text:
How is European habilitation viewed in the US?
There is something called a habilitation* in Poland, Germany, Austria, and a number of other European countries.
How is a European habilitation viewed by people in the United States?
* "Habilitation is a qualification required in order to conduct self-contained university teaching, and to obtain a professorship in many European countries. Despite changes implemented in European higher-education systems consequent to the Bologna Process, habilitation is the highest qualification issued through the process of a university examination, and remains a core concept of scholarly careers in these countries."

I would guess hiring in the US would look at your publications and letters or recommendation, but not your habilitation (and not even your Ph.D.).

@GEdgar, looking at the publications, teaching experience etc. is more or less identical to looking at the habilitation, at least in Germany.

You are asking two questions, and it is not clear whether, and how, they are related.  Or is your first question: How is a European habilitation considered in the US?

@user151413, Yes. That is the question.

If the question in the title of your posting is meant to include non-academic persons in the US, it's fair to assert that the most common answer to "How do you view a European habilitation?" will be either blank stare or "What did you just ask me?". Is it fair to assume that you want to restrict members of the "people" category to "people who at some point in their careers were in some graduate (i.e., post-college) program"? Please advise.

The role of a habilitation is hugely dependent on your field of study. In the sciences, the habilitation is a dying breed. (If you apply to a job that requires it, you will typically staple together you post-Ph.D. publications and submit this in lieu, which will almost invariably work.) In the humanities, the "second book" (after the Ph.D. thesis) kind of lingers on.

An up-front comment: This answer has managed to attract a fair number of downvotes, as well as several very helpful follow-up comments (which have since been moved to chat). One hypothesis offered by a commenter for why so many have chosen to cast downvotes is that my answer maybe too focused on just one field (economics, which happens to be my field) while failing to explain what a habilitation is. Well, the question was not about what a habilitation is, was it? Instead, it was about how it's viewed in the US (and, presumably, Canada as well).
I've decided to shorten my answer drastically to make it focus on (a) what I believe are commonly held views among academics based in North America and (b) an explanation of why they are likely justified in holding these views.

I suppose any answer to your question will depend importantly on your field of study. My answer is informed by what I know is the state of affairs in my field, economics. However, I believe the views I state below are not limited to academics employed by North American economics departments.

Simply put, most academic economists based at North American universities have never heard of -- or are, at most, barely familiar with -- the concept of a "habilitation". To the extent that they think they know what it is, it's widely regarded as an awkward and even embarrassing device by which a person, after having earned a doctorate, enters an extended period of indentured servitude to some "big name professor", during which time the "habilitand" is supposed to acquire and demonstrate serious research skills and, ideally, manage to publish a couple of well-regarded papers in top-notch journals -- while also having to engage in such career-irrelevant activities as sprucing up the big-name-professor's lecture notes and fill in for the professor's lectures when the professor decide to be some place else.

To the extent that a European habilitation has any value at all in North American economics departments, the only thing that matters are the publications that (should) go along with the additional academic degree. The degree itself is pretty much irrelevant.

Is this state of ignorance willful and detrimental, or is it maybe entirely rational for these academics not to bother finding out a lot about what this habilitation thingy might be all about? I'd say it's the latter. In economics, there has been -- for many decades -- a huge difference in the perceived quality and status of a U.S. or Canadian Ph.D. degree in economics on the one hand and a (continental) European doctoral degree in economics on the other. (Aside: what matters, of course, is the thoroughness and breadth of learning and the research skills that come with the pursuit of the degree, not the nationality of the degree holder.)

Earning a Ph.D. degree from a high-quality North American graduate program was (and largely still is) seen as the vehicle that opens doors toward obtaining an assistant professorship at a selective university or college.

In contrast, most (all?) US econ department hiring committees know -- usually  from painful first-hand experience -- that they needn't bother with considering applications from persons whose main qualification is that they have just received a doctorate in economics from a European university. (Well, there have been some notable exceptions to this rule of thumb in economics. However, they are the exceptions that prove rather than refute the rule.) If the European job applicant possesses both a doctorate and a habilitation, the only things that matter are the quality and quantity of the applicants' publications. Well, if the position entails some teaching responsibilities, the applicant's proficiency in English might also matter a bit... If anything, the European doctorate/habilitation candidates might be at a disadvantage relative to their peers with "just" a Ph.D. from a North American institution, who often have just one or two promising job market papers but no publications (yet) in top-notch journals.

This conversation about downvoting has been moved to chat. Comments below this one should suggest improvements or request clarification only; please see this FAQ before posting another comment. Let us also remember to be nice.

To be fair, if the question is "How is a European habilitation viewed by people in the United States?", and people in the United States view habilitations wrongly, then an answer containing those wrong views is still both correct and useful to the questioner, provided it does represent the prevailing view...

For the most part habilitation is restricted only to Europe.
No real equivalent exists in the United States or other parts of the world. The closest equivalent in the United States would be a promotion after tenure and before reaching a (Full) Professor rank. At many institutions I know, however, there would not be such a rank because the jump to Associate Professor happens before or with tenure.
Many in the US may not have even heard of habilitation, but anyone with close European collaborators will likely know about it. I first learned about it, for example, when I was asked to support a colleague for their habilitation.  For those who do know about it, I would not expect there to be any special awe, just a recognition that this is an academic rank and its approximate equivalence in their own system.

@Wetenschaap ... though I would suspect that historically, they all did.

@jakebeal I think it is tricky to compare this to any kind of position in the US, whatever it is, because it does not link to any kind of position.  It is more like a PhD: A stamp of approval, a degree of some kind, but it doesn't buy you a postdoc/professorship.  Most importantly, if you are a professor, there is no need to do it.  I think the vast majority of people doing a habilitation at least in Germany are not on any kind of permanent position.

@user151413 Agreed.  As I said, there's no real equivalent.  Since the OP was explicitly looking for a comparison, I made the best comparison that I personally understand.  Every person for whom I personally know details about their habilitation was (1) already in a position similar to a US tenured post, but not a full professor, and (2) has done it as a step in their upward career motion.

@jakebeal I have a hard time believing that (the 2nd part). Everyone I know who does a habilitation has either no permanent job but a long-term postdoc, or - it they are lucky - a permanent assistent-level position (which is not the same as an assistant professorship - for instance, a university assistant in Germany is not allowed to offer courses without participation of their boss, unless they have a habilitation).  I don't think I know anyone who has professorship yet is doing a habil.  (There might be a point if you are on tenure track, but in fact the mid-term evaulation of a ...

... junior professorship is treated equivalent to a habilitation, so the incentive to do one seems rather low, at least in the natural sciences.

@user151413 The people I have known were not in Germany, but in France and Italy. I don't know what the differences there may be, and I know them primarily from a research context.  From the perspective of an American their positions all read as equivalent to "professor".

@gnometorule "Privatdozent" is not a paid position. Nothing like a lecturer. It just says you are allowed (and supposed) to give courses and act as an examiner at said place.

@user151413 If I understood correctly, Habilitation might make sense for a full-time FH-Prof. My Prof. at HfT Stuttgart got her Habilitation long after she had a full time Prof position there.

@Eric Was there a reason why she got the habilitation?  For the job she had at that time, it probably didn't make a difference (not even sure it ever was a formal requirement at an FH, I guess not), so it feels it is rather of interest if you want to apply to university positions.

@user151413: She surely didn't need it at the FH, indeed. Could it help for the right to deliver PhDs, e.g. like an Uni Prof can? I think she wanted to fight for her right to be Doktormutter.

@Eric Indeed, that might very well be the reason!  As a university professor, you automatically have the "venia" (which allows you to lecture & examine, including the right to act as a PhD examiner - of course you also need to be linked to a department for that), but quite likely not as an FH professor. So if she wanted to confer PhDs, it might very well be that a Habilitation is required, plus potentially a link to a university.  (To be fair, I don't know much about FHs awarding PhD, but it is certainly nothing which they traditionally do; though there have been debates about that recently.)

How is European habilitation considered in the US?

It is considered a foreign custom with no relevance to the US.

The other answers seem to be responding to an earlier version of the question.  "Considered" and "Status" are a bit different.

The question changed again.

Habilitation is not a term in common use in the US, but if the Wikipedia article is accurate about the meaning, then it would seem that a holder, with no other qualification, would likely be eligible for a faculty position at one of the lower ranks: Assistant Professor or Associate Professor, perhaps.
Most full professors only get there through promotion, not directly. Sometimes an associate professor will be hired as full professor if they are at the verge of promotion at the first university. And a few (very few) people might be hired directly at full if they come from outside academia with an exceptional research record. But in such cases the person can expect to have a short probationary period. So, with habilitation (and a PhD) in hand, more is needed to be hired at full rank. And without experience in academia other than as a student, even initial hiring at associate level is not assured.
But if the person had other relevant experience and held a position similar to full professor or associate, then they might be considered for full professor.
But the holding of it, alone, wouldn't likely be enough. It would further depend on the work done by the person, perhaps the same work that led to the awarding originally.
So, with respect to the final paragraph, most would consider the holder to be very proficient, especially in the German or Austrian case. But every holder of a doctoral degree would be considered very proficient, also. I have no way to guess whether the situation in Poland is the same.
If you hold a PhD or equivalent then habilitation probably doesn't mean much in the US. If you don't have a terminal degree and want to use habilitation to get employed, then you will need to explain in detail what it means in the country in which you earned it. For those jobs requiring a doctorate it might be hard to convince them depending on how firm the rules are. But don't expect that it will be automatically understood.

For the European countries I know of, habilitation is for the higher ranks rather than the lower, that is, Associate Professor or Full Professor.

@MassimoOrtolano, my reading was that the habilitation was a prerequisite for something like a full professor, but not equivalent. But some places also equivalent to a "higher doctorate". My advisor held such a "higher doctorate" actually. Is habilitation mentioned/defined in the Bologna Process?

Yes, it's a prerequisite, in the sense that once you get the habilitation a university can hire you in one of those positions (e.g. in Italy we need a habilitation for Associate Professor and another one for Full Professor, but not for Assistant Professor). I've never checked, but I suspect it's not defined in the Bologna Process because the details of the habilitation vary wildly from country to country (some require a dissertation, some do not). Indeed it's not equivalent to the title of Associate or Full Professor: it just means that you are eligible if someone wants to hire you.

I don't think it's even transportable from one country to another among those which require habilitation.

I suspect this answer is quite accurate, although comparisons between the different systems always are a bit off. In Germany, people having "only" a habilitation often are "Privatdozent" or "apl. Prof.". Those positions usually enable to officially supervise PhD students and to apply for faculty positions (usually at another university), but are not necessarily faculty positions themselves. I am not sure how equivalent this is compared to assistant professors.

At least in Germany (but I assume similarly in other european places) "habilitation" certifies your ability/right to teach ("venia legendia").  This might sound trivial, but this means that you have the right to teach a subject in the way you like, and basically define what is correct and not (no point in math etc., but relevant in humanities).  Indeed, it used to be one prerequisite for becoming a professor, but at least in Germany, it is no longer required.  In fact, being a professor gives you the very same right to teach.

@MassimoOrtolano, in the US it is very uncommon to be hired directly as a Full Professor except when moving from another Full Professor position or begin on the verge of promotion to full.

@Buffy I don't understand your comment: I didn't say that in my country you can be hired directly as full professor. First you are assistant professor (once a tenured position, like mine, now a tenure track one), then if you apply and get the habilitation you can become an associate professor, if a university hires you as such, and then after several years you can apply for the habilitation for full professor, etc.

@MassimoOrtolano, I thought you were worried about my first paragraph in your first comment here. I added a bit about US practice. Degrees are a distinct idea than faculty rank.


text:
Is There An "Official" Way To Format A Degree On A CV?
I've recently graduated (UK) and I was wondering if there is an "official" way to format my degree (and classification) on my CV?
Examples:

BA (Hons) Subject (First Class)
First Class Honours in BA Subject
BA (Hons) in Subject - 1st

Thank you!

There isn't. Take a look at some of the resume's of your professors (they usually have a personal page with a resume) and pick the option you like most. Some things to note:

Make sure to include the university
Include the year of graduation, and the year you started as well
Order degrees with the most recent one on top

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to convert percentage (Indian) grade to German grades
What is the exact procedure for converting percentage grade to the german grading system. As of now what I understand is that the conversion is done by the modified bavarian formula. Is the average percentage score directly converted using the formula, or is the score weighted/adjusted from the data in transcripts before it is converted? If the grades are directly converted  using the formula then it seems US grading system has an unfair advantage over systems that use a percentage system where a score around 60-70% is very high, but still has some gap from the 'maximum possible grade'!
I am particularly worried because my University follows a very tight grading system (especially for arts courses) such that a first division (which is the best division) is a score above 60%, but the bavarian formula uses highest possible grade that can be obtained while calculating the converted score. Thus in my case 100% is the theoretical limit but in reality the highest attained grade in the entire university for my course tends to be in the mid seventies. The agency called uni-assist which is responsible for converting the grades have been giving very evasive answers when asked about the procedure.
It would be great if someone here knows a bit more about the procedure and is willing to share their knowledge.

Each university can convert as they wish, there have been several questions on here about this, you should check them.

Ask the German university. Maybe they don't use a complicated formula, but grades are converted via discussion with you.

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


text:
Why do UK universities often have Classics and History MA courses separated?
In many UK universities Classics courses (study/research of the history and culture of ancient Greek and Roman civilizations) are singled out and presented distinct from History courses. They even might be provided by a different department or college at the university - for instance, History courses might be provided by a Department of Social Studies whereas Classic courses by a Department of Arts.
I assume that Classics have their own set of study/research methods and practices but this could be applied with  fair amount of legibility to virtually any other historical subject (Ancient Middle East, Middle Ages, Early Modern period etc.)
I have seen that some universities also have distinct programs on Middle ages and perhaps also on other historical periods but Classics are almost always put into its own category. So what makes Classics to stand out that much?

That is the way they choose to do it. As long as people find the course they want to study it is not a problem. Are you wanting to provide a “standard” course specification that all universities have to use?

@SolarMike, no I am not. But there must be some logic for such education structure

Perhaps it comes with the "history" of the university - some have been around a long time, some in the UK were in existence long before some of the countries who "wave" their history like a large flag...

@SolarMike - rather, perhaps, that the study of Greek and Latin, and their civilizations, has been a large part of all the 'old' universities. Those upstarts wanting to study the history of lesser times were shunted off to their own so as not to sully the purity of the Classics. (And I say that lovingly as a long-time student of Latin and all the great literature one can read in it.)

For what it's worth, this is also common in the US (presumably descended directly from British academic traditions).

@Mark Meckes: Specifically, this was (and still is, I see) the case at my (primary) undergraduate institution, where I actually took a course from the classics department for one of my humanities electives. Also, a friend of mine working on a Masters in physics and who I was a student with in several advanced undergraduate physics courses (because his background in physics was weak, although his ability wasn't) had an undergraduate degree from there in classics and later some graduate work at Princeton University, before deciding to get a M.A. and Ph.D. in physics.

The simple reason is that the study of Classics has been part of the UK education system for much longer than general "history". Oxford and Cambridge were both founded in the 11th century, a time period where Latin was the language used in the church and legal system in England. For that reason alone, its study would have been essential.
As to why the study of Classics as separate to history has continued, I expect the reason is twofold. One is simply tradition, and the fact that Classics departments are probably older than history departments. The same applies to why Cambridge teaches "Natural Sciences" rather than having explicit physics and chemistry degrees: the university and the course predate modern thinking on the division of those subjects.
As for the second reason, my gut feeling as an English person is that it's also very tied up with social class (as is everything else in the UK). Classics, Greats and PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) have long been the subjects of choice for wealthy, upper class men who are funnelled from private schools (i.e. those for which you have to pay a fee to attend, often exceeding £40,000 a year) to the upper echelons of government and business via Oxford and Cambridge. As long as these schools continue to teach the subjects, there will be a demand for classics courses in the UK's top universities.
The fact that these schools teach classics themselves is a hangover from 19th century attitudes to education, in which those subjects were considered an essential part of a boy's education. I can only speculate, but I think they were (and still are, by some) considered essential as they are a hallmark of wealth and social privilege, necessary currency for anyone wanting to get ahead in politics or business. Any schmuck can learn French or maths at school, but if you know Ancient Greek or Latin, that's a sign that you had an expensive education.
So, in summary, Classics departments in universities are a result of the age of the institutions coupled with the fact that these subjects were and still are taught in (private) schools as distinct subjects.

It is all about having the correct "tie"...

Thanks! I am not aware - what is "Greats" that you've mentioned along Classics and PPE?

It's basically classics with additional philosophy or religious studies. I thought it was a generic term, but on Googling I just discovered the term is actually only used at Oxford.

Interesting and informative. Is this division also present outside Oxbridge? And you may have caused weeping an gnashing of teeth among some mathematicians at Cambridge.

@astronat, thank you, got it

@astronat: I don't think "religious studies" is any part of it. Traditionally Greats is the second half of the Classics course at Oxford: the first part (Mods) is/was Language and Literature, the second half (Ancient) History and and Philosophy - one was able to read the sources in the original Latin/Greek.

Classics is an interdisciplinary subject, including not just the history of Rome and Greece (and sometimes other ancient civilizations), but also their literature (and sometimes their anthropology).
One doesn't include reading and analyzing Shakespeare as part of History, but reading and analyzing Sophocles is certainly part of studying Classics.
In fact, historically, Classics departments were primarily literature departments, and having a substantial amount of ancient history is a relatively recent development.
The reason that Rome and Greece is frequently separated out from other ancient near east civilizations is that Rome and Greece left a comparatively much larger body of literature.


text:
How should I prepare for a research assistant interview as a cs undergrad?
I've reached out to a few professors and received responses.
I'm pretty used to going to interviews for industry jobs but this is new and I feel like I have no idea what I should talk about. I'm a second year cs student.
So far, i've read 2 or 3 of their most recent research works and have a good idea of what they want to do in the future. I also have a pretty general understanding of their fields although some areas do seem to be out of my league.
What are good questions to ask a professor about their research?
Are there common mistakes students make when approaching an interview such as this one?
How do these interviews typically go?

This is too broad. They will ask questions - it is good practise to give honest answers. What those questions will be will come down to what is, or is not, on your cv - they may want to check detail or your motivation. As for what you should ask - well what do you want to find out...

From my experience, the academic setting is more relaxed on the interview. The interview I had for my GRA position had very few knowledge based questions. They want to see that you are highly enthusiastic about your domain of research, and that you're eager to learn.
If you have industry experience that is a huge plus! It shows you can actually work. I think one of the biggest fears of the lab director is a GRA/RA that is not able to accomplish much, i.e. losses motivation. Your industry interview will be more nit-picky about experience in a specific domain.
Being a GRA/RA is not like a course where you are told what to learn and when to learn it. You will be challenged to motivate yourself to solve research problems on your own time. It can be harder than industry in some ways, because you are given more conceptual work with no 9:00am to 5:00pm schedule to keep you active and focused.
I would focus more on touting your academic accomplishments. This assures them that you can handle a full course-load and research concurrently. I told them that I could not see myself working anywhere else, and that this line of research is the most meaningful thing I could be doing with my life. I didn't have to prepare that, because I meant it.
If you really what to know what the interview is like you can: (1) look online on Glassdoor or Reddit, (2) ask someone who is already in the lab what the interview is like.

What is a GRA/RA?

GRA → Graduate Research Assistant.
RA → Research Assistant (Implied Undergraduate)

This answer may be too late for you personally, but I hope others might benefit. Let me focus on the questions you might ask.
First: What would I learn from this experience? (What am I most likely to learn?). This places you as a student.
Second: What do you think I can contribute to this project? This assumes they have read your CV.
Third: What skills and background would be most useful in this project? Then be willing to honestly say whether you have those skills, and if not, how willing you are to get them.
You are a student, not a professional. That should be recognized. You aren't (or shouldn't be) expected to know everything. The process is still an educational one.
Don't oversell yourself, especially with bs.


text:
How do I write a formal resignation letter to my toxic PI advisor
After years of a toxic work environment, I finally decided to move forward in a different lab. However, I have to present an official resignation letter to my advisor (current PI), even when currently paid by a  TA position. Any advice on how to do this? I have no idea to make it sound professional and avoid further conflict. I plan to take a leave of absence until I can find another lab.

Resignation letters are always the same.  The reason for resigning and the type of position resigned are not particularly important.

Talk to your department's administration to see if there is anything in particular that an "official" letter needs to contain for their purposes.  Include that information and nothing else.

It can be extremely short and to the point. You don't need to give your reasons:

For personal and professional reasons I've decided to resign my position in your lab.

Nothing more is required as long as your contract, if any, permits it at all. In particular don't say things that might be disputed by others.

I would vote that up if not for the first part of the sentence. I recommend to not give any reasoning whatsoever, not even "personal/professional". It should be " I've decided to resign my position in your lab from . " I agree that OP shouldn't give them a handle to pull them by, but it should not even be a notch.

@CaptainEmacs, that would also be fine. But without the first, you'd probably get a message back: "Why.."

Toxic guys know very well why and are well advised not to ask lest they get an answer. But if they still ask, the answer could be: "It is time for me to try something else/explore the world." or something similar. Perhaps OP could have even originally written the shorter statement "I will resign my position in your lab on ...", leaving off even the "decided to". This reduces the notch even further and leaves even less leeway for questions. There is no "decision", just something that "happens".

I suggest adding a date: "effective immediately", or "effective [date]".

@Erik The leaving date is often a subject of conflict and confusion. Putting a date in the resignation letter prevents misunderstandings.

One of the most famous resignation letters in history was extremely short and to the point.


text:
License of content in patent
What's the license of content in a patent?
I'd like to refer to existing techniques and show obtained results by including a figure which is obtained from a patent. Am I allowed to do that?
For example I'd like to include a picture from the patent Producing engraving-style halftone images in a journal entry I am writing.

Some guidance in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution

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


text:
Why do funding agencies like the NSF not publish accepted grants?
When the NSF decides to fund a project, they post an abstract of the project, but they do not post any of the material that the project's PIs actually wrote.  Why not?
Some good reasons for publishing these proposals are:

It increases transparency, so that the public directly knows what was funded with tax payer money.
It would help future PIs find example successful proposals in order to create better proposals.

Edit to make the question a bit more concrete:  Has the NSF ever published a justification for not publishing accepted proposals online?

I seem to recall that a similar question has been asked on this site in the past, but I can't find it right now.

As to transparency, the public can request the proposals under the Freedom of Information Act.  However, it's generally considered improper for another researcher to use this route to get research or grantwriting ideas.  See also https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8111/foia-request-for-full-nsf-awards-proposal-and-report

I suppose you're aware of the obvious point against publishing: researchers don't want to share their plans for future research so widely, because of the risk that someone else may "scoop" them by completing and publishing the work before them.  Or is that something you want to see discussed in an answer?

The threat of "scooping" someone's ideas based on only a research grant strikes me as vanishingly small.  If there were enough information within the grant for a reader to solve a problem without getting the requisite funding, then why would the funding agency bother to give the funding at all?

It's actually pretty common for people to use the FOIA to request individual grants proposals. Anyone can do it. More probably would if they were aware of it. I also know some agencies will also allow you to specify proprietary content in a proposal. Probably more common when dealing with grants more targeted to industry.

Scooping happens. Even in experimental sciences, there are groups with large amounts of freely usable money, and I am aware of cases where such groups have scooped the results of other labs working on the same question they learned of from visiting them and throwing money and people at it. I know it is fashionable to say that this is unlikely, but I have seen it happening at different levels of severity. One should note that Mueller/Bednorz publicised their high-temperature supra conductivity result in a daily and a national science paper rather than the top-tiers because they feared scooping.

I note that grant reviewers (and more generally referees) usually have to agree not to disclose or use information in grants or submissions; if the practical possibility of scoop was vanishingly small there would be no need for such provisions.

Doesn't the NSF have a "quiet period" for FOIA requests concerning new grants?

The fear of scooping is real especially for early career researchers and small groups. I had a workplan in my last proposal that I know at least 2 groups that could complete the plan in 1/3 of the time. I need to recruit and train staff within a tiny lab and buy equipment through a tender process. They have well trained permanent researchers and already equipped lab.

Why do funding agencies like the NSF not publish accepted grants?
Has the NSF ever published a justification for not publishing accepted proposals online?

While it is correct in a technical sense that the NSF "does not publish accepted proposals online", I think this framing of your question is a bit misleading. The NSF has a process for allowing the public to access awarded proposals. This process, based on the Freedom of Information Act, is designed precisely to balance the public's need for transparency in government spending with other important things, such as the government's need to function properly (which is why even FOIA won't gain you access to top secret military information, for example), and the completely legitimate desire of researchers to pursue their research plans on their own timeline without undue stress or fear of having their ideas scooped and exploited by others.

Some good reasons for publishing these proposals are:

It increases transparency, so that the public directly knows what was funded with tax payer money.

As I was saying above, the key word here is "balance". You can't have maximal transparency, because all sorts of things would go wrong if you try to have it - researchers would protest loudly, and/or eventually start including less and less useful details in their proposals, making the evaluation process more difficult and the outcomes less meritocratic; and/or eventually seek alternative funding sources or try to get by without NSF support, with detrimental results to their research. On the other hand, no one is advocating for complete secrecy either - note that the current system is already a compromise between privacy and transparency: researchers do understand that their proposals will be reviewed by a panel of experts in their fields, and accept whatever small risk of scooping/misuse of ideas may exist given this situation. Writers of proposals also understand that in the end their proposals can in fact be looked up by curious members of the public, journalists, and people in Congress, who may end up accusing them of wasting government money on useless research or other unpleasant things. Everyone accepts that when you take public funding it comes with some strings attached, including a certain amount of public exposure and some level of disclosure of your research ideas. So again, I think your framing of the question is slightly loaded, as it risks painting an exaggerated picture of the grants process as being shrouded in secrecy, and of researchers as somewhat paranoid people who are always fearful of having their ideas stolen. The truth is much more balanced and reasonable than that.

It would help future PIs find example successful proposals in order to create better proposals. The current system of asking friends for copies of their proposals is super frustrating and seems like it is likely fostering an atmosphere of cronyism.

I am not aware of any "system" of asking friends for copies of proposals. That's something that some people do and others don't (I didn't). And calling it "cronyism" seems like a huge stretch. In fact, I think it's rather the opposite; from my experience with the grants process (including serving on several NSF panels), while the grants process is far from being without flaws, it is as meritocratic a system as anyone has been able to come up with for a complicated process of handing out several billion dollars a year to many thousands of people based on a very messy and noisy dataset. And yes, it's true that the process is very competitive and can be frustrating for many people. That would remain true even if all awarded proposals were made publicly available.

Has the NSF ever published a justification for not publishing accepted proposals online?

The NSF page I linked to above offers an explanation of how to request access to proposals, and what kind of access will be granted:

National Science Foundation policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information, subject to restrictions imposed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, to any person who requests information, without unnecessary expense or delay. [...]
Copies of awarded proposals are available upon request, there may be applicable fees. Personal and proprietary information will be removed from the proposal documents before they are released.

The reference to personal and proprietary information provides some justification for why the process works the way it does.

"I am not aware of any "system" of asking friends for copies of proposals. That's something that some people do and others don't (I didn't)."  Are you saying that you've successfully submitted NSF grant proposals without ever having seen examples before?

You're right that "cronyism" was too strong of a word, but a lack of access to proposal examples does seem to disadvantage new researchers who aren't well connected since it requires connections to get access to examples.

@MikeIzbicki I might have seen examples, not sure, but if so I didn’t particularly pay attention to them. To write a good proposal, my main advice would be to carefully read NSF’s proposal guide, then think carefully what you want to write, then write it (and rewrite, polish etc). The utility of looking at other proposals seems quite dubious to me, particularly because I have seen people attempting to copy very superficial features of successful proposals they’d looked at while completely missing the point of what made those proposals good.

@MikeIzbicki re: cronyism, academia does have various “the rich get richer”-type feedback loops of the sort you describe, but honestly I think lack of access to grant proposals is either not an example of such a thing or is a very weak example, at best. Someone who is so disadvantaged that they can’t even get an example of a grant proposal probably has much worse sorts of disadvantages they should be worrying about first.

@MikeIzbicki In my experience the "sharing with friends" is less common than "sharing within an academic department": major universities typically have grants staff who collect and distribute successful grants as one of the many things they do to help researchers get grants. Perhaps a bit "rich get richer" but it's really just part of institutional support which funding agencies are typically in favor of anyways.

I think the simplest way to address your question is to note that you have asked it upside down. Transparency is not the default option now, has not been in the past, and it is at least uncertain as to whether it might become the default in the future. So then the question is, why has an agency like the NSF not changed their practices to be more transparent and open, given that the default is opaque and closed?
Put this way, the answer is quite simple: it is because no person or group has exercised the will to make the change; there has been insufficient interest or ability to change the status quo of closed by default. It is not that people have not called for increased transparency in government, and there have always been arguments that the NSF should be run by civil servants and professional administrators/managers, with decisions explicitly made in favor of social welfare or public interest.
Most actions, both governmental and non-governmental, are generally conducted on a need-to-know basis. And in the US at least, most institutions are not set up to be direct democracies quite intentionally, as masses of people were feared to be ignorant, short-sighted, temperamental, and easily manipulated. This is even more true of organizations like the NSF, part of whose design and organization was intended to allow scientists to engage in autonomous decision-making to advance basic understanding across a wide-variety of fields without insisting upon any particular idea of return on investment, popular political sentiments, etc.
At least, that seemed to be the political reasoning that is reported to have won out originally. The changes since then seem to be towards a direction of more non-scientist involvement in the process of review and grant-making, which has included major cuts to social science, banning of funding for political science, political criticism of what is funded and what isn't, legislation that sets funding requirements for different directorates, etc. One may see these as good or bad, which presumably will strongly color your opinion on whether the changes that brought them about were good ones or not!
So it is not that openness has not and was not ever considered - it was considered and rejected, historically. This doesn't mean that things cannot or should not change in the future - but one must also remember that interventions in complex social processes always bring complex effects. More tax payer awareness can mean more attempts to manipulate and misinform, including adversarial attacks meant to direct research away from sensitive or valuable areas. Less obstacles to involvement can result in centralization of power to the most socially powerful, as power in one area is used to gain power in another, rather than decentralization and devolution of power to the many.
Currently, the main thrust of transparency movements seems to be in wider-ranging policies, such as the Freedom of Information Act and its many amendments. As noted in comments, the NSF has policies publicly stated that allow people to make requests to receive documents such as successful grant requests. The requester and provided documents are themselves logged and made publicly available. It may be seen as socially weird between scientists to request such grants without contacting them directly, but the depths of social weirdness in many common human interactions is beyond my ability to quantify :)

In addition to other good points made... if everyone writing proposals had in mind that whatever flights of fancy... or novel insights... they were inclined to put into the proposal would potentially be quickly public, I'd think this would too much inhibit many people. On another hand, it could inappropriately encourage people with crackpottish impulses, since they could get potentially get publicity without having to have actually done the work, if only they could make a convincing case.
Also, related, this could give a way for people to claim priority on "ideas", even if they hadn't made them work, because their proposal was funded (=peer review/approval) and made public.
And, again, to avoid scooping (which does happen...) it seems best to wait a year or two after the award of the grants.
(Also, really, the notion that someone wants to improve their chances of getting a grant by imitating the grant proposals of someone else seems problemmatical. Will imitators cite? Will imitators give a share?)

Grant proposals must go into some detail, which the reviewers are forbidden to use or divulge, but which would be highly interesting for other scientists, and would allow those competitors with enough free money and the right staff on hand to gain an unfair advantage.
You might even put unpublished stuff in there, for example results from diploma theses, which would otherwise not be easy to find. The grant proposal gives everything, the result, and the name of the freshly graduated student which could just be hired away to some more illustrious institution.
Two years later, when students have shown posters on conferences and the first papers are published, that info is mostly stale and outdated. I don't know why the proposals are not published then. Probably because nobody would  be interested any more, or because it would often embarrass the proposers.

I can think of a number of reasons why it is not done, most already covered. Adding to them (apologies if I missed them above): i) a scientist may be hesitant to have preliminary findings published. Preliminary means that they may be wrong, or misinterpreted. ii) She or he may also not feel comfortable with retrospective examination of what was proposed and what was done (novel findings may steer the work in an unexpected direction). iii) Because a proposal is confidential, the ability to patent an invention described in the proposal is preserved.
If we are talking about publishing the meat of the proposal (project description), there are several reasons why it may be a good idea. In addition, it would be worthwhile to publish the reviewers comments and perhaps the authors' post-review commentary. The reasons why this would be useful are:

Proposals represent a considerable part of a scientist's scientific output. They encompass preliminary observations, ideas, hypotheses, and proposed experiments. Without publications they could and will most likely be lost.
A proposal might document important scientific ideas and help establish proper timeline of scientific innovations.
As mentioned, other scientists might benefit from access to successful and unsuccessful examples.

NSF could publish the proposals in a journal-like format. NIH has already a few real proposal examples. These are extremely useful. Last, publishing should be voluntary on the part of the PIs.

Actually, since NSF grant proposals are not considered confidential (as they can be obtained by FOIA request) one should generally expect that the ability to patent an invention described in a grant proposal is not preserved. Parts of the proposal can be given a higher confidentiality level, which might protect the innovation, but I'd suggest consulting with your university's patent office before submitting a proposal containing patentable ideas.


text:
Is there anything I could do to get admitted into a PhD program?
[Why it is not a duplicate question:
I already have a MS, so I don't have the luxury of enrolling into a MS and improve GPA or establish a research track record. Can I do a second masters? Well that is part of my question which is not discussed in other similar question threads.]
My undergrad GPA is 3.68, and my MS GPA is 3.33.
I have some published conference paper (IEEE) and a book but that was a while back (not a well known publisher) and not directly related to my area of interest in research. Basically my research credentials are not good - not at least on paper.
Question is - is it just impossible to recover from this? I considered doing a seconf masters to improve the GPA factor, but the program I am considering doesn't have a thesis option - so I am getting advice that it won't really help me.
It will be hard to enroll full time for MS at this point. (I have been working for ten years.) But I want to know if even that would help.
Is there anything that I can do to have a reasonable shot at getting into a moderately good PhD program in CS in the US? Or Am I basically done?

Did you complete a thesis while obtaining your MS or independent studies that involved a research component? That's usually what most MS students have when they apply for PhD. Your work experience may also be helpful, and if your GRE was so-so on your first go, you might consider re-taking it and improving your scores.

No I didn't do a thesis - wise me. However I wasn't motivated on a specific area at that moment.

From your question, I'm having trouble understanding why you don't think you have a shot at a "moderately good" PhD program.  You wrote a book and some IEEE papers, plus your GPA is fine.  Are your test scores horrible? has someone given you negative feedback about an inquiry?

I took GRE long time back (630, 790). I have hopes that my next GRE score will be decent. But see, I am cut off even before that - by the GPA alone. I keep reading they look at the whole application but I also read how low GPA can kill the application in the screening process itself.

Try emailing PIs/researchers at institutions, local or not, asking if they have a project you could jump on.  Do good work, get recommendations, get accepted into a program, enjoy the luxurious life of a PhD, become disillusioned, drop out, go to industry, become more disillusioned, quit and live in a van by the river.

@Quark You're right, programs look at the entire package, but you offer more than most candidates coming out of a master's program don't have - real world experience and maturity. Your GPA is, as sesse says, fine; so there's no harm in inquiring around and seeing if someone would be willing to sponsor your application. You may not even have to re-take your GRE, as they were good enough to get you into a master's program.

My UK experience might be helpful to you.  Just over a year ago, I decided I wanted to do a PhD in statistics. It was over 40 years since I had finished the second of two masters degrees (mathematics and operations research) and my work since then had not involved those subjects at all.   But in the last few years I had been working for my own satisfaction on a statistical project involving original research. I wrote to two or three professors whose interests seemed to cover what I wanted to do, told them what I had been doing, and found that one of them was very happy for me to take me on.
So my advice comprises two steps: first, identify broadly what you want to research and do some work on it; secondly, approach individual professors and tell them what you have done.

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


text:
Can I ask a publisher for a paper that I need for reviewing
I was asked to review a technical paper for a journal at a large commercial publisher. The paper extends on another publication that is cited several times throughout the document. The cited paper was published at the same publisher but in a different journal. I work for an R&D department in a private company. We do not have a subscription with the publisher and no budget to buy articles (at least not in cases like this). I.e., I cannot access the cited paper. Would it be acceptable to ask the editor of the journal I review for to provide me with the cited paper?
Additional Information: The review process is double blind, so I do not know if the cited paper and the paper I'm reviewing are from the same authors. Given the specific topic, it seems likely to me. This is why I did not ask the authors for a copy. I was also unable to find a free version of the paper online.
Outcome: I asked the editor for the paper and received a copy within hours. Along with ads for a subscription of that journal.

If you can't get it from the publisher, consider asking the authors for a copy. And look on ArXiv, if the paper is in a field that uses that.

If you can't get it from the publisher, consider declining to review the new paper. You're already donating your work for their profit, and if they're unwilling to meet your expenses for that job, then they do not deserve that donation. They have a professional obligation to provide any papers that are necessary for the review and which you do not already have access to, regardless of whether it's from the same publisher or not.

I'd like to notice that typically it is required by the journals that the new manuscripts are self-contained and could be completely understood without having to read the authors' previous works.

@AndreyR, I don't think that's necessarily true--or fair to expect. At one extreme, consider a "Comment on..." or "Matters arising..." article. It should summarize the paper in question, but that summary may be biased towards whatever point the new article is making, and reviewers ought to check/comment on any bias. Even run-of-the-mill 'follow-up' articles can only be self-contained via citations: no journal will give you enough space to rehash the history of an entire field or explain why certain factors matter (or not).

@Matt, not that I'm saying that's necessarily true, I wanted to convey an idea that if the manuscript under the review could not be understood without a careful reading of the previous works of the authors, that's a point that definitely has to be communicated to the editor.  Except, of course, the obvious cases you mention like a Comment when it's automatically understood.

@AndreyR: All research builds on earlier work; in my experience (in mathematics), it’s very rare for a paper to be so self-contained that I can read it without looking up some bits of background in its reference, unless it’s on a topic extremely close to my own work (e.g. my co-authors’ or students’ papers).  It’s usually impossible to make a research paper that self-contained without turning it into a full textbook.

Can you explicitly state whether the paper you want is written by the same author as the one you are reviewing? The number of solutions depends on knowing this.

@AndreyR, I still think that self-containedness is not a reasonable goal, so this  situation could happen even with a perfect paper. As another example, suppose they already published something validating a key method. I would not expect--or really, want--to see that work repeated in every publication. Something like "We have previously demonstrated this technique is highly selective for....(XYZ et al, 2016)" would be better.
That's enough to understand the work, but you might need to see the first paper to trust or evaluate it (overstated result?, different conditions?, etc).

At some publishers, you get time-limited access for more of their services at the moment you register in their system as a reviewer for a paper.

Is the paper that you need to look at published by the same publisher that asked you to review the paper?  If so, you can probably get access.  If not, your best bet is to contact the author of the paper that you want to read.

@rams, Please update your question with an edit at the end to tell everyone what you finally did. This would help us all to learn from each other.experience

Yes, you can. Chances are they'll be willing to give it to you.
See also: Can a referee request a paper referenced in the reviewed paper?, except your situation is simpler because the desk editor of the journal can probably already access the paper and won't have to request it.


text:
How to deal with these so called "Minor revisions"?
Update: Mars 29
Thank you everyone for your time and efforts to help me with the revision. The article has been resubmitted yesterday and accepted this morning. Without your help, I don't think I can do this. Except your suggestions for this revision, the more important thing I've learned from your comments is the altitude and methods of research， which points out the correct direction and helps me get rid of some misunderstand of research. Thank you everyone again. It's a excellent experience of discussing with you here and I expect more communications in the future.

I've received the editor's reponse for the second revision. He marked "minor revision" in the online system of submission. But his review is so confusing.
Reviewers/Editor comments:    As the reviewer kindly points out the discussion is very speculative. In view of this, the outcome of this manuscript is still in doubt and a final decision will be taken upon submission of your revisions.
Reviewer #1: The authors have responded to my comments.  The article has some value but its discussion is still somewhat heavy on speculation and somewhat light on hard analysis.  Leading the authors further toward a stronger analysis falls beyond the scope of the review and so it falls to the editor to decide whether that value is sufficient to warrant publication in [journal].
In fact, if I revise the manuscript according to their demand to eliminate the "speculations", I have to delete and simply a lot of the discussions. This is a real "major revisions" indeed. So now I am so confused for this so-called "minor revisions". I'd like to ask your help and advice, thank you!

As currently posed, this question is best addressed to a mentor or fellow academic who is familiar with your work and ideally can read over your manuscript. Can you adjust this question to be more broadly applicable? As it stands it is likely to be closed.

Thank you very much for your comments. I am sorry due to my English level, I don't understand very well " more broadly applicable". It is for the title of the question or for the content？

I think you mean "simplify" rather than "simply". Anyway, realistically, the editor has marked the wrong level of revision. You could just start making the revisions or discuss it with the editor...who may just change the online system to say "major revision."

In fact I think that the comments of the reviewer are just 2-3 sentences  and so general, there are no details in it. So the editor just chose the "minor revision" option in the submission system.

The way I read it, the reviewer's concerns are less about the presence of speculations, but more about the absence of "hard analysis". No amount of deleting will satisfy the concerns, you have to add "hard analysis". What exactly that entails should be gleaned from other things Reviewer 1 has said.

Yeah, I agree with you that the concerns about the reviewer is lack of "hard analysis". Yet for the comments of the editor, he just pointed out "very speculative" and marked it "minor revision", so I prefer just deleting the phrases "too speculative" and trying to rewrite some phrases more "solid" with citations.

Both the reviewer and editor are very polite and guarded in their answers. Reviewer #1 basically says that the analysis section of the paper is too light. OP seems to accept that in the comments. "if I simply these discussions (!), it will be revised a lot." Reviewer 1 says the analysis needs to be beefed up, but he is not going to do it. ("Leading the authors further toward a stronger analysis falls beyond the scope of the review...")
Reading between the lines of @Enze Ma's comment, I think I can see the potential problem: The author uses macroscale experiments ---it would help to know a bit about the area in order to understand what that means --- but uses microscale theories to explain these results. This is always going to be a problem and needs to be addressed honestly and directly. What is it about the macroscale results in the paper that make them different from previous work? Are the microscale theories, in fact, able to shed new light on the macroscale resuls? If not, what is the contribution of the paper to existing literature?
This final question is, of course, the most important and should be addressed first. There should be no waffling about the contribution. "I think my paper may extend the field ... " is not going to cut it. "My paper extends the field in these ways:..." is much more positive, stronger, less speculative, and is likely what reviewer #1 is looking for.

Thank you for your comments and advices. I agree with you and realized now I've overexplained the results. Objective of the article is to compare the transport behavior of particles with single diameter (3, 10 or 16 um) and that of mixed particles (3+10+16 um). The novelty is the part of mixed particles. To enrich the contents, I use some microscale theories to discuss both single-sized and mixed particles. These microscale results were obtained under ideal conditions in existing literature, and yet our experiments are closed to the reality.

I just had something similar to this happen with a high-impact journal with an awesomely useful review process.  The majorness of corrections is not about the amount of text changed, it's about how significant to the main outcome -- and how difficult to execute -- the changes are. What I (and it sounds like you) had to do was to recognise which of my claims in the discussion were well-supported, and which were not, and just delete what was not, or possibly replace it with smaller, better substantiated claims.
This is a sensible requirement by a good editor.  Science isn't benefited if great experiments carry forwards unwarranted speculation to readers, but we also don't want great experiments thrown out because the authors who did them overestimated their value or significance in some way.
Congratulations on your publication, and I advise that you just comment out the stuff you have to delete, or better yet put it in a file as the start of your next paper, and figure out how to really support those claims :-)

Thank you for your comments and advices. I totally agree with you for your comprehension about how to use results in the previous litterature and now realize that maybe I've walked a little far away from my own experiment results.

In my experience, there are three big differences between a major revision and a minor one:

The major usually has more extensive edits requested, which will take more time.
A major revision goes back to reviewers, while the minor revision goes to the (associate) editor for a decision.
The vast majority of minor revisions are ultimately accepted for publication, while many more major revisions are later found unacceptable and rejected.

Another possible factor is that some publications may only allow one major revision in the review process. Here, it sounds almost like they want a major revision (as @Enze MA said) in terms of the extent of the changes, but it won't go back to the reviewer who basically punted and asked the journal to decide whether to accept as is.
So given this, my own reaction would be to try and satisfy the editor that I'm doing my best to follow the reviews, without the drastic rewrite to remove all the speculative content.  After all, it's a minor revision.  Would it work to somehow make it clearer in the article that the authors recognize some of the discussion is more speculative, for example?

Thanks for your comments. The experiments in the article are macroscale and many results are so common and well discussed in the previous littearture. So I used a lot of microscale theories and results confirmed by recent researches to explain my results, in fact our experiments can't corroborate these. So the reviewer thinks it's very speculative. It goes back to my questions, if I simply these discussions, it will be revised a lot.

I'd like to know, do you think after the second revision whether the editor will look for another reviewer? As you said, the reviwer#1 seemed have no desire to review this article. Thank you

As I said, in my experience the definition of a minor revision is that the editor decides and does not send it out for further review.  I suppose they could change their mind, but that doesn't seem like a likely outcome.

The distinction between minor and major revisions is subjective and it may be that the editor believes that this may be an easy fix, though the comments made to you are confusing for you (as they may be to anyone).
Without having your paper to review and not knowing about the topic of the manuscript, my initial thought is that you may be able to move your discussion section from "speculative" to "analytical" by grounding your findings more in the existing research. If you can relate your findings more to the existing body of research and site other stories, it seems that this would make your discussion of the findings less "speculative."  Good luck! Hope this helps.

Thank you very much for your comments and good wishes. The revised manuscript has been resubmitted yesterday afternoon and accepted this morning. I did exactly like what you said, revised concisely the "speculative" sentences to make them more solid and related to the results.

How great! Congratulations! It is very frustrating when you can't understand editors' and reviewers' comments, but in this case your effort paid off.

Thank you very much. Yeah so frustrating! In fact, the process was a little funny, the editor firstly made a mistake and clicked the refuse button. So the system send automatically a refusal email. At that moment, it was 2 a.m. of Paris time, and my advisor didn't sleep and had waited for the whole night. Once he saw the email, he felt so depressed. Fortunately, just after 2 mins, the editor corrected this error and acception email was sent out. What a poor man, my advisor, he experienced all this alone, haha.

Oh, goodness! Ha! The highs and lows of academic publishing. LOL!


text:
What does it mean when I am told "your field might be related to my field"?
In various conversations with my mathematical colleagues, I noticed that the expression "your field might be related to my field" should not always be understood literally. Namely the other person does not always invite me to work on a joint project unifying the two fields. In some cases, I noticed the possible relation seems to be too vague to really work on it.
Am I missing something, and should this expression be interpreted more broadly?

It is somewhat baffling to me that you think the literal meaning of "your field might be related to my field" would be "let's work on a paper unifying the two fields". The literal meaning is simply that "there might be connections between the two fields". This might just be small talk, but often the person you're talking to is interested in learning more and exploring if there exist connections between the two fields. If such connections come up during conversation (or later, after thinking about it more) and seem promising, it might lead to some project, which might be a joint one. Often, as you've found, the possible relation is too vague to be worth pursuing at this time, and nothing happens except that you two had a chance to socialize and maybe learn something useful.

I had a chuckle since this reminds me of the joke (Family Guy probably?) where a guys says "Hi" and the girl immediately responds with "I have a boyfriend".

@DKNguyen, ah, yes, exactly on the mark. :)

To extend on the 'small talk' bit: "your field might be related to my field" can be a segue to "so you should listen as I tell you about my field/my work". There's no guarantee that this conversation leads to the connection between the fields, it's just an opportunity for them to talk about something important to them with someone they think will listen.

'It is somewhat baffling to me that you think the literal meaning of "your field might be related to my field" would be "let's work on a paper unifying the two fields".' - I must say that, when I read the question title, the very first thought that sprang to my mind was indeed: "Ah, presumably, the person saying that wants to suggest (checking possibilities for) a collaboration."

@O.R.Mapper There will be times when that is the intended implied meaning, sure, but literal? If it's the former, it usually becomes clear during the conversation.

@Anyon: No, I wouldn't have said it's the "literal" meaning. More like "the pretty straightforward (or so I thought) subtext of that statement".

To be fair to the OP, implicature is the norm in social relations. It's arguable that one of the primary purposes of this site is to help those who don't know academic culture decode such non-literal language.

The expression your field might be related to my field is an expression of interest.
How many interests do you have? I hope plenty. Do you have time to pursue all of them? I am sure not.
General rule: no one has free time or free money to give out.

Namely the other person does not always invite me to work on a joint
project unifying the two fields.

Well, the few cases that they invited you to work on a joint project are the best opening to future collaborations that you can achieve. Spend some time (ideally as much as you want, practically as much as you have) to investigate if something meaningful can come out from the collaboration.
It seems to me that you are expecting that everyone has infinite time to collaborate with "just met" random people working in a maybe related field.
Play down your expectations, keep the door open to collaborations, always interpret expression of interest as a "broad" expression of interest and not as a promise of collaborations.


text:
Do arxiv moderators not work on Sundays?
I have noticed one thing that whenever I submit a paper in arxiv  on Friday, they keep "on hold" from  Saturday to Sunday and then accept it later Monday or Tuesday.  On the other hand, it happened that when I submit a paper during Monday, Tuesday etc,  then process of submission becomes much faster. On Sunday and Saturday, the system seems to stop.
Thus: do the arxiv moderators not work on Sundays?

Grad student in disbelief: "Do some people really not work on weekends? How is that possible??" :D

You should assume that most business processes requiring human action will not occur over the weekend or on holidays in the country where the business is located. Even if the business is of substantial size and does have 24/7/365 support and action, it will still often have reduced capability during off-hours and/or off-days where customer interaction might be supplied by a second tier of support and not have available the more complete range of options available to the first tier of workers, who are usually working close to the normal business hours in the company's primary location.

Does this answer your question? Why does arXiv have a multi-day lag between submission and publication?

@Szabolcs Felicitous remark, however, regarding the factual core, in other countries/traditions there might be no entirely work-free weekend or it might be other days than saturday and Christian sunday.

@TripeHound, I don't think that is same  question as mine. It has a subtle difference.

@M.A.SARKAR The questions may not be exactly the same, but the answers there seem to apply to both questions.

@TripeHound, My purpose of asking the question was clearly different than the OP's purpose in the other question. The OP was asking the reason which I am not asking. I agree with you that the answers of  one (either mine or OP's) question to some extent covers both questions but my question is different and we should let it as separate question without creating any confusion.

The exact times when preprints go online depending on when they are submitted are documented in detail on the website. There is also this site showing the time until the next deadline.


text:
Permission on reproduction of data extracted from a figure
I have been studying a recent paper, and wanted to extract the some data from it, in an effort to reproduce it. I wrote to the authors, and got no response, so I got the raw data by digitalizing a figure in the paper where the data is plotted.
Then I made another plot, where I plot  the raw data together with mine on top of each other, to compare them. If I publish this plot and properly cite their paper, do I need to ask them for permission?
It looks like I don't, because this is not like copying and pasting a figure of theirs, but I am not 100% sure.
Please find enclosed the webpage of the publishing company where I plan to publish, which contains information on their policy on the matter. The  chapter relevant to my case seems to be this one.

Can you elaborate on the relevance of the copyright tag?

Figure reproduction is related to copyright, see for example this guideline from Wiley https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292198-3844/homepage/2749_Copyright_permissions.pdf .

You aren't reproducing a figure, you're recreating it, which I think is different. (Does Wiley contradict that? Perhaps you can provide a quote?)

You may be right, I do not know much about this topic, which is why I asked the question in the first place. Please remove the tag if you think that it is inappropriate. Also, I added the specific quote from the publishing company in the original post. May you please confirm me if I still do not need permission? Thank you

I've updated my answer https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/132133/22768

I plot the raw data together with mine

The plot is yours, the data is theirs.

If I publish this plot and properly cite their paper, do I need to ask them for permission?

No, the citation (and suitable explanation) suffices to attribute the data source. Indeed, as noted by the referenced source (under the heading Reuse of graphs/tables...):
...reuse of raw data does not generally need permission, provided you have plotted
it into a different graph/table. You should however cite the source of the data.

Thank you. Do I really need to include an explanation of how I extracted the data from their figure?

Some text has to introduce the citation. So, at the very least, something like, "using data from A et al. [X]."

I see, thank you.

In the United States, factual information such as data cannot be protected by copyright law.  If the data is published, it is not a trade secret.  So you may copy without permission.  However, I suggest you ask for permission anyway, as a courtesy.  The authors should be pleased to hear that you were interested in their data.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Thank you. Like I said, I have already tried to contact them, but they did not reply.