text:
Switch from pure mathematics to machine learning as postdocs?
I'm a first year postdoc in pure mathematics (geometry/topology with strong background in analysis) with undergraduate statistics and probability background (with also measure theoretic probability). I also have some programming knowledge in ForTran, C and Matlab, but I never used them in my pure mathematics career in my graduate school for the last 5 years.
In my next job, I'm considering doing a postdoc in machine learning (ML). The reason behind this switch is: I'm satisfied with my pure knowledge so far and have been wanting to see some real-life applications of mathematics, and also keep my options open in both industry and academia.
My questions are:

How hard is this switch going to be? I guess I've all the required mathematics background, but will it be hard to pick up the necessary computer science skills, even if I work in more theory-oriented problems?
What exactly are the programming knowledge I need to master to work in ML?

Is there a website/email-list where I can get notifications on jobs in machine learning? I'm looking for jobs in Europe mostly, but information on the US would also be welcome.

As a curiosity, where did you end up with currently? I am currently considering a transition from math to machine learning as well.

@JamesChung Thank for your comment, but I'll be brief. I did switch first to computational neuroimaging (because of its connection to differential geometry and statistics/statistical machine learning), from where I took an active interest in machine learning as well, and published in the intersection of differential geometry and statistical ML, with application to neuroimaging. Then I worked in industry for a few years, didn't like it and planning to go back to academia, and applying for postdocs/permanent positions in France.

Thanks for the reply back. Right now, I am neither familiar with DG nor ML/DL, so it is inappropriate for me to have such discussion at this moment. (I am merely in math master’s) However if anything interesting arises, then I would appreciate it if we can have a discussion (which is likely to be in the distant future).

1) How hard is this switch going to be? I guess I've all the required
  mathematics background, but will it be hard to pick up the necessary
  computer science skills, even if I work in more theory-oriented
  problems?

Not a problem: picking up the math associated with ML. You've got the right background and you'll find it easy to understand the papers after an initial learning phase.
Potentially a problem: understanding why certain questions get asked and what's considered interesting. This is where mathematicians and computer scientists tend to diverge, and translating your intuition for questions might take some time. But a more mathematical mindset can also lead you to ask interesting questions that CS folks are NOT asking !

What exactly are the programming knowledge I need to master to work in
  ML?

Depending on how theoretical the postdoc is, anywhere from none to R, python and matlab, and maybe even some distributed large-scale learning framework like GraphLab. But you should definitely get some familarity with the first three - ML is a good example of "no problem formulation surviving first contact with the data".

2) Is there a website/email-list where I can get notifications on jobs
  in machine learning? I'm looking for jobs in Europe mostly, but
  information on the US would also be welcome.

One good mailing list is ml-worldwide. Another is the Google group ml-news.

To add to Suresh's answer, some people are born programmers, and can pick it up with very little difficulty. Some people (including at least one great mathematician I have met) are utterly incapable of thinking algorithmically, and struggle with the simplest programming tasks. Most of us are somewhere in between. So the answer to the question "How hard is it to pick up the necessary computer skills" really depends somewhat on your natural ability.

"This is where mathematicians and computer scientists tend to diverge" and both tend diverge from what the scientist who works about the application at hand is intererested in...

Another skill that is necessary if you want to get your hands on real problems is translating between the different languages like biologist <-> CS <-> math and so on

If you are a pure mathematician with background in geometric analysis there are interesting problems in the sub area of machine learning called "Manifold Learning" which requires quite a lot of Riemannian Geometry and intuition. Machine Learning is a vast area and it is a question of what suits you the best.

Thanks for your valued comment, Mashbat. I've backgrounds in advanced Riemannian geometry, PDE, and Riemann surfaces, but not exactly geometric analysis, which deals with more analysis than Riemannian geometry. I've switched to computational neuroscience with applications of diff. geo., but I'd be definitely curious to know more about what kind of problems they handle in manifold learning that deal with Riemannian geometry.


text:
Should a postdoc apply for a tenured position?
I have two related questions, which are similar to my other question
Should I simultaneously apply for multiple jobs in different ranks at the same university?
The first one is say a school is opening a tenure position in the Associate Professor rank. I like to know how the job committee will view the application from a candidate who is currently a postdoc?
The second one is that say the school opens both a tenured-track Assistant Professor and a  tenure Associate Professor. Should a candidate who is a postdoc apply to both or only to the tenured-track position? If he/she applies to both, whether that affects his/her application negatively?

Under most circumstances (not an exceptionally brilliant candidate or a field that is very difficult to recruit in), if a postdoc applies to what is advertised as a tenured associate professor position, then I would interpret the application as asking whether the university might consider hiring at the assistant professor level instead.  That's not unreasonable, since job openings do not always get filled the way the department had in mind.  The chances are lower if the department is hoping for something else, but it's not impossible.
I'd recommend being explicit about this.  If you are actually trying for tenure straight out of a postdoc, you should say so, but it will be a waste of time unless there are unusual circumstances (and it may make you look arrogant or out of touch).  If you would like to be considered for a tenure-track position should the department decide to hire at that level instead, then you should make that clear.

No.  Unless you have proved the Riemann hypothesis or cured cancer, you won't be hired into a tenured position straight from a postdoc (in the USA).  You should apply for tenure-track assistant professor positions.

I actually do know of examples of postdocs being hired with tenure.  They were people with very strong records, though certainly not solving the Riemann hypothesis (or even necessarily future Fields Medal) caliber.  However, I don't think applying for the tenured in addition to TT job will increase the probability of this happening.  This something that a university will do if they really badly want you and are worried you will get a TT position somewhere "better," not because you asked politely.

I would think that in such cases, the candidate would have been actively (probably aggressively) recruited by the university.  I can't imagine that the process started with the postdoc going "Hmm, here's a tenured job posting, I guess I'll send in an application".

I know such examples too but they all fall into two categories: a very strong candidate, or a very fashionable field (like biomathematics). In both cases Nate's description applies.

I agree with @NateEldredge and fedja; I just wanted to emphasize that people who are strong, but not RH level, do get hired into tenured positions.  (In that sense I think David Ketcheson's answer was basically right, but stated a little too strongly).  You're right that likely this is something where the candidate was being actively recruited, but internal politics are weirder than you might think.  As I said, I think it's more significant that whatever happens, it probably won't have made much of a difference where you sent your app on Mathjobs.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Talks vs. poster presentations: Which is better for advertising your research and building research networks?
I'm looking into applying to present at a conference for undergraduates in mathematics this summer. When I apply, I have to either apply to give a talk (~20 minutes) or present a poster.
From what I've read on this site, it seems posters are often looked down on relative to talks, especially in mathematics. However, one advantage of a poster session is that I can have a back-and-forth discussion which is impossible in a talk. I think this is especially important for my research, since the computations in the subject are notoriously tricky and will trip up even experts if they aren't paying close attention to the details.
What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of each format? Which is a better way to advertise my research and network with other researchers in my field?

I don't know if it's just me, but it's a bit strange that you can choose. From what I know, you submit a paper and it gets accepted as either a presentation or as a part of the poster session. That said, presentations are more prestigious and they reach a wider audience. While it's true that you can have a discussion while explaining your poster to somebody, it will only probably be a small portion of people in comparison to a presentation audience. And, if anybody is interested in your work after a presentation, he can always find you during a break to discuss in detail.

@penelope: I've seen several conferences where, in the call for papers, the conference organizers let appplicants choose from a menu of presentation formats, such as break-out session, panel discussion, and poster session.

@penelope: In most conferences I attend, you can choose a poster presentation if you want—and in most of those, you're pretty much guaranteed to get it, if you apply.

See also answers to How important are poster sessions in conferences?.

A slight aside that may be helpful if you opt for and are accepted for a Poster presentation at the conference. Zen Faulkes contributed a great post on Perfecting the Poster Presentation on our blog. His own blog - Better Posters - has lots of tips and advice for anyone considering poster presentations. Highly recommended and very entertaining!

It depends on what you want to do. If you feel like at this point in your research it would be more beneficial to converse than to present, then I'd say that a poster session is the right venue for you. It's true that talks are considered a bit more prestigious than poster sessions, but you really should go with what you think will be more valuable for you, and for the conference attendees.
It's worth noting that you could always do a poster presentation this year, get the feedback that you covet, and then return next year to do a talk, and let everyone know how your research went over the subsequent year. That kind of progression is not a bad thing.
Also, if you are in the early stages of your research, it might not be ready for a talk. When I attend a conference talk, I'm expecting there to be some significant findings. Sure, talks might be more "prestigious," but, if there are some holes in your research, you could end up discrediting yourself. People aren't expecting the same level of maturity in the research during a poster session. So, as I said before, forget the prestige aspect, and choose what is more fitting based on your goals, and on what you have to share at this point in your research.

From my experience impact of posters is way, way lower than of a talk. If you can get a single person listening to you for 20 min with a poster, it is much. Plus, usually, people are distracted (noise, people moving around). And before they can ask questions, they need time to learn what you are presenting anyway. So if you have a choice between talk and poster, the first is always a better option.

Some conferences leave the posters exhibited throughout the whole duration of the conference. Like this, rather than just during the 20 minutes of your presentation, conference attendees have several full days to look at the poster. Given that the audience of a presentation is further restricted by possible scheduling conflicts with parallel sessions, the poster may actually be seen by more people in total than the presentation. With that in mind, talking about the poster(-topic) for 20 minutes is not all that unlikely, as any 15 minute coffee break can lead to such a conversation.

Of course, but still all of my experiences (both as a poster presenter and participant) say that a 5-min talk is better than a 5-day poster exposition.

Leaving aside the prestige issue for a moment, I get a lot more out of poster sessions than talks, both as a presenter and viewer. For the viewer, they can take in the information presented at their own pace, and ask for clarification if needed. If your audience gets lost during a talk, there is little chance anyone will interrupt as the talks run to a strict schedule. Good luck trying to regain your train of thought from the question session at the end. Talks are far too linear in my opinion. The discussions you have with poster presenters lead to a much better level of understanding I find, and there is a lot less inhibition in discussing the results.
All research should always be at a point for discussion. There is no scientific theory or research that should not need further discussion, at the level you get in a poster session. I have seen posters that present quite mature and significant research.
I regret to say that I have to agree that most researchers will see talks as the 'prestige' option, with posters a poor second. But this does not mean talks are necessarily better for advertising your research or networking.

Space (time) for talks is often much more limited than space for posters.  At the conferences where I've been (geophysics/atmospheric science), almost all on-topic posters were accepted (note that abstracts were not peer-reviewed) as is.  For people applying for an oral presentation, either they were accepted as an oral presentation, or they were assigned to do a poster instead.  It may be similar in your field; so try for an oral presentation, and if you don't get it, you may still be able to do a poster.

In the fore-seeable future, in mathematics the critical activity is giving talks, not posters. Thus, practicing giving talks, all the more if your subject has delicate technicalities, is critical. This is not at all any sort of argument against the communication aspects of posters versus talks, but a comment on professional expectations, for better or for worse.
E.g., gritty/volatile/delicate details need portrayal in more conceptual terms, ... or not at all. Even in talks, people often try to use overheads of some sort to zip through ghastly wastelands of unassimilable details... Don't do this. It just alienates and disenchants your audience.
In particular, I strongly think that the "in the moment" aspects of a talk are very, very good exercise for anyone thinking how to portray their work. The extreme case of a "chalk talk" is the best exercise of all, for mathematics, in my opinion, but it does tax performance and organizational, as well as conceptualizing, talents. But dodging the whole issue by the pseudo-resolution of "poster" only delays encounter with the genuine problem-to-be-solved, and doesn't add anything to a CV.

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


text:
Choosing the best fit sentence to mail prospective PhD supervisor
I am applying for a PhD scholarship which was posted on the university website and for that, I am writing mail to the professor. I have written about my background, academics, interests and experience. I want to ask him the procedure for applying for the scholarship. I am not a native English speaker so I am not sure that which of the following sentence would be best for that:
Plese let me know about the application procedure
Please let me know how can I apply for the position
Or if there is another way to ask, kindly suggest.

The wording probably doesn't matter too much. You can simply say "I am interested in applying for X scholarship. How does the application procedure work?".
However, before you send the email, make sure you check the details aren't already online somewhere. Also consider if your email would be better addressed to the department administrator rather than the professor, as an administrator is more likely to know all the necessary technical details.

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


text:
Sharing content from thesis online, before submitting thesis
I wrote some piece of code early on in my PhD. It is not genuine research as such but just implementation of already published paper (no public domain code for that paper exist). Because I spent considerable amount of time on it, my guide wants to include it in my thesis as an appendix.
I want to put it on github as well for which my guide has given his blessings! However I am confused about its documentation. I wrote complete introduction and implementation of the problem and code etc which will go in the appendix. Now i want to put that documentation on github as well. But I havent submitted my thesis yet.
Our departmental policy is that thesis go for plagiarism check before submission. I am afraid during that check my own github repo will show up matching word to word. Is this acceptable? Or shall I wait till I submit?
TLDR: Can portions of thesis be put up online before submission? will it count as plagiarism during plagiarism check?

When are you going to submit your thesis? Is there any reason you cannot wait until they plagiarism check your thesis?

Hopefully few months. I can hold. But I thought submitting code on github before submitting in thesis might help me figure out if any bugs or 'obvious' mistakes are there, which i night have skipped.

If you cite the Github, it's not plagiarism

I can site the work i agree but i can not include the whole user manual verbatim, which i am trying to do here, or can i? I am not really sure of legality here

Ethically, I think you would also be fine. Theses in many fields include content from published papers; GitHub doesn't even count as 'published'.
Practically, it depends on how much blind faith your department places in the plagiarism checker.  Plagiarism detectors should only be used as a first-pass, and humans should evaluate the detected potential plagiarism. If the authorship of your GitHub documentation is clearly labeled, then they will hopefully see that it is your work.
Navigating the details of this in a department-specific setting is what your adviser is there to help you do.  If they've given their blessing, and they are aware of the policy, and they are a good adviser, then I would also expect them to be willing to go to bat for you if it does come up in thesis review.


text:
How to ask for code from authors who have proposed algorithms in computer science?
I am developing an algorithm, and I want to compare its performance with various existing state-of-the art methods. I would like to contact the authors of these methods and ask if they can send me the code for their methods.
What should I tell them? Should I say that I am developing a method that is in some way an alternative to their method? Or is enough to ask to say that I want to do generic comparisons?

Is it correct to assume you are not talking about purely theoretical papers?

Tell them what you told us. You are working on a different algorithm and implementation for the same problem and you'd like to compare to the state of the art. You've read their papers (cite them), and you'd like to see if their code is available for cross-comparison.
If they don't make theirs available, you may have to reimplement their algorithm in your code as well. This latter case is pretty common. There's a chance you might not do this as well as them, so there's some incentive for them to give you their code to get a proper comparison done.

On the other side of the spectrum, some authors have incentive to not make their code available, as they are looking to market it.

You will want to show mathematically that your algorithm performs better than existing methods.
Before you contact anyone, learn a bit about Big-O notation. The real comparison won't be running benchmarks, it will be analysis of your algorithm and theirs.  (The other authors have probably already done their part by publishing analyses of their algorithms, or someone else has.)  So, you probably don't need the code.

Actually I am interested both in performance and accuracy. I already know theorethical complexity of my algorithm, and also the one of the other algorithms can be found in their papers, and they are similar. My point is not to proof that mine is better, but to understand in which conditions (if any) my algorithm improves and in which it is worse, so it is interesting to have an idea, on the same data, of the difference between methods.


text:
how to reply a professor is not available for research guidance

Thanks for your interest. But I am not available for guidance or mentorship.

This is my professor's reply.
I don't know how to reply back formally. I want to know if this professor can suggest my name to his colleagues. I don't how to formally ask him to do this.
Can anyone please help.

What concretely is your question? Are you asking for someone else to write an email for you? I think you know what you want to say, just say it!

Is this a professor at your institution?  Do you have some existing relationship with him?  Or is he a stranger that you contacted out of the blue?  If the latter, this is a flat refusal and you should not reply.

You should not reply to this at all. He has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in helping you in any capacity. This is actually nice of him: many professors would not reply at all, or would make promises and then not follow through.

I want to know if this professor can suggest my name to his colleagues.

Consider just approaching his colleagues yourself. Or, if you have the opportunity to speak to this professor in person (e.g., office hours), you could ask then if they could recommend someone to advise you. But replying to this e-mail is unlikely to have the desired effect.

OP should ask themselves why they think that going through this professor is preferable to talk to the colleagues directly. Do they know this professor, but not the colleagues?

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


text:
How to request a professor who has moved colleges to acknowledge project work?
At the end of last semester , I had taken up some research work under a professor of a different department.
Now , I had been updating him with my progress on a weekly basis until my final exams arrived , due to which I was forced to put a hold on the project work.
After my final exams got over, I came to know that the professor has moved colleges.
So, I was thinking of mailing him the progress I have made on the project. Now , the issue is there has been almost a month since he moved colleges but I have anyway been constantly working on the project.
If I manage to get him to acknowledge my work and  get a recommendation from him, it would be pretty neat. So how do I go about framing the email?

Can you provide a draft of your email so that we can comment? Can you also search for similar questions?

@user2768 Draft of which email? I had been updating him with the progress in person.

You want to know how to "go about framing the email," write the email and show us, then we can guide you.

If he is personally available (different College, same place) then go see him with an update as usual. If not, then email him with the update as an attachment.
But, in either case, also ask him if he is willing to keep advising you on a less formal basis and tell him that you are continuing work and value his feedback. It may be possible for him to continue or not. If not, ask him if he will write you a letter of recommendation then or later.
Actually, it is pretty simple. "Just ask" is usually the right move in these situations. You don't learn unless you ask.
Welcome to Academia.


text:
Full length articles or multiple letters to publish in Journal?
Prior to submitting a Journal article, I had a conversation with my supervisor about whether it was suitable for a letter (max 4 pages) or a more detailed article (max 12 pages). My position was that the core contribution (a new method) could be concisely and completely be described in less than 4 pages, and should therefore be a letter. The complication was that some progress had been made on the application of the method to a particular problem.
I therefore wanted to publish the first letter straight away, and later publish a second letter later dealing with the application. My supervisor didn't like this idea. He said it was "playing the game" to increase one's own H-index, and it was more suited to a single article. I subsequently took his advice to submit a full length article. However, now (with the article submitted over 3 months ago, and still under editorial review) he has changed his mind and says it's "up to me" as to whether I would like to withdraw it and resubmit as 2 letters...
So my question is whether there is any disadvantage to publishing research as a series of short (more concise/readable, and faster reviewed) letters in the same Journal?
(In this journal the letters are also mandated as open access, which is an option rarely used for the full length articles, and may improve findability)

Open access or not is completely independent of letter vs. full article.

You did not provide a lot of information on the completeness, quality, urgency and degree of connection between each individual pieces.   Still, it sounds like that your supposed second letter might not make it through the review process.  Being new, complete and sound research along does not justify publishing as a letter, you have to also demonstrate importance and urgency. And if your adviser think it is "playing the game", it likely doesn't suit to be divided into papers.

@F'x: that is true, however for this particular journal ALL of the "express letters" are open access, so it may make it easier to find than an open access full length article (rare).

@XiaoleiZhu: I would agree that at the state it was when submitted as 1 article, the material belonging to the second letter would not have made it. However, in 3 months there has been some new progress - so it may be possible (although still not as strong as the first letter). I guess I'm unclear on how to distinguish importance and urgency. My feeling is that it may be useful research worth publishing, and there would be no need to draw it out into a full length article after the first letter was already published.

@James By urgency I mean the work will likely affect other on-going research and people should see it ASAP.  Usually "application to a specific problem" for a previously reported method will be hard to be publishable as a letter unless the application itself presents significant value or breakthrough.  Letters are subject to much higher standards than full papers. Once your first paper is out, that will be an application of an OLD method, that makes it quite hard for a letter.

I'm not sure if your referees would be happy if you said, "You know how I asked you to review my paper like 3 months ago. But now I think about it, I kinda wanna split it into 2 letters cause that way I can get the perks like open access, higher H-index, and whatnot. Can you start over?"

The fact that you made further progress after submitting the first paper strongly suggests that you submitted prematurely.  Also, open access has absolutely no effect on the findability of a paper, unless you're submitting to a regressive (and self-destructive) publisher that doesn't let search engines index their metadata.

My advice would be to go through with the submission as is. If you were to withdraw the manuscript you would then have to write the two new papers and go through review for each of them. These steps take a lot of time and effort, both of which you could spend on original research (e.g. use this new method to solve various other problems).
The only case where the resubmittal might be interesting is if your results are so novel and significant that you are almost sure you can publish them in a high-profile journal (more prestigious than the current one). Then again, if they had this kind of potential I guess your advisor would have spotted it...
Generally speaking, having two papers (one of them as a letter in a prestigious journal) is of course more gratifying than one long publication and looks better on the CV. There are however two points to consider:

The results need to be important enough to warrant publication as a letter. In particular, the (uncertain) benefit of having it published must compensate the investment in time and effort (see above).
The "long paper" should contain enough new material to stand on its own. "Salami slicing", also known as the search for the "minimum publishable unit", is frowned upon. Although this behavior is not apparent from the publication list, it can be detected by careful examination (e.g. by the candidate's referee on a hiring committee).

See also this thread for more details.

Sure, I agree that I may as well leave it as is for the current submission. However, my question is in a more general sense (e.g. future submissions) about whether the style of splitting research into letters can be more appropriate. So I am looking for an answer that expands on @XiaoleiZhu's comments above

I updated the answer accordingly.


text:
How to justify motivations for a second master?
I have already graduate from a master degree in Europe (Software Engineering) , and applied for another master degree (Informatic) in Germany (TUM).
I have applied with my BSc. degree diploma and transcripts to the German university. My scores in bachelor is quit good, and convincing. The issue is they have invited me to an interview. I guess they want to know why i am still motivated for another master, while i have one?
Here are my motivations:

The focus of my first master was Software engineering, meanwhile now i am interested to learn about distributed systems, networks.
I am looking for a careers which needs both the  programming and network, and i think this master programme would help me. I am already good as a developer but i need to improve my skills in network.
I have some raw idea over the Bitcoin, Blockchain , and Internet of Things, and i need to be in touch with some experienced teachers who have deep knowledge in this fields.
Germany is an awesome country. I love the language and culture, and i think there are lot's of job opportunities for IT people.I have some basic command in German, and i am going to advance them during the programe.

Do you think these motivations make sense for them?

I don't find your justification wise enough for a second master degree in distributed systems and networks. Moreover, I don't find a real target behind the second master degree other than getting associated with professors and the country.
If your prime purpose is to learn new stuff, you don't need a second academic degree which is very similar to the one that you already have. You can learn on your own. Moreover, you could directly apply for a research degree (say Ph.D.) in Germany instead. This would definitely make more sense. Unless you have some serious career goals to pursue on the specified courses, you should not do it. In my university, my colleagues who have Ph.D. in software engineering are now doing serious research in IoT, Distributed Systems, and Network security.
Ask yourself this question: If you get interested in computational economics after 2 years, would you again apply for a masters degree in the same field?

Do you mean i should change the primary purposes from 1 to 3?
if u want to justify it, what will you write?

@Salman The third point is even not okay. Consider you had a discussion that you have a raw idea on the problem, what if it does not work? What if it has already been explored? What if the university is not interested in that?

what is your solution for this interview? i cannot give up

@Salman Do you have a fully funded scholarship for the full course? If yes, then you speak with them about your possible career goal in the same field such as an extension to a research degree or a job in the equivalent area.

No. The university does not provide scholarship for any one in the first semester.

@Salman You could follow a related question here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2971/pursuing-a-second-masters-degreepart-time-pros-and-cons. Rest depends on you. We could only advise.

Absolutely. You're passionate about the country, you are focussed on a particular career goal, and you feel that this Masters programme is what you need to take you down that path.
If they didn't accept that then I would be surprised.


text:
What sources provide a list of all academic topics?
I'm an STS student, so bear with me; I'm happy to provide clarification but I want to leave the specific application unspecified:
What sources would you consult if you were trying to generate a huge "list of all academic topics"?
I'm thinking it would include all the 'ologies', the 'isms', the 'X studies', all the historical "movements", all the 'subjects' of journals and papers, all the 'big questions' of any given "field".
What other sources, whether vague (like above) or specific (like a URL with some good list items), would you suggest in compiling this list?

You need to define topic first. At the macro level, all topics fall under "knowledge", or some such nonsense, and at the micro level, every published paper and book is on a different topic.
You could use the different doctoral degrees as pretty broad topics. This would give you a list like philosophy (PhD), medicine (MD), science (ScD), etc. A less coarse division would be "schools/College". This would give you a list like School/College of Arts, School/College of Humanities, School/College of Medicine, School/College of Science, etc. A finer division would be departments and institutes within a School/College. A still finer would be research groups within departments. This of course leads to individuals within groups and finally publications by individuals.
University websites would provide all the information you need, although not in a format that is easy to search and retrieve.

A good starting place may be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_disciplines, with the links there, esp. restricting to specific disciplines (e.g. List of biology disciplines); for each field of science, usually there are a few different official classifications of sub-disciplines (e.g. Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS)).
However, bear in mind that:

there is no universal classification,
some are constructed for different purposes, with differently 'catching' subfields and their intersections,
there are many synonyms, e.g. 'biological chemistry = biochemistry',
for may there may be historical bias (i.e. divisions which were useful 10 year ago, but not are out-of-date),
some classifications use descriptive names (one sentence or more), some - 1-3 word tags,
many classifications are hierarchical.


text:
How to present the motivation for a book on mathematical research?
My book was rejected by a publisher saying that my research is "unmotivated". To motivate it, should I solve some long standing open problem? Or are there other ways to motivate publishers?
This is despite I have some short sections in my book which describes my idea of motivation: "1.4 Our topic and rationale" and "1.5 Earlier works".
What motivation (except of solving long standing open problems) are?
Any text online on the topic of motivation in math research?

http://www.math.ualberta.ca/mss/misc/A%20Mathematician%27s%20Apology.pdf was suggested by Terrence Tao in a chat

It would be nice to see more about how your approach fits within the larger context of standard mathematics. Or, to explain how what you do is indeed more general. This is of course not at all an easy request. You might as a motivation for the proposed streamlining of proofs, show an explicit example to compare and contrast your proof verses the standard proof.

I'll re-open temporarily to migrate to Academia. While this question is specific about publishing mathematics, I think there may be similar concerns in other fields making it potentially useful to have the exposure there.

You may be interested in Lowen's approach spaces. Here is a link to a wikipedia article. There is also a book on categorical closure operators by Castellini. Here is a link.

I see several reasons why this will not be published: The work introduces way too many objects that are unfamiliar, AND has not passed peer review. Looking at your book, it has lots of definitions, and one-line proofs, but lacks motivation and flow; this looks more like something that a computer would automatically generate. See page 44 example. It is completely unreadable, and there are no motivations for the proofs. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with mathematical WRITING, not just what symbols LaTeX manage to produce.

What the publisher is looking for is a book that will attract many readers.  If crowds are already clamoring for a book, then the decision to publish it is easy, but that's uncommon.  Instead, the publisher generally has to try to predict whether an audience for the book will materialize when nobody knows they want to read it yet.
The "motivation" the publisher refers to is anything that makes people want to read the book.  You need to demonstrate to potential readers that the material is interesting and exciting, that reading the book will be useful, that it connects to a larger scholarly conversation, etc.
Right now, it's clear that you feel the book is valuable and would like many people to read it, but you aren't giving potential readers a lot of motivation.  For example, in Section 1.4 of the current draft, you write

Somebody might ask, why to study it? My approach relates to traditional general topology like complex numbers to real numbers theory. Be sure this will find applications.

and

This book has a deficiency: It does not properly relate my theory with previous research in general topology and does not consider deeper category theory properties. It is however OK for now, as I am going to do this study in later volumes (continuation of this book).

Basically, this amounts to saying you don't yet know how it will be useful and you aren't connecting it to the literature.  The lack of applications is a serious disadvantage, but not necessarily decisive by itself (some things can be published in mathematics just because they are beautiful or seem like they should be useful).  However, not explaining the relationship with previous research is a major problem.  It's nearly impossible to get an academic book published under these circumstances.
I don't mean to be overly discouraging, but my impression is that writing a book on your work is premature.  Instead, I'd focus on connecting your work with the rest of the field, with the goal of getting a group of other researchers building on your papers.  Once you start to get more citations, you can bring them to the attention of publishers as evidence for a community that values your work and would benefit from a systematic presentation in the form of a book.

A small technical note: "general topology" (even if we add "traditional") is not about complex and real numbers. That sentence alone is already a flag that may worry potential editors. It suggests that you are not aware of what the fields you are mentioning are really about, and suggests that your work is an isolated eccentricity. Not saying this is or is not the case, simply pointing out how your words may be perceived.

@AndresCaicedo: I think what porton meant by that sentence is that the relationship of his "approach" to general topology is analogous to the relationship of the complex numbers to the real numbers.  I think the more serious red flag to editors is the following sentence, which very clearly suggests that the hoped-for applications have not been found yet.

Oh, I see. That's too vague, then. There are very specific relations between complex and real valued theory, and it is not clear other than in the vaguest of senses what plays the role of those relations in the new context.

Now that you have started the field of Algebraic General Topology you may want to convince other people that it is worth their while to learn about it.
Looking through the slides I see lots of words whose definitions I do not know. I have not read your paper and I am ignorant of the terminology in the fields you are generalizing. Perhaps there are theorems in two different fields that when generalized by your techniques turn out to be the same theorem. If you are lucky no one will have previously realized that they are the same theorem. If something like this is the case. I would pick such theorems, place them at the top of each of two columns on (digital) piece of paper and then use your general proof for each of the theorems but use the language of the field from which the particular theorem comes. This way people will be able to see what you have accomplished without learning lots of new language.

What about this theorem for both topological, proximity, and uniform spaces: The product space is the maximal space for which all projections are continuous (respectively, proximally continuous, uniformly continuous). Theorem(s): product of continuous (respectively, proximally continuous, uniformly continuous) is continuous. Also this theorem holds for (di)graphs and discrete continuity. Would this four-fold theorem proof be interesting?

Note that this theorem is not included in my book (it is scheduled for volume 2).

Dear Jay, how can I write my proof in the language of a particular field, when prior to me my "composition" operation was not defined in topology? Writing proofs without composition I would need to split the definition of composition into logical formulas with quantifiers which define it. The proof would become less than clear. This way reading the specialized proof people would not be able to catch my (more algebraic that before) proof idea.

Perhaps. I do not pretend to be an expert in any of these topics. I think you should look at Lowen's Approach Spaces. It may be that there is some overlap with what your work.

I've looked into Lowen's Approach Spaces. I am unable to find a common generalization of Lowen's and mine research. Thus (as it seems for me!) reading Lowen would be not useful for me as a researcher. (I may mistake on this however.)

My answer was an attempt to make it easy for people to get around all the new language. If it won't work it won't work. If Lowen's work is different from yours it's different. He was generalizing some of the same things.


text:
Online tool to convert plain text references into list of PubMed IDs or DOIs
A smart researcher is using a reference manager (zotero, endnote) for citing papers. To import papers into the reference manager is a tedious task.
Is there a web based tool that could automate some of it. Consider a block of text with references below (emailed as free text by a colleague) and the tool would convert it into a list of PubMed IDs or DOIs.
•         Saxon AJ, Ling W, Hillhouse M, Thomas C, Hasson A, Ang A, Doraimani G, Tasissa G, Lokhnygina Y, Leimberger JD, Bruce RD, McCarthy J, Wiest K, McLaughlin P, Bilangi R, Cohen AJ, Woody GE, Jacobs P.  Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone Effects on Laboratory Indices of Liver Health: A Randomized Trial.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2013;128(1-2):71-76.
•         Woody GE, Poole SA, Subramaniam GA, Dugosh KL, Bogenschutz MP, Abbott P, Patkar AA, Publicker M, McCain K, Sharpe Potter J, Formar RF, Vetter V, McNicholas L, Blaine J, Lynch KG, Fudala P.  Extended vs. Short-Term Buprenorphine-Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid-Addicted Youth: A Randomized Trial.  JAMA 2008;300(17):2003-2011.
•         Wu LT, Pan JJ, Blazer DG, et al. Using a latent variable approach to inform gender and racial/ethnic differences in cocaine dependence: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. J Subst Abuse Treat 2010; 38(Suppl. 1): S70–79.
•         Wu LT, Blazer DG, Patkar AA, et al. Heterogeneity of stimulant dependence: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. Am J Addict 2009; 18(3): 206–18.
•         Wu LT, Blazer DG, Stitzer ML, Patkar AA, Blaine JD. Infrequent illicit methadone use among stimulant-using patients in methadone maintenance treatment programs: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. Am J Addict 2008; 17(4): 304–11.
•         Wu LT, Pan JJ, Blazer DG, et al. The construct and measurement equivalence of cocaine and opioid dependences: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009; 103(3): 114–23.
•         Wu LT, Blazer DG, Woody GE, et al. Alcohol and drug dependence symptom items as brief screeners for substance use disorders: Results from the Clinical Trials Network. J Psychiatr Res 2012; 46(3): 360–69.

Output would be:
PMID:22921476
PMID:18984887
...

I don't know about a web tool but Pubmed Central offers a lookup file containing IDs and metadata (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmctopmid/#ftp). These could be used to retrieve PMIDs, assuming the format of free-text references is consistent.

You could use CrossRef
Go to this link:
Paste the references into the box
and supply an email:
If you want PubMed IDs then click the box:

You'll get results like this:

You could then do some text manipulation to extract the doi or PMID.
Note: the tool requires to register your email.

Enter the email address you registered for use of Crossref services. If you have >not registered your email address, request an account. [link to register]

Another option is to use the rcrossref package in R.
Here is a complete example that returns dois and PMIDs for the references you specify. It could readily be adapted to a different set of references. You probably just want to double check that it is returning accurate results.
# install.packages(rcrosref)
library(rcrossref)

# here is a simple example of extracting one ref
ref <- " Saxon AJ, Ling W, Hillhouse M, Thomas C, Hasson A, Ang A, Doraimani G, Tasissa G, Lokhnygina Y, Leimberger JD, Bruce RD, McCarthy J, Wiest K, McLaughlin P, Bilangi R, Cohen AJ, Woody GE, Jacobs P.  Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone Effects on Laboratory Indices of Liver Health: A Randomized Trial.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2013;128(1-2):71-76."
results <- cr_works(query = ref, limit =1)

# Save the references to a variable
# I've used scan make sure you run the empty line after the last reference to
# let the scan function know that all references have been imported
refs <- scan(what = "character", sep = "\n")
Saxon AJ, Ling W, Hillhouse M, Thomas C, Hasson A, Ang A, Doraimani G, Tasissa G, Lokhnygina Y, Leimberger JD, Bruce RD, McCarthy J, Wiest K, McLaughlin P, Bilangi R, Cohen AJ, Woody GE, Jacobs P.  Buprenorphine/Naloxone and Methadone Effects on Laboratory Indices of Liver Health: A Randomized Trial.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2013;128(1-2):71-76.
Woody GE, Poole SA, Subramaniam GA, Dugosh KL, Bogenschutz MP, Abbott P, Patkar AA, Publicker M, McCain K, Sharpe Potter J, Formar RF, Vetter V, McNicholas L, Blaine J, Lynch KG, Fudala P.  Extended vs. Short-Term Buprenorphine-Naloxone for Treatment of Opioid-Addicted Youth: A Randomized Trial.  JAMA 2008;300(17):2003-2011.
Wu LT, Pan JJ, Blazer DG, et al. Using a latent variable approach to inform gender and racial/ethnic differences in cocaine dependence: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. J Subst Abuse Treat 2010; 38(Suppl. 1): S70–79.
Wu LT, Blazer DG, Patkar AA, et al. Heterogeneity of stimulant dependence: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. Am J Addict 2009; 18(3): 206–18.
Wu LT, Blazer DG, Stitzer ML, Patkar AA, Blaine JD. Infrequent illicit methadone use among stimulant-using patients in methadone maintenance treatment programs: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. Am J Addict 2008; 17(4): 304–11.
Wu LT, Pan JJ, Blazer DG, et al. The construct and measurement equivalence of cocaine and opioid dependences: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009; 103(3): 114–23.
Wu LT, Blazer DG, Woody GE, et al. Alcohol and drug dependence symptom items as brief screeners for substance use disorders: Results from the Clinical Trials Network. J Psychiatr Res 2012; 46(3): 360–69.

# import reference infomation from crossref
# cr_works uses the reference as the query
# limit = 1 limits returned references to 1
# I think that corresponds to the best match, but you would want to check
# this assumption
matches <- lapply(refs, function(X) try(rcrossref::cr_works(query = X, limit =1)))

# extract doi from returned object
dois <- sapply(matches, function(X) try(X$data$DOI))
dois

# Use the following function to convert doi to pubmed id
allids <- lapply(dois, function(X) try(rcrossref::id_converter(X)))
pmids <- sapply(allids, function(X) try(X$records[,"pmid"]))
pmids


text:
Referring to myself in my thesis
I am not an English native speaker and I wrote my thesis in English. If in the title page of my thesis I would like to write
Advisor: "The name of my advisor"
M: "My name",
then what should M most commonly be?
My choice for M is "student" but am not sure of that.
Note: The common culture of my country makes me write the title page as what I show in my question. I may very well be considered "improper" or even "rude" if I do not do that, and consequently would incur unnecessary judgements.

Perhaps you are looking for the word, "author".

Ah, the word had once been my choice. But I were not sure about if the word is suitable. So, assuming that you have noticed "most commonly" in my question, do you mean "author" is the right word?

Are there any theses in English that have previously been accepted by your institution? If so, look at some of them and follow the same conventions.

Usually, the format of your title page is dictated by your institution... does your institution not have a required format?

The three institutions (in the United States) with which I am familiar use "by:".  However, the best answer is to follow your institution's format (jakebeal) if there is one.  Otherwise, use a recently-accepted thesis as an example (Patricia Shanahan.)  See my next comment for why this is a comment, not an answer.

I've suggested closing this as "unclear what you're asking."  The definitive answer has to come from the program office of your own institution; none of us can really give you a "right" answer, even though we've tried.

@BobBrown: The question is about the most commonly used item, not about the correct one, so this is clearly answerable. (Also, at least where I come from, there are institutions that do not make all sorts of regulations on how your thesis should look like.)

@Wrzlprmft: You are correct.  I apologize.

As others have said, the most important step toward answering your question is to check your university's rules. They may be amazingly specific about the format of the title page (as are the rules of my university), and they would override any common culture of your country, any advice we could give you here, and common sense.

Firstly, let me remark that, as other have suggested, it is better to check the preferred format of your university.
In case you can't find any, a possible alternative to Author (or nothing) can be Candidate, because, at the moment, you are a candidate to some kind of examination and the thesis is the work you have to present before a board of examiners to pass it.

For any specific thesis, you should check the regulations of the institution the thesis will be submitted to. There are often strict rules about the formatting of the title page.
I've not come across the advisor being listed first. The format I'm most familiar with would be something like the following:

Why there are no Frogs on the Moon
Neil Armstrong
Advisor: Dr Thomas O. Paine

There's no need to write a word before the author's name. It is understood that any title page will contain the title and the author so any name that is not explained as being something else (e.g., "Advisor:", "Editor:") must be the author. You see the same with academic papers: the authors are usually not explicitly described as authors; it's just implicit that the list of names below the title is the list of authors.
Note also that the name(s) of the author(s) usually come before any other people who have contributed to the document. Authorship is regarded as by far the most important contribution.

Appreciating your support! There is something that I have to say. The common culture of my country makes me write the title page as what I show in my question. I may very well be considered "improper" or even "rude" if I do not do that, and consequently would incur unnecessary judgements. But I still appreciate your help. I guess cultural difference takes place and I will ponder over this point much more.

That is a national complex, though I hate that.

@Chou OK. I wasn't aware that there were places that did it differently -- I guess you weren't either! You should edit your question to include this information, as it's rather important. Perhaps you could also include the form of words that is used in your native language.

Simply write (By:"Your name"), that's it.


text:
Discussing time limits in the limitations section?
Is it common to discuss the fact that one didn't have time to do more reading, or didn't have time to elaborate certain sections, in the "limitations" section of a thesis?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I would expect your limitations section to discuss inherent limitations of your results or methods.  So if by "time limits" you mean "we can only run this reaction for 2 hours and then it blows up", then yes.  If you mean "I didn't have time to run more experiments" then no.

I mean our second possibility, something like I didn't have the time to do more readings, or elaborate certain sections.

something like I didn't have the time to do more readings, or elaborate certain sections. -- You'll want to avoid writing this into your thesis.

Time limitations do show up on papers occasionally, in fields where experiments or computations take too long to be reasonable. For example, something like "if we tried to calculate for two more particles then the code would take about six months to run" is usually written up like "calculations for larger systems take prohibitively long times". This does not apply, of course, to not reading enough or not writing carefully enough.

If you didn't investigate something (in work, not in readings), you could mention it in a future work section (if you're okay possibly racing other researchers to do the further investigation).

No. It not common, nor should you do it! As paul garrett pointed out, this type of excuse makes it seem as though you didn't care or couldn't be bothered to do a better job.
I would add also that no matter how much time and effort you have put into developing an idea and writing your paper, it is almost inevitable that there will  be something that you missed or could have done better had you had/taken more time. Even the magnum opus on which you have spent your entire lifetime will be superseded by better or more complete thoughts; this is an inevitable reality of academic writing, and not one you should apologize for.
Perhaps especially as a student, one struggles to find the balance that represents maximum output for minimum time spent. Knowing when to 'let go' is a function of maturity and experience. When you've made that decision (or have had it made for you, due to time constraints outside your control), accept that this might be better, but don't apologize for the inevitable.

"No", for several reasons. First, even if literally true due to external constraints, it sounds too much like one really didn't care enough, or had other, more important things to do. Second, if it's a sort of excuse for not having a better paper, that's both unprofessional and will only make people mistrust you all the more. Third, although scientific and other scholarly literature has manifest limitations, to apparently concede huge limitations at the outset is pathetic.
Even if such remarks are a (misguided) attempt at some sort of modesty, don't do it. Your thesis is not "about you", but about its subject. Personal remarks should be limited to thank-yous and such in the acknowledgements.


text:
How to make clear tasks for students about resolving paradoxes?
Question
When creating questions for coursework, exams, and similar, I sometimes want to task students with explaining counter-intuitive results or dissolving paradoxes, as I consider this is a good opportunity for them to train or showcase their understanding of the bigger picture or their skills to make an argument.
Now, a problem with just asking “Why is our intuition wrong here?” or “Solve this paradox.” is that it requires that everybody agrees upon what is intuitive or paradoxical here. A student may (quite rightfully) consider the correct result intuitive or just be happy with calculating the correct result and noticing that it is different from what intuition assumes.
Therefore I loathed such questions as a student since they strongly depend on interpretation. Can I somehow avoid this problem without dropping the respective task altogether?
Example: The Birthday Paradox
The birthday paradox is that n = 23 is the smallest number such that for a group of n people, it is more likely that two birthdays coincide than not. The number n is much lower than what most people would expect intuitively. I am seeking to ask a question that has an answer along the lines of:

While the probability that a given member’s birthday coincides with another only grows slowly (linearly) when the group size is increased, birthdays can also coincide between newly added group members. The number of such pairings grows faster (quadratically).

Now if I ask the students: “Why is n so low?”, they could ask: “In relation to what?”. Also, they might ‘simply’ calculate n, and I could not rightfully complain that this is not what the question asked for. (Of course, correctly calculating n in this case requires including pairings between newly added nodes and hopefully grants the students the kind of insight I am aiming at. However, some may still apply some formulas blindly and this is not so obvious in more complicated examples.)

Since such paradoxes occur primarily in logic and math, isn't this better asked at mathematics.se or matheducators.se? There are other sorts of faulty intuition, of course.

@Buffy: Paradoxes or counter-intuitive results exist in many disciplines. They may be more likely to be called paradoxes in mathematics, while in other disciplines it’s just considered an counter-intuitive result. As a matter of fact, this problem arose when teaching physics.

I don't really understand the purpose of the question. The birthday problem is a classic in learning probability and teaches the lesson that computing the probability that something isn't true is equivalent to finding the probability that it is. But once that lesson is learned it is a powerful tool. I don't see how you intend to generalize that very specific insight to get to a general question here.

@Buffy: I fail to see how the first part of your comment implies that my question is not generalisable. In fact, the birthday problem is not amongst the actual problems I am dealing with; I just chose it as an example because it is comparably low-level, well known, and easy to grasp.

Let your students debunk a wrong argument
Present a specific faulty argument based on intuition. Then let your students find the flaw in it. This way you relieve your students from the burden to divine what you consider intuitive. They also have a more specific task that cannot be solved by just deriving the correct result.
For example a task for the birthday paradox could be:

Bob argues:

A random person has a different birthday from me with a probability of 364/365 (ignoring leap years, seasonal variations, etc.). Hence, if I am in a group with n−1 other people, the probability that all of them have a different birthday is (364/365)n−1. This probability is first smaller than 0.5 for n = 254.

Find the flaw in Bob’s argument.

I doubt that this helps them learn. In particular, by your framing of the problem you are leading them to think in an incorrect direction. That makes the problem harder. That is quite different from asking them to debug an already incorrect intuition. Moreover, if you do this sort of thing, you need to have some assurance that correctly finding the flaw will let them make the correct inference rather than just being lost. Of course, if is "just for fun" then there isn't any issue. Caution advised.

Depending on the case, finding the correct result may be another exercise, has already happened, or is very tedious and unenlightening. It’s not that I would put such a task in a vacuum.


text:
Can I supplement my unofficial transcripts with missing context?
So I have a 2 page unofficial transcripts I would like to send to Universities. One page describes marks, while the other provides the grading system. Now, since I have studied in an Indian University, I have secured 6.4/10 GPA. While this looks bad on paper, I graduated in the top 20% within my batch. My grading system has D as an average.Here
As you can see, due to stringent evaluation, its ridiculously impossible to score S+ in everything.
Now what do I mean by supplement? This image that you see above is from my semester marks card. However, if you have noticed the 'levels' column, this is crucial to providing context to my grading system. Problem here is that this is missing from my unofficial transcripts.
So, I am looking to attach the scale page from my marks card to my 2 page unofficial transcript because I don't think Adcom is going to extensively look up my University to understand the grading scale. Is this move recommended? Am I going to get into trouble for doping my transcripts with additional information? As far as I know, my official transcripts in a sealed envelope will only consist of the first 2 pages without the scale. How should I proceed with this?

I don't think there is any rule that would suggest it's bad practice to add the scorecard to your unofficial transcript. However, I would say that it is unlikely to change much. If you think it is important to address the grades, I'd rather find a way to weave this into the letter or any other free text that will accompany your application. This is likely a much better way to put your grades into context. Consider that even the percentages tells you next to nothing. In the US system see here a D generally ranges between 60-70%, so in comparison to your table it should be considered better than average? But nevertheless, if you apply will all Ds or even all Cs in the US system you will likely be dismissed out of hand. So in my eyes, a personalized note would be needed to convey the nuances about your grading system.
Of course, I am not sure if your applications offer up space for such a section.

Consider that even the percentages tells you next to nothing. --- I'm pretty sure the OP meant the percentages to be in the sense of class rank and not in the sense of exam/homework/classwork accuracy. Thus, "top 20%" is likely well above the average, since 50% would represent the median.

@DaveLRenfro, I was going by the table VolkoPat referred to here. It lists a D as 'Average' with a Score Range from 45-50%. Just putting up this table is not enough to put the 6.4 GPA into context. Since comparing your score to the 'median' of the scoring system would mean that in the US a D is well above the median?

...  would mean that in the US a D is well above the median? --- In my 2nd sentence I was following-up on my 1st sentence by assuming the OP's use of "top 20% meant that 80% of those taking the test scored/ranked lower than the OP (note I began the 2nd sentence with "Thus, ..."). With rampant grade inflation in the U.S., I would imagine a D would be in the LOWER 15-20% (and for some fields, maybe even below 10%). The table you referred to is probably mostly useless for someone not familiar with the OP's situation, as "Out-standing", "Excellent", etc. could mean most anything.

(+1) Incidentally, I also think putting additional information in the applicant's letter (and letters of recommendation) is the way to handle this.

@DaveLRenfro I don't have any control over the Letters of Recommendation so I might have to adjust it somewhere in my statement. Regardless, I am trying to do whatever is within my control. Thanks for that.

@MarioNiepel Like Dave said, this isn't an accusation but US grades are widely known to be inflated. I really don't think a D in US is within the top 20% percentile of his class, as much as the range is higher than the D in my college.

It is not. But that's my point. You can't point to a scale that says a 'D is average/50%' if a similar scale in the use would say a 'D is above average/60%'. The table is meaningless without context. Possibly worse then meaningless in that it may mislead people to think a D in India is a lesser grade than a D in the US.

@VolkoPat: I was thinking that the letters of recommendation would give an idea of your ranking among other students the recommender has taught. This type of detail is often given in letters, and in those cases where an online form is to be filled out, this information is often requested.

Adding additional information to your transcripts is unlikely to help you.  Follow the application instructions.  You want to be remembered for the quality of your application, not your failure to follow instructions.

Looking at that 6.4, nothing is going to make my application look like quality without any explaining. The rank holder's GPA is 8.0, which is nothing compared to the inflated 9.9s and 10s in private universities.

Providing additional, relevant information is not a failure to follow instructions, unless the instructions said that it's not allowed to add more stuff.

Application instructions will say where to put explanations.  It's not in the transcript.

Most applications don't say much about the transcripts apart from cutoff. Anyway, I have decided to explain this in my personal statement.


text:
At what point does research criticism become academic hazing?
I've been collaborating on a paper with a junior colleague and a senior colleague, among others. The junior colleague is the lead writer on the paper and has done about 85-90% of the research. Junior is an early-career researcher, senior is about in their 60s.
I've been noticing a very odd trend regarding the interactions between these individuals. The senior colleague seemingly has almost nothing positive to say to the junior colleague. They are hyper-critical of their work, constantly invalidates whatever the colleague has to say, and never provides constructive feedback or responds positively to the junior colleague's suggestions. They never try to be constructive and offer alternative suggestions for what the junior colleague's sees in their data, they just say "no, you are wrong". The closest thing to a positive statement they have made was a backhanded compliment.
The senior colleague has been increasingly trying to monopolize their contributions to the manuscript and force out the lead author's contributions. Notably, the two did not mutually agree to be collaborators but ended up as strange bedfellows due to the actions of a fourth party, the junior didn't like the idea but initially said nothing because they wanted to "be a team player".
Several times the senior colleague has actually pulled unpublished data out of their own lab just to be able to say the junior colleague is wrong. This is data that none of the other collaborators are able to cross-verify due to our labs being located in different countries. Notably, this unpublished data only ever invalidates the junior colleague conclusions, the colleague never says "oh yes, this resembles some of my data". Based on the pattern, I almost wonder if the senior colleague is cherry-picking data from their material to do this. The senior colleague does not have access to the specific material we are working on, they are using data from a closely related biological taxon. When the junior colleague pushed back and said (and showed) they had data to support their original assertion, the senior colleague snapped at them and said they had been in the field longer than the junior colleague has.
The junior colleague is getting pretty distraught about the intensity of the criticism and has actually confided in me they think the senior colleague does not like them because prior to this collaboration the junior colleague disagreed with the senior on one of their research theories and according to the junior colleague the senior took it poorly. Notably, that topic was unrelated to the one we are currently working on. The junior colleague is a fairly diligent worker and while they could be wrong with some of their conclusions the extent of the senior author's criticism would imply almost all of the junior author's conclusions are wrong. In a couple of cases the junior author seems to have been right, in some the senior, but I have been unable to evaluate all the criticisms back and forth due to volume.
I have been debating whether it is worth getting involved and saying something. I've been sitting on the fence about this because criticism is a key part of the scientific process and it's entirely possible the junior author could be wrong with their hypotheses. However, it's the broader consistency of these hyper-critical responses and the fact that the senior colleague only ever seems to criticize the junior makes me suspicious if these criticisms are coming from a place of good faith. For the most part, the senior colleague has technically never said anything wrong but the broader pattern is concerning.
At what point would behavior like this cross the line from legitimate scientific discourse and "the data says what the data says" to academic bullying or harrassment that someone needs to step in on?

Does the senior say "no, you are wrong" or do they say "no, your argument is wrong"? That is, are they criticizing the researcher or the research?

@shoover It's a little of both. The lines are blurred and in a couple of cases (as mentioned above) the senior author seems to invoke their seniority to say that they are right and the junior is wrong. It comes off as "your argument is wrong and you should have known better than to make it".

If the criticism is focused on the research itself, then it isn't harassment. It only becomes harassment when the criticism becomes that of the person ("you idiot" and such).
There are borderline things ("you should know better") of course, but some of that should be discounted as just emotional outbursts, not actual harassment. And if the person tries to sabotage the career of the junior, then it is pretty clearly out of bounds. Denigrating the person to others, for example is a form of harassment.
But you seem to be in a good position to intervene assuming you have tenure or its equivalent. You might be able to "have a quiet word" with the senior member, pointing out that it isn't constructive.
I can't judge, of course, whether the criticism is warranted or not. Pushing the junior out of the collaboration is a red flag, of course. But if the research is flawed, it needs to be fixed.

Yes, that's the thing. The research could be flawed, but the indications I'm getting is that the senior colleague might be looking for reasons to invalidate the junior and thus be biased to see error where there might be one. Criticism doesn't necessarily mean the senior colleague is right but a broken clock is right twice a day.

I clearly remember as a young grad student explaining my idea on some data and having a senior collaborator look at me and say “Jon, that’s just bullshit”. And they were absolutely correct, so we could have a good science discussion on what was actually going on. It was not personal at all. Focus on the data, the interpretation, what it means. Being too “nice” does no good to a student - the toughest person to convince should be yourself and they need to learn that.

@JonCuster One of the other issues, not mentioned in the question, is that the colleague does not seem to consider any information the junior author tries to present evidence to support their interpretation. Once the senior author has made up their mind, no evidence will sway them. It really doesn't feel like a debate over the best solution.

@user2352714 - if the particular interaction is going the way you indicated, then indeed things are off the rails. But having contentious scientific discussions without getting personal is possible and even desirable.


text:
Did mistake of doing PhD in a dead field. How to approach postdoc applications with hope of changing fields?
I am a final year PhD in a STEM field. My PhD research field is fairly stagnant with less scope of future growth. I had chosen this topic because I was interested in the field during my masters and did not investigate seriously about the future prospects in the field.
Now I totally regret it. I managed to publish just 1 publication during my 5 years of PhD, and am planning to submit 2 more. There was no scope getting an internship in my research area and while searching for industrial positions, I have found that such positions are also nonexistent. Lot of red flags for a research topic.
I wish I could have been more serious while investigating for PhD positions. I could have done many things differently. I want to be in academia. And I am looking to switching to a different field during my postdoc to make my profile better. How should I approach a prospective professor if I have nothing to show competency in the new field? Is it even possible, if there's an overlap of just a simulation technique between my work during PhD and the field I want to work in?

Are you sure your field is dead, or maybe it's a usual panic attack of an academic that is obsessed with always "being in the cutting edge of research"?

The title may be substantially misleading: it would/could most likely be read as you're thinking about resurrecting the field you're working in by changing the field's attitudes or directions. Reading your question, I think a better title would end "with hope of changing fields."

Hopefully you have fields that are related or close to your field that you can still get into a post doc. It seems unlikely that there is a field that is totally disconnected and totally isolated from every other field. If not then maybe look at doing some courses and networking with more fruitful areas.

To some extent, it's expected that you're not an expert in the field of the post-doc. One of the points of doing a post-doc in the first place is to broaden your research profile.
The thing you should be worried about is your track record - from the prospective advisor's side, one of the most important questions is whether you're able to effectively finish up a research project. If one finished publication is way beyond in the norm in your field, then you should indeed be worried; if it is the norm you may be fine.
The other aspect is to put up a convincing job letter that will explain why you are the right fit -- you may want to emphasize relevant skills and experiences and explain how they will help in the job you apply for.


text:
Justifying past dropping out in statement of purpose letter
I was a PhD student for 2-years. during this time, I did not get along with my adviser, who was psychologically abusive towards me. He left me no chance but to drop out because the situation was intolerable, and working with him was counter-productive.
I am thinking of going back to school as I have not given up on working towards my goal. In my Statement of Purpose (SOP) letter, Do I need to mention/elaborate on the reasons that made me drop out? If so, what is the best way to express them without hurting my chance of getting an admission?
Thanks!

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42217/reflecting-bad-experience-with-previous-graduate-program-in-statement-of-purpose https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80202/how-should-one-address-negative-circumstances-with-past-advisor-in-a-statement-o https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130605/phd-interview-how-to-explain-why-i-left-a-previous-phd

Of course this is a silly quibble, but (as in my correction in the title from "droping" to "dropping") it would be good to convince people of your focus by not mis-spelling things... I'm not at all meaning to be snarky! In some sense, obviously, spelling errors don't matter... but avoiding them is vastly better than not... And, in principle, it's easy to avoid spelling errors, by various devices.

I am not familiar with the statement of purpose letter, but is it completely necessary to mention that you have left a different degree program at all? I am not sure how ethical this is. However, I am just being curious. If you feel completely obligated to mention this, or if it’s compulsory, then I would strongly suggest you don’t point the finger without evidence of the unfair treatment from your previous advisor. This is definitely a very tricky situation and depending on how you address it, could quickly tilt the scales either way.

is it completely necessary to mention that you have left a different degree program at all? — Yes!  PhD applications generally  ask for records from all your previous academic programs, whether you successfully graduated or not.  So even if your statement doesn't mention your previous program, your transcripts will, and then people will wonder what happened, and why you're not talking about it.

The overriding goal in this situation is to communicate in a way that causes the admissions committee to believe that you have the qualities to get through a PhD program, and that you will be someone who is easy and pleasurable to work with.  It is therefore important to communicate in a way that gives cues as to your fortitude and drive to get through the program, and shows that you are calm and able to deal with conflict in a mature manner.  Anything you say that detracts from this could be detrimental to your application.

Do I need to mention/elaborate on the reasons that made me drop out? If so, what is the best way to express them without hurting my chance of getting an admission?

This is certainly a thorny situation.  You will certainly need to give some explanation of why you did not succeed in your previous attempt at a PhD program.  However, unless there is some simple, clear, and objective evidence of misconduct by your previous supervisor (e.g., a disciplinary outcome against him by the university for his treatment of you), it is not a good idea to go into specifics, or make statements claiming psychological abuse.  The problem with doing this is that the committee will have no simple way of confirming that your claim of abuse is accurate, and it will therefore naturally give rise to the alternative possibility that you are just extremely sensitive, and perceive psychological abuse in ordinary supervisory activity.  I am not suggesting this is the case, but just bear in mind that the committee will not have any way of confirming your assertions, so they might consider this to raise a risk for them.
In this kind of situation, assuming there is no simple, clear, and objective evidence of misconduct by your previous supervisor that you can cite, I recommend that you include a short statement to the effect that your relationship with your previous supervisor was "not a good fit", and this hindered your progress.  The committee is likely to "read between the lines" and understand that there was some problem between you and your previous supervisor, so by understating the problem (e.g., saying it was "not a good fit" without blaming anyone), you signal that you are a person who can roll with the punches.
If you get an interview for a prospective PhD candidature, be prepared to field follow-up questions about this issue.  I would recommend preparing some verbal answers that take the same understated tone, but also be prepared to give full disclosure in a calm and measured way if pressed on the issue.  If this comes up, you again want to communicate that there was a good reason for your previous failure to complete, but you have the fortitude to talk about it in a calm and non-accusatory manner.


text:
How should I respond to a prospective postdoc PI that postpones his decision about my application?
All of the items on my application for a postdoc position was completed around 2 weeks ago. The prospective PI told me he will take a look over everything and gets back to me in a day or two, he did not get back to me and I sent a follow up email, he replied very quickly with a nice message and said he could not take a look and I should remind him again on the weekend. I reminded him over the weekend and he got back to the Monday afterwards, he again sent a nice message and apologized and said he still could not take a look but he will do it today or tomorrow, but it did not happen. I again send a follow up email on Thursday and he replied to me quickly and said he is just left behind and he needs to take a look over everything just one more time and that he will do it the same day, however he did not get back to me. How should I navigate this situation? Is this good sign or a bad sign? Any tips on how to follow up? Thank you!

That sounds like a bad sign.

Repaired obvious and distracting typo in title...

It's a bad sign in the sense that it's not unreasonable to expect that if you do get the job, he'll behave in the same way for any paperwork you need him to do. That will quickly become very frustrating when writing papers, submitting the next job application etc...

My guess is that he is just incredibly busy. I'd suggest you be patient for a bit. Don't give up on other opportunities and he should respond in time.
However, also take a look at what this might mean for the long run. Being very busy can be good or bad. Sometimes it implies productivity which can benefit you.
But unless you have a reason to need to know quickly, let it go for a bit.

He is a famous researcher, 17K+ citations and I believe he is very busy! How long do you think I should wait before following up? Is it possible that I sabotage my application by doing that? thanks!

At some point the emails become a nuisance. It seems like a lot of email for a two week period. Give it a week at least. Try to relax.

and I should remind him again on the weekend.

Huge red flag, potential PI is a person that think he will do whatever unrealistic goal of the week by Friday noon, then understands they will not manage, so why not extend the working days to the weekend (just for this one time, of course ... which translates to "hey, sometimes I work on the weekend, but I care for my personal wellbeing and I do so only once per week!").
Potential PI is putting his/her own free-time below your anxiety for getting considered for a Postdoc position ... 3 months working with they and they would unconsciounsly expect the same from you.
Do not follow up, let the process go on its own, my reccomendation is to consider any submitted application to job/academic position/research grants as rejected unless proven contrary ... I know that statistically I am right, plus it will leave you constantly thinking for a realistic plan B/C/D/.../Z which is the only sane thing to do in an high-risk (in terms of opportunities and satisfaction) working environment as the academia.


text:
In PhD admission is research internship or a job in a research lab better?
If I hope to enroll in a Computer Science PhD program in a top tier university (Stanford/CMU) and I currently hold a master's degree (without publication). Is a year-long Research Software development job at a reputable R&D Lab (Microsoft research lab at my country for example) or a short-term research internship at a good lab that may get my name on a paper in a good journal?
Of course you may assume I cannot do both.

A year-long job at MSR would hopefully also give you at least one good paper, right?

I'm not sure about that, I haven't yet get the offer but I'm trying to compare alternatives to prepare for the path I will choose @xLeitix

I think you do not have certainty that a good paper comes out in either of the options, and I am not convinced that the probability is necessarily larger in either of them. The guys I know at MSR publish a lot of good stuff, more than many academic labs I know.

I edited your title, to make explicit that you are not talking just about any job here.

To expand a bit on my comments:

In PhD admission is research internship or a job [at a research lab] better?

Whatever you think gives you a better research profile at the end.
If you get a job at a strong research lab like Microsoft Research (MSR), you will typically also write strong papers, collaborate tightly with academics, and go to conferences. Hence, many of the advantages you would hope for from a research internship you would also get with a job at a good research lab. That being said, you may also get swamped with tasks more focused on "transfer" or productisation tasks, which are likely still valuable for PhD admissions, but arguably less so than actual research papers.
That being said, I am wondering whether you are (without a PhD) actually competitive for a job at a good research lab. As far as I know, these labs typically hire primarily at postdoc level and beyond.

Thanks a lot for the reply, In fact - as I stated above - The job is "Research Software developer" and they require bachelor's at least and (MSc or PhD preferred). I haven't known yet exactly if I will participate or not in writing papers.

@Magellanea Clear that up front, and decide based on this info. Also clear up front whether it makes sense to apply without PhD if it is preferred.


text:
Is it a good academic practice to tell the reader in the introduction what the essay is about directly?
Is it academic to tell the reader in the introduction what the essay is about directly?
For example, after some introductory ideas, you tell the the reader this essay or section discusses so and so.
Or should the writer end the introduction with the thesis statement that indirectly tells the reader what the essay is about?

Whats the point of writing if you need to want to make it cryptic :P.

What does "Is it academic" mean?

@JeffE: I think it means "Is it a good academic practice...".  (And not, e.g. "having no practical or useful significance".)

I'm not sure what you mean by "essay", but for an academic paper in general, the reader should be told a minimum of four times what the paper is about and what your contribution is. This should be stated in (1) the title, (2) the abstract, (3) the introduction, and (4) the conclusion.
That is a typical North American style. In some academic cultures, such as Northern Europe where I'm sitting, it's common to not do any of that. In a typical paper here, you can read all of the four parts mentioned above and still have no idea what the author is bringing to the table. You're guaranteed to annoy many readers that way.
So my answer to your question is: Tell the reader as soon as possible what the point and punchline of your paper is. The reader doesn't want a mystery novel, he wants to know as soon as possible whether your paper is worth reading.

In some fields of academia it is very uncommon for papers to have a "conclusion" section: in my field -- mathematics -- it is much more common that the last line of your paper is the last line of the proof of the last theorem of your paper.  When I was younger, I used to end many of my papers with a "further work" section, but (unfortunately, I suspect) even that kind of conclusion is not that well received by referees, since it is more speculative and less verifiably contentful than what a "serious math paper" should contain.

I certainly agree with "Tell the reader as soon as possible what the point and punchline of your paper is. The reader doesn't want a mystery novel, he wants to know as soon as possible whether your paper is worth reading."  I think this is much of the virtue of having an abstract: it allows you to spill the beans right away, which frees you up to tell "the story of your paper" in a more extended way in the introduction.  Nevertheless I often find myself (re)rewriting introductions so as to come to the point more quickly: it is not so easy to properly explain yourself!

@Sverre as a physicist working on biology in Sweden, I do have to say many times what I am doing. In multidisciplinary fields one has to go easy, as the culture is very varied.

@PeteL.Clark But again, it's pretty much the standard where I am to use the abstract to say things like "There is much to say about topic X. I will discuss it". So we still have no idea what the author's contribution is. So having an abstract does not in of itself guarantee that the author will tell you the essence of the paper.

@Sverre: "So having an abstract does not in of itself guarantee that the author will tell you the essence of the paper." Yes, that's true: sometimes you can't reveal the essence of the paper in one paragraph.  In my view it's good that the abstract and the introduction both exist.

There are many ways to structure an introduction. However, in the context of psychology I am familiar with the two broad approaches you mention to writing an introduction.
In psychology, students are often taught to write lab reports using an hour glass structure where they start broad and then narrow in gradually into stating aims and hypotheses at the end of the introduction. This structure can really annoying to read, because the purpose of the paper is not immediately clear.
Personally, I prefer the opening-body-currentstudy structure for an introduction.
Specifically, the opening section of the introduction contains around three paragraphs that cover the importance of the work, a little context, a little bit of the gap, and importantly the aims of the paper. The introduction then reviews relevant literature, and culminates in a statement of a brief description of the current study (see here for a little more discussion). Thus, in the opening few paragraphs, you might have a paragraph that begins: "The purpose of this paper is..."
The general principle is: Make it easy for the reviewer/reader to see what is the novel contribution of the paper.


text:
Is it ethical for the postdoc to be listed as a co-author and the corresponding author on all group publications?
Is it the usual practice in your discipline for the postdoc in the group to be placed as co-author as well as a corresponding author on all publications that are written by the PhD students in the group?
For some publications, the postdoc provides input and advice, and for others none whatsoever. The reasoning behind this practice is that the postdoc needs publications for his academic career. However, the PhD students that do 95% of the work in some cases, are the only ones able to answer scientific questions. As a consequence, emails are prepared for the postdoc by the PhD students, and sent out under the name of the postdoc.
Is this a standard practice in your field of research?

This seems unethical bordering on the ridiculous.

If you are still the first author, I think there is no harm to have his name, providing there is not so many postdoc.

@bingung "no harm to you" is not the same as "ethical"

@bingung The longer an author list, the more diluted every single author's contribution becomes, so it does harm you. It's obviously unethical too.

Sometimes my colleague paper ended up with some authors we have never heard of…and I think sometimes whether include one's name in a paper is quite political. As students, they tend to avoid arguing with the supervisor 'why include this guy name' as long as they are the first author. I think this is not alright, but people just get used to it.

As someone not in academia, this question scares me a little. I always thought phdcomics was just exaggerating about these things.

Were you truly in doubt as to whether passing off others' academic expertise as your own is an ethical practice?

I come from a field that is rather (let's call it) pragmatic about co-authorship, and I have never heard of a postdoc automatically being a co-author of papers. Sure, sometimes the input of the postdoc is not extremely large, but having a postdoc as a default co-author of each paper irrespective of contribution seems very uncommon to me.

The reasoning behind this practice is that the postdoc needs publications for his academic career.

Who cares? The same is true for you. If he cannot write papers himself or actually advise students that write good papers (not the same as just being on a paper without contribution), he should not be able to progress his career.

As a consequence, emails are prepared for the postdoc by the PhD students, and sent out under the name of the postdoc.

That's ridiculous. Don't do that (either for a postdoc or a professor). If they are not able to answer questions about a paper, they need to at least be honest enough to defer to the person that can. Pretending like the postdoc is the real brain behind a paper is certainly not ethical.

Is this a standard practice in your field of research?

Nope. Never heard of that, and Applied CS is certainly not a field that is well-known for its die-hard adherence to ethical guidelines re: co-authorship.

+1 for Who cares? If he cannot write papers himself or actually advise students that write good papers, he should not be able to progress his career.


text:
What does archival contribution in journals mean?
When I submitted my manuscript for publication in a journal, the editor rejected it with the comment "not enough archival contribution".
Please help me by saying what he meant.

What field is this?  If it is engineering or technology related, then the editor is concerned that your contribution will quickly be made obsolete because of the fast changes in these fields.

Presumably, he simply meant that your paper does not have enough long-lasting contribution to your field of study. That is, there either is too little contribution at all, or the editor assumed that your paper only has a very temporary contribution which will be outdated soon.