorer compared to our standard, so it would not make a substantial difference no matter what you chose to do. There was no penalty (trade off) for not specializing as there is today. This statement is clearly wrong and absurd as I could not give a good example to demonstrate what I believe.
People did not have an incentive to specialize until specialization was "invented". There were forced to specialize by an invisible hand.
As time went by, the human knowledge increased and the society got better, but it also means that it became harder to master and have an influence over all fields of knowledge. "Good" people chose to specialize into a specific field, for example, mathematics. It was still very broad, but at least much better than specializing into maths, alchemy, philosophy, politics, etc. at the same time. Luckily for them, there were a lot of low-hanging fruits waiting to be picked. Doing everything on your own was not a bad idea at all. Maybe it was a good one. Welcome to the Age of Enlightenment!
Nowadays, human beings have accummulated a huge amount of knowledge about anything imaginable. No one is capable of advancing all the areas of Mathematics unless some truly fundamental things are invented, and it is hard. In order to be useful for the society, it is probably wiser to specialize into something rather than "everything". As you enroll to universities for your first degree, your second one, your third one,... you are specializing into something. You are contributing something to that tiny field, but we are, collectively, contributing to advance human knowledge.
When there were many low-hanging fruits, probably, it was not a bad idea to pursue research on your own without any guidance. A professor (probably G. Strang) said that "Gaussian elimination was named after Gauss just because he was born earlier". If I am not mistaken, Gauss did not invented it, but clearly, Strang was right. This is not to say that Gauss was not great (indeed he is undeniably one of the greatest mathematicians). You know what I mean.
Nowadays, you may easily get lost forever in the dark without a proper guidance (from supervisors?). We all need a good direction. No one wants to do everything on their own to reach a dead-end. Learning, interacting and collaborating with other excellent people in the field  will not only accelerate the researching process but it will also "gear" you towards the right direction. Doing everything on your own is risky.
Furthermore, in the past, going to university was not an option for many people. My current university is very old, and it was initially created for the rich people. They hired "professors" to teach them what they wanted. If you were not a wealthy man, probably your only logical choice was to do everything on your own.

"...He died earlier, too." - Gilbert Strang


text:
Can I ask my university for compensation because they made errors on my transcript, which caused rejection when I applied for jobs?
What can I do about my graduate official transcripts incorrectly stating my degree? It stated that I was conferred a BS which is an undergraduate degree, and it also gave the wrong degree program that I received.
A copy was sent to me which I got extra as it was a sealed copy and one was sent out to a prospective employer that I got turned down for the job it went to. During this time period I had a death of my parents and was named executor of their estate. So I didn't worry what the school had sent since it was sent as an official transcript I had to trust the system. However years later after I had scanned my copy into my computers local drive back then I never questioned it or thought to read it since I did actually graduated and this transcript was received after my graduation date; so basically I trusted the University system since I was highly busy and grieving during this time and going forward.
It came to my attention a few days ago when I had applied for a job with US government and decided to ask the gatekeeper of hiring department why was my application turned down. She told me on the last page of my official graduate transcript it stated the correct date of graduation but the wrong degree and wrong class/school that I conferred she said it was for an undergraduate degree and I needed a graduate degree. I'm hurt since all these years I was getting turned down was due to my University making this big error on my transcript that they signed off on as official. Can I be compensated?
They did send another correct transcript after I had called and had to beg for it and argue about it being official transcript with the Registrar's signature and all but their point was that it was on their old software system so they were not technically liable for the error since they can't prove what date I paid for this official transcript.

So, this happened years ago and was recently corrected. Yes?

This seems like a better fit for [law.se].

Is the current version of the transcript correct?

Please write a meaningful title.

Can we assume that you are in the US ? Please add the country tag if possible.

"A copy was sent to me which I got extra as it was a sealed copy and one was sent out to a prospective employer that I got turned down for the job it went to". So, do both copies contain the same errors ? Did you not open your sealed copy to verify all the info when you first got it ?

Can you estimate how many potential job offers, which you may have got but were denied due to the errors on the transcript provided by the university ?

Can I be compensated?

We don't know have all the info, and would certainly prefer not to offer legal advice on this site.
You may want to talk to the lawyers in your country. The lawyers would be the ones who could offer you good advice on how to proceed. Your lawyers will need to prove that you have got potential job offers denied because of the errors on the transcript provided by the university.
It's hard to see how you (alone) could successfully ask your former university for compensation. The universities always have tons of procedures, policy, rules, regulations and of course big lawyers on their side if necessary.


text:
No response after initial meetings for a Postdoc position
I have applied for an open postdoc position in one of the labs (outside my country).
After a fast and positive initial response, I had a casual/ unofficial meeting with few lab members and the discussion was fruitful (according to me). They have suggested that I speak with few other team members and shared their contact details.
However, the person whom I'm supposed to meet or discuss my prospects with has not responded to my mails in over three weeks. I'm confused at this point. This delay doesn't seem positive to me.
Do I have a fair chance with this position ?
Should I write back to them or wait to get a response from them?
What is the ideal timeline for the final interview of the potential candidate by the PI of the lab?

Related/duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/141880/no-response-to-after-phd-interview-germany, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/166474/no-response-after-phd-interview-with-good-feedback-follow-up-emails, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/167298/does-being-ghosted-mean-rejection-after-phd-interview, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126034/no-response-after-phd-interview

Sadly, being "ghosted" is not at all unusual. After an interview is a little less usual, but still. And timelines are often set by "individual factors" behind the scenes (e.g., waiting for a grant to come in). See the linked posts.


text:
Why is the Editor behaving so rudely to me?
I have submitted a paper to an SCI index journal on Jan 15, 2020. After writing to the handling editor a couple of times, they said that the paper was under review.
On Dec 10 2021, I received an email from the journal asking for a revision.
I revised and submitted it again to the journal.
But, I have not heard back from the journal yet. Now, it has been over 2 years since my paper was under review. I wrote to the journal and the handling editor 2 times but none replied.
Previously, when I wrote to the handling editor, I used to get a reply after 5-6 days. Now, I don't even receive a reply. Why is the editor behaving like this toward me?
What should I do now?

I wouldn't say they're rude. They are simply not doing their work. They can have any combination of overflow and laziness. Two years after the revision is too much in every field, I guess.

The editor has no reason to reply.   He/she can't do anything.

What makes you so sure that the editor is doing something wrong? It might just as well be that the reviewer(s) is/are very slow.

@JochenGlueck well, in that case it is responsibility of the editor to act accordingly (and well before two years after the first revision) soliciting the reviewer or sending it to someone else.

@AlessandroDellaCorte it hasn't been two years after first revision. The decision was in December 2021; even neglecting the time taken to revise the paper it's still only been 6 months.

@Allure oh, sorry, that’s a slightly different story then. I would just write politely summarizing clearly and shortly the situation. Please take into account that the editor usually remembers very little of what happened before to single items on their dashboard.

We are all guessing as the the field of research.  In some areas, withdrawing and sending to another journal will typically add a year or two before publication.  In other areas, waits should not be so long.  What is typical in your area?  If journals usually take a few months, it is well past time to give up on this journal.  In pure math....

Why isn't the editor answering your emails? There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. they are on maternity leave, they are busy grading papers, the email address no longer works, they think you are spamming them, the journal recently swapped handling editors for your paper, etc etc etc. Nobody without inside information will be able to tell you what happened.
Try to communicate with someone at the journal. The editorial office is my preferred choice because they work full-time on the journal, but you could also try to contact the editor-in-chief. Then depending on what they say you could decide to wait or withdraw.
If nobody responds, you could assume the journal is dead and send a "if I don't hear from you by [date] I will withdraw my paper" email. This would be unusual for a SCI-indexed journal though, so chances are there's someone on the editorial board who's active, it's just a matter of finding out who.

I mailed the editorial office, i received an email that I should contact the Handling Editor instead, and the Handling Editor does not respond. So I am back on the same  loop.

@Charlotte try telling the editorial office the handling editor is not responding and asking them for ideas.


text:
USA undergraduate seeking advice for PhD from Europe
I am hoping someone reading this can help me in this area. I am an Applied Chemistry undergraduate and I want to earn my PhD, however ,the PhD programs in the US are very long  spanning about 5-7 years. My goal is to go straight from undergraduate to PhD. From what I am reading this is possible. I just need help with the process.

What do I do and where do I start?
Are the PhD programs in Europe competitive and do I need a certain
GPA?
I am really seeking a PhD program where I can finish in 3 years
without doing my Masters?
But how do I get in?
And what universities have PhD programs best for Chemistry that I
can get into?
I just want to know where to start and what are the requirements so
that I can proceed the application process. Any advice anyone?

Too many questions, and questions are too broad. A PhD is not an extended undergrad degree.

Also ‘Europe’ isn’t one place, some Americans might be surprised to know

The answers to this question might be relevant to you. There you can also see that in many European countries you need a Masters degree to start a PhD. That's essentially the reasons why PhDs there tend to be shorter.

See the linked question for #1, 2, and 4. #3 is addressed by the preceeding comment. And #5-6 are not the kind of questions we can take here. Good luck.


text:
How to find recent papers with authors from my own region
What is a good way to find recent (preferably also popular) papers within a specific field which has been co-authored by someone from my region? The field of interest is machine learning, and my region could be constrained to 4 specific universities if that makes it easier.
(In case you wonder, I would like to source interesting speakers for a series of meetups.)

A general search through something like Google Scholar will often match things outside of the body and keywords of a paper, so including an institution name in a search is likely to hit on the authors' affiliations. It's also trivial through Google Scholar to select only recent articles.
Since your search is a specific field and narrowed to 4 institutions, though, I'd instead start by looking at faculty at those institutions who would plausibly be interested in the area and search papers by those faculty, instead. Departments usually have lists of faculty and their area of interest published on their websites.

Web of Science works well also. Even better is the friendly local research librarian. Too many folks don't seem to know of their existence (sigh).


text:
Will taking a gap year after my Master's degree improve or degrade my potential of doing a PhD?
I am starting a Master's conversion course (in Computing and IT Management) but I am still very unsure about all of the details about doing a PhD such as where and what I want to do it in. Some programs require that you have you Master's certificate to hand when applying too, and I haven't even started my MSc yet.
I was thinking of taking a gap year after the MSc to continue my entrepreneurial activities and goals, to find some temp/contractual work and to give myself more time to apply to PhD applications.
Would this be beneficial or detrimental to my applications and academic prospects?

What country and what field?

My mistake. It would have been beneficial if I specified such. It is Computing with an emphasis on web development and IT business innovation.

If you're using the gap year to get real-life work experience, it will improve your potential to do a PhD. The reason is simply that you'll have a clearer idea of why you're going to grad school.
I've seen many students who weren't ready to be adults even at the end of their undergraduate degree. They were heavily sheltered by their parents, and never had to worry about things like money. When money isn't an issue, university becomes something to be attempted because it's there. The post-undergraduate job search becomes heavily intimidating, and going to grad school the easy way out. So they end up in grad school with no real idea why they're there.
Real-life work experience goes a very long way to broadening one's world view. You'll learn what's needed to succeed, what's needed to be able to afford a house/car/spouse/children. You'll learn that you only have so much time to spare and that grad school might not be worth it. And if you do choose to go to grad school after all, you'll have a much clearer idea what exactly you want out of it. Since motivation is a key factor in any endeavor, this improves your ability to complete the PhD.
Only drawback is, it's my impression that grad schools like to admit starry-eyed students who're doing PhDs because they want to become professors. Having different career goals isn't fatal to your application, but you might have to modify your statement of purpose somewhat.

It seems odd to me that you are interested in a PhD at all. I even wonder whether you understand the effect it would have relative to what seem to be your goals. You seem to be very interested in the management side and in entrepreneurship but a PhD is an entirely different sort of thing.
In doctoral studies in Computer Science you will study very deeply in some very narrow part of computing with an eye to doing research in that and related sub-fields. That is nothing about running a business.
Looking at it from another aspect, your current and proposed studies don't seem to be laying a base for doctoral studies, though they would be good for what may be your real goals. The same is true about a gap year.
Entrepreneurs need to be broadly educated, not narrowly. They need to bring teams together to create something, not just research it. Doctoral students need to be totally committed to their narrow field, at least until they finish a dissertation.
Are you sure that seeking a doctorate won't get you further from your real goals? Think about what you really want and then focus on that. It might even be that advanced study is right for you, but in a field different from CS. Sergey Brin, for example, doesn't hold a doctorate, but he can hire a lot of them as required.


text:
Can I publish a survey as an academic article?
I am about to run a survey on large number of engineers in a specific field and ask them about a few specific methods they use for in their industry/research.
Like:

Are you a researcher/engineer/student?
Which of the following methods have you heard about? A B C D E
Which of the following methods have you used in your work? A B C D E
etc ...

I would like to know if such a survey has any academic value for being published in an engineering journal/conference such as IEEE or Elsevier?
Also, do you know examples of such papers?

This is quite common in studies of education - analysis of surveys. See e.g., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.11120/bmhe.2014.00006 where they present interview data.
You should probably draw some conclusion from the survey, search the field for similar studies, etc.

The warning is: to get approval from your university before you begin.  They may have an approval process for research with human subjects, and yes a survey qualifies.

@GEdgar "They may have an approval process for research with human subjects" I mean, I hope they would.

I note a couple of things. Your paper wouldn't be about Engineering per se. But it might be related to Engineering Education. This would be the case if the paper is exploring gaps in education or ways to improve it.
Note that "education" here doesn't necessarily mean formal education. It could be about how new techniques percolate through the practitioners and how that can be improved (Training, workshops, ...)
I don't believe that IEEE has a SIG (special interest group) dedicated to education, but such SIGs normally have conferences and publish proceedings and maybe journals.
In particular ACM has an education sig (SIGCSE) that is very active, holds several annual conferences in the US and abroad and publishes conference proceedings, though no formal journal (informative newsletters, etc. only). Some education related things show up in Communications of the ACM. However, the ACM is almost entirely software oriented, whereas IEEE, while concerned with both, focuses more on the hardware side.
With no specific Education SIG at IEEE, you may not find a comfortable resting place for your paper there.

I have seen such things but they were published as articles in trade publications (e.g. OR/MS or ISE magazine) for the relevant engineering & academic societies?
As pointed out, there may be fields where this is publishable in a conference proceeding or journal, but I've not seen it personally outside the trade publications.
Anecdotally though, I've had several well recognized professors tell me that their articles in these trade publications have been very well received and stimulated a lot of interest.
To specifically answer your question, Phalanx published a members survey of their analysts in one of their recent issues (quarterly).
If you're interested in doing it, my advice is (1) ask the editor if they're interested or (2) just write it up and send it in.

Addressing your concerns directly, from the details you have provided so far in the question, I doubt it can published in an engineering discipline as a journal or conference such as IEEE or Elsevier. That is unless it is a part of a much more relevant topic of interest in the venue to which you wish to publish.
For instance, in a literature survey of methods to solve a certain problem, you can discuss how prominent a method is from the data drawn from your survey. To look at it in another way, you look at the least favored method and try to explain on how it can be harnessed to give better results than the most favored. There are countless claims you can make based on the conclusions drawn from your survey.


text:
Should I let professors know of their potential mistakes?
I sometimes find potential errors in slides/notes that professors provide us as studying material. These are often some distraction or algebraic errors, other times lack of formalism that might generate misunderstanding.
As a PhD student, should I let them know, so that they can correct themselves in the case that my intuition was correct?
Sometimes I am not 100% sure of my claim and I would find it interesting just to know how right/wrong I am. Others I would like to appear kind, if they were interested in polishing their notes. However, I am afraid that professors might take it as a challenge, and therefore I would like to know to which extent this is appropriate.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177491/how-should-i-admit-a-teaching-mistake-without-losing-authority/177495#177495

When are these slides given out relative to the lectures (or whatever) in which they are used?

The question seems ambiguous as a matter of English usage. "Let them know" is a common idiom for "tell/inform them" and is probably what is meant here. But "let them notice" is not an idiom of this sort and, to my ear, suggests the opposite: not telling them and instead letting them notice (or not) on their own. As in: "I didn't speak up and tell the professor when I first saw them write the term with the wrong sign; rather, I stayed quiet and let them notice it themselves when they arrived at a final result that they knew didn't make sense."

I think it's a great idea to let professors know if they have made a mistake in their slides and presentations.  As a PhD student it's excellent to develop a confident and comfortable relationship with your supervisor and acting as a kind of second set of eyes and peer reviewer will likely be appreciated.  Professors are often very busy and having to create learning resources very quickly for class, talks, etc...  If you are able to assist them and pick out small errors that make them look better and more professional I think they'll really appreciate it in the long run.  The only thing I would avoid is acting pleased or condescending when you do find errors.  Make sure that you are pointing out mistakes from a place of support and teamwork rather than as a "gotcha" moment where you're proving that you're smarter than they are. If you can act as a helpful colleague in this situation I think it will be beneficial to your supervisor/student relationship overall.

If professors take it as a challenge if you notify them of an error in their teaching material depends on their personality. However, generally it is in the interest of the professors to have correct material. So I would usually advise to let them know of possible mistakes. It happens occasionally to me, and I am always grateful. Keep in mind to be polite, not accusatory. Thus, you also have a good chance to get a helpful reply in case you misunderstood something.

To reiterate other answers, with perhaps some slightly different perspective/emphasis:
Yes, conscientious lecturers do not want to make mistakes, not even typos, and would appreciate polite in-the-moment corrections, to not have to worry about later corrections.
"Of course", an interruption of the form "You're an idiot: look at what you wrote" is not helpful to anyone. Sure, people commit ridiculous typos all the time, no matter how careful the proofreading. So, instead of declaring the speaker an idiot, say something like "pardon me, an obvious typo, I think, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something".
If there is a disagreement more substantial than about typos or notation, it probably won't be resolved in-the-moment, so don't push it. Hopefully the speaker has enough sense to accommodate substantial question about some part of the presentation...

It is a myth that you’ll end with typos no matter how carefully you proofread. Unless you have dislexia, ADHD or something like that.

@user354948, well, I guess I'm "living the myth". :) I don't think I'm dyslexic, nor ADHD'd, but simply write a lot. The marginal benefit to proofreading decreases, obviously, and the time spent looking for the last 3 typos could be better spent elsewhere, for me.

Well, yes, of course, the law of diminishing returns works.

Tell them one or two of the most significant errors. Then if they say "thank you, please tell me any more" in a pleasant way, you can tell them some more, still in a nice and helpful way. If they just say "OK" in a gruff way, you can leave it there, as they probably don't want to be told about any more.


text:
In ACM reviews, a reviewer has a rating like "expert". How is this rating assigned?
In the papers I've submitted to ACM conferences, in the reviews there is typically a field next to the reviewer that appears to give the reviewer's level of proficiency in the topic. For example, it might say "expert".
How is that established?
What significance does this rating play? When a level of proficiency is  part of the review form, is it possible to leave this blank or unranked?

I have been involved in several PCs where the absence of a (self-declared) expert reviewer was seen as a source of concern, and additional, expert reviewers were added to certain papers.

To extend Maeher's great answer: ACM does not impose a specific way to run a conference. Standard conference software allows the Programming Committee (PC) chair to allow self-identification of reviewers regarding their confidence in their own review. These self-identifications are open to the members of the PC. I remember one instance when we received a complaint about a rejection because the "expert" had advised acceptance and the "familiar with the field" had not. Usually, in a case like this, the PC discusses, and in this case, the majority of the PC felt that the expert should be rated "familiar with the field" and the familiar with the field reviewer should be considered the expert.
Now, some conferences do not have a PC meeting to finalize the program. Most people invited to be on a PC (in my experience) do not feel that averaging even with weighting according to expertise of reviewers is a good way.
However, the review grades alone are used to "weed out" bad or ill-fitting papers and admit papers with unanimous reviewer recommendations because PC members cannot look at all papers. At a smaller conference, sometimes a paper is read by a single, a couple, or a few PC members while the committee discusses other papers. They then come back with a verdict on how to evaluate the reviews and the paper. If you receive a very terse review from an "expert", this might have happened in your case. That is because a PC often feels that leaving an author without feed-back is worse than providing a feed-back that the reviewer had to form within half an hour and based on the already submitted reviews.

Hmm... if the rating is used, if at all, by  the program committee, then I can't see any benefit in reporting this information back to the submitter. The harm is of course giving a false impression of certainty when it might not be deserved. Furthermore, if this kind of thing happens, it could promote the impression of academics being arrogant. In my experience with dealing with people in general, most people will err on the side of over inflating their judgement and abilities  than underestimate them.

I think that, from a program chair's perspective, the rating is most useful when a reviewer claims not to be an expert. Many reviews by non-experts miss big issues and are overly positive, or they don't understand why the problem being addressed by the paper is important, and are overly negative. In those cases, program committees know to not weigh these reviews very highly. It is useful to authors because they, too, can see why a specific review was not considered as important as some others.

"they, too, can see why a specific review was not considered as important as some others."  Hmm...  I wonder then if the individual ranking isn't that helpful over just the aggregate after it has gone through the complex weighting with hidden parameters. But that's just me where I am interested in actionable feedback and end result.

"I think that, from a program chair's perspective, the rating is most useful when a reviewer claims not to be an expert."
The example given by Schwarz is specifically the opposite kind of situation: the majority of the PC felt that there was a problem with overinflation of one individual along with underinflation of another.

While each conference can organize the reviewing procedures pretty much however they want, that rating is usually simply self assigned. I.e., the reviewer gets to choose what they consider their expertise to be.
This information is at least used by the other members of the program committee (in particular the chairs) to weigh whatever the review says, in particular when reviews disagree. At least in some conferences it is also used as a formal weight for averaging the scores assigned by the different reviewers.

I will add that while the rating is self-assigned, there is generally no real incentive for the referee to claim to be an "expert" on a topic when they are not. (Of course, their self-perception might be skewed, but that's a different matter.)

@AdamPřenosil There's no real incentive, no. But my long-term observation is still that these expertise scores are notoriously inflated, to the point of being basically meaningless.

@AdamPřenosil Two incentives are (although only marginal, but can accumulate when done often): 1. Greater perceived feeling of influence, which is a psychological incentive. 2. Self-promotion - especially for a fashionable topic, people might like to be perceived as experts, to be invited for relevant collaborations and roles.

@lighthousekeeper Interesting - both of these incentives are of no value to the person submitting a paper since the reviewer is anonymous.

@rocky An indirect value might be that a person who self-declares as expert might be more interested to write a decent review, since they cannot claim lack of expertise as an excuse for writing a superficial review.

Thanks for sharing this perspective! As a non-academician, that possibility had not occurred to me. I live in NYC, and when people ask for directions or information, there is this view that New Yorkers feel compelled to talk about how great NYC and they are for living here. Some say it gives people the impression that New Yorkers are snobby. But I hadn't realized that this self-declaration might have an indirect value to motivate New Yorkers to give decent and not-superficial information!


text:
Postdoc application, different team, same institute
A month ago I applied for a postdoc in a renowned institute in my field. Through the process of evaluating the different candidates, an assessment was performed by other professors from the same institute but from a different team.
An assessment here means a paragraph written by someone in the field but not the potential PI that summaries the candidate studies and experience and ends with: qualified or not qualified for the job.
My assessment was very positive so I reached the interview stage but at the end I didn’t get the job. Two weeks later the professor that wrote my assessment published a postdoc position ad, and I’m very interested in the offer. The institute is famous in my field and the position fits with both my expertise and interest.
Question: Do you think that applying for this postdoc position only after few weeks will be regarded negatively by this professor? Do you think that I will look like someone who wants to work in the institute no matter what?
Update:
Thanks everyone for your valuable replies;
I indeed applied for the position, I wrote a personal statement from scratch and I had a really great time reading about the proposed project, I really learnt a lot while preparing for the application.
However, I couldn’t even pass the first stage of pre-selection (I think my transcripts are to be blamed).
But I have no regrets, as everyone here said; if I don’t apply, I won’t get the position. as Buffy said, Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Thanks everyone again!

I rejected an attempt to edit because I am not sure if the one who tries to edit is the same person. Please follow this link to merge your two accounts if that user is indeed yourself. Thanks.

If you're interested in the new position, just go ahead and apply! If the two teams in question are working in closely related fields, the new position is presumably a good fit for your profile anyway. In that case you're unlikely to look like someone who just wants to work at that institute. If they're in rather different fields (maybe they fall on different ends of your spectrum of interests) make sure you really explain why you're interested in the cover letter.
In any case, what's the worst that can happen if you're viewed as only looking to get into institution X? You don't get the position there? Well, you're even less likely to get it if you don't apply for it...

Many thanks for the reply; the two teams are indeed working in two closely related fields. In this institute there is both the expertise and the facilities that can allow me to do good quality research. You are right; I won’t lose anything if I apply!

Agree completely. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. It should in no way reflect negatively on  you. The Professor in question may already have formed an opinion about you, but you can't predict that. It could be good or bad. It could even be bait to try to lure you back. If you have detected any weakness in your first application, you can address that first, of course.

Do you think that I will look like someone who wants to work in the institute no matter what?

You’re overthinking this. If you apply to the position, you will look like someone who is potentially interested in the position, nothing more or less. That is what it means to apply. It doesn’t signal any other information.