text:
Value of contributions to Wikipedia when applying for academic jobs
The quality of articles in Wikipedia has grown tremendously in the last few years. A "good article" requires a big list of necessities, including coherence, readability, comprehensiveness and credible references. As such contributing technical articles requires academic merit, good explaining skills and mastery of the subject.

How much value is being accorded to doctorates' contributions to Wikipedia during faculty recruitment?
Since, on paper, a Wikipedia article should exposit an article lucidly to a (relative) fresher in the field, can Wikipedia contributions be taken as a partial measure of one's teaching abilities?
How effectively could one list his/her Wikipedia contributions?

I doubt you can claim authorship on wikipedia articles, since the point is that they are community edited. However, Scholarpedia is a good analogue to wikipedia (in fact using MediaWiki) that retains authorship.

Authorship in the traditional sense, no; significant contributions, yes.  Every Wikipedia article has a public edit history, which describes exactly who contributed exactly what.

Contributions to Wikipedia (or Stack Exchange) are best viewed as community service.  Like other kinds of community service, significant and sustained contributions can have a positive effect on hiring and promotion decisions.  The effect is not likely to be major, unless maybe your outreach efforts rival Neil DeGrasse Tyson's, but it won't be zero.
Edit: I have to agree with Anonymous Mathematician's warning.  Significant community service of any kind is best offered after tenure.  Unfortunately, some people view significant service (or teaching) accomplishments as prima facie evidence of a lack of research focus.  (Indeed, the case that I'm familiar with was a post-tenure promotion.)

I have never heard of any weight given to contributing to Wikipedia for any aspects of academic evaluation. I personally wouldn't attach any weight to it either, especially given that many articles have a long history of edits and figuring out exactly who contributed what can be difficult.
If you want to include this on your CV or similar, I would mention it under "Misc." or "Other" or something like that. If you have made significant contributions to other similar sites (e.g. stackoverflow) I would put that into the same paragraph. I would definitely avoid trying to make it appear as one of the major things you have done. Wikipedia is regarded rather suspiciously in general because it can be an unreliable source. While contributing to it could be a bonus, it won't be a significant one.

I have heard of significant weight being given to Wikipedia in at least one fairly recent promotion case; the person in question has a long history of significant contributions, recognized repeatedly by the Wikipedia community itself.

Wikipedia as an unreliable source is a mindset problem. From the time adequate references were made compulsory for good articles, I can sense a significant improvement in the overall reliability.

@JeffE, that's interesting. Could you give some more detail on what kind of promotion it was and how Wikipedia contributions were relevant?

@LarsKotthoff Here's a blog post about such a case. May well be the one that JeffE had heard about.

As an addendum to Lars's answer above, academics place a high value on peer-reviewed literature and professional activities (book chapters, conference proceedings, invited talks, professional workshops you've taught). Non-professional activities, such as being cited in the popular press and appearances on TV and radio shows are nice, but usually aren't big factors... such invitations are only given to those who are big in their field, which itself comes from professional activities and publications, so they're not needed to make a judgement. Personal activities such as volunteering in your community are simply measures of your character. Blog postings and Wikipedia editing would fall in that category for the reasons he states.
One area not mentioned is being the maintainer of a popular analysis/experimental package used by researchers (e.g., MNE, FieldTrip, SPM, or Psychtoolbox; there are hundreds of others in different fields).  These activities will be looked upon as being a contributing member of the community, and are nice to demonstrate, but ultimately have a small weight in the final decision.

There are definitely cases where Wikipedia contributions have helped someone's academic career (like this one).  However, I think it's exceedingly rare at major research universities.
Once you have tenure, it's worth looking into this.  Then your department is already stuck with you, and they are likely to be somewhat more flexible in evaluation.  For example, full professor promotions can be quite a bit less rigorous than tenure cases, and they are sometimes approached from a perspective of "Professor X has been a good departmental citizen and put in their time.  We want them to be promoted to full professor eventually, so what basis can we find for justifying the promotion?"  (This can happen even in departments that would never consider approaching a tenure decision that way.  The big difference is that people who don't get tenure leave, while people who are stuck as associate professors may hang around the department feeling bitter for decades.)  If you've done some unusual community service, then that might be when the university decides to recognize it.
However, I'd be wary of doing more than briefly mentioning Wikipedia before tenure.  It's just not respected or valued by many professors, so the downside is greater than the upside.  A lot of hiring isn't based on totaling up some sort of abstract value for the different parts of the application.  Instead, it's based on an overall feeling you create of being a desirable colleague.  If anyone rolls their eyes and wonders why you waste your time on something, then that will actually hurt your chances.  If 20% of the department reacts this way, you've got a real problem.

Once you have tenure, that is, never.

@StefanoBorini: It's not exactly never, but getting academic credit for contributions to Wikipedia won't be a relevant short-term issue for most people.  I don't think it's realistic to expect it will help with getting a faculty job or getting tenure.  (Maybe it should, but that would require changing academia, which is itself a long-term project.)

What I am saying is that tenured positions are becoming the exception, rather than the norm. Academia works mostly on disposable scientists.

I agree with Lars: contributions to Wikipedia will receive zero weight. It may even hurt you if you try and emphasize this too heavily on your CV, because it will suggest that you are attempting to compensate for lack of more traditional accomplishments.
If you want to get credit for expository writing, write survey articles, and try and get them published, or at least post them on arxiv. Survey articles also won't count very heavily as "publications", but will certainly count towards evaluating your skills as an expositor. A good survey article in a field lacking in one may accumulate many citations as well.

I disagree; see my comment above.  ε may be close to zero, but it's not zero.

you can also post them to wikipedia-like sources like Scholarpedia. I agree with @JeffE that they are unlikely to give you zero or negative weight.

We may disagree on the 0 vs ε, but I'm upvoting just for the second sentence (it seems like compensating for lack of other achievements).


text:
Can I reuse part of a paper for my thesis?
I am finishing writing my master's thesis (~100 pages) and I also just submitted a paper (8 pages) to a conference. Since both are on the same subject and I am an author on both, is it ok if I reuse one page from the paper and put it in my thesis without many changes? The paper will not be published until 2013 (if at all). Is it necessary to cite it in any way?

Yes. It is certainly okay. Indeed, general practice when writing a PhD thesis is to produce a number of publications that add up to the thesis, whether directly (using staples) or by a good deal of massage. Some published material may be omitted and some additional material may be included. There's no reason why this shouldn't apply to a Master's thesis, too.
It is a good idea to cite the paper in the thesis (if the paper has been accepted for publication) and the thesis in the paper, if possible.

The recommended method for writing a Master's thesis in my department is to write a journal paper, slap the thesis boilerplate onto it, and add citations in both directions.

@JeffE: Does the journal paper need to be published?

No, although it certainly makes life easier if it is.  And even when the thesis work is  published, it's often published only as a proceedings paper, with several details omitted; those missing details still appear in the thesis.

(-1) for the moment: We cannot be certain that it is OK as we don't know the examination regulations of the OP. It is common, yes, but it is not allowed everywhere.

"citations in both directions" - it's circular reference and circular referencing will count the same as plagiarism in similarity analysis although not punished the same way. you should reference the former from the latter.

Yes, this is very common.  Indeed, theses are often verbatim copies of one or more published or submitted papers.
I would say you should cite the conference paper, listing it as "Submitted".  You should also check with your university's thesis guidelines.  It is very likely they will tell you how to cite work that is/will be published elsewhere.

While reusing material is typically done there are three concerns.
The first is citation. If it is in press or published at the time you submit the thesis, I would cite it. I wouldn't bother citing manuscripts that are in preparation/under review/in revision.
The second issue is copyright. Many journals and some universities require you to give up copyright control. Most make concessions, especially for articles, less so for book projects. You need to check and read the rules.
The third is being scoop. Putting your stuff in the public domain is important, but it also puts you are risk. Someone might independently build on your research publish your second chapter before you or conduct follow up research which reveals a huge hole in your research.

I have never heard of a university demanding the copyright to a student's thesis.  Do you have an example?

@JeffE http://web.mit.edu/faculty/governance/rules/2.70.html

Daniel, the rules you quote basically state that the only circumstances which the Institute will retain copyright privileges are ones where the student's research has been financially backed by the Institute, or where the student's research has taken place on equipment or facilities "under conditions that impose copyright restrictions." It hardly says that it is a requirement for the student to give up copyright control.

@NominSim: But "financially backed" appears to potentially include every case when the student is paid by the Institute, e.g. as a TA or research assistant, or by a graduate fellowship.  In some fields this would include almost every student.  I am skeptical that this is regularly enforced, though.

@NateEldredge I agree, though in these cases one would almost expect the Institute to maintain copyright privileges, if they paid for it they should get some say in how it is distributed etc. I was just pointing out that the Institute in no way requires the student to give up copyright control (you can refuse their funding at the very least).

@NominSim: Regardless of what one might expect, in my experience this is not the way things are actually done.  Perhaps this would be fodder for a new question.  Also, saying that in such a case the Institute is not "requiring" the student to give up copyright control is like saying a robber who demands "your money or your life" is not requiring you to give up your money.

@NateEldredge I hardly think the student either accepting financial backing for his research from an accredited University and giving up certain copyright control or not accepting financial backing and maintaining copyright control is akin to a robber demanding "your money or your life".

@NominSim: My point is that requiring copyright control as a condition of funding is, in the majority of cases, de facto the same as requiring it as a condition of enrollment.  Anyway, there is a related question here.

@NateEldredge I don't know what institution you have been enrolled at, but I do most of the fund providing to the institution by way of tuition, generally not the other way around.

@NominSim: In practice, graduate students (at least in engineering in the US) do not pay tuition.

@NateEldredge A quick look at PhD theses (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582) shows that it is not as pervasive as I thought it was, but that it does happen regularly. A further look on the web makes me think that MIT is an outlier in this respect.

While many universities accept sandwitch theses, the only thing that can give you the right answer are the examination regulations you're subject to.

There are cases when parts of thesis work are not allowed to be published (in an article) though that can also create difficulties with the regulations.
Usually the university will want to get a paper out of the work in addition to the thesis. So the content being published is usually seen positive.
However, they may still not accept verbatim copy of large parts of the text but expect you to rewrite it so that your thesis is one "unbroken" piece of text written by you yourself.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Identifying reputable journal indexing services
I am part of a committee tasked to create a policy on creating incentives for publications of university employees.  Right now, the highest incentive award is given to publications in journals "indexed in Web of Science or Scopus."  I would like to rewrite the policy so that it is more general, that is, open to the possibility that there are other highly regarded bibliographic database and index services.  I am aware that there are many predatory journal indexing services, and I want to exclude these.
How do I define a reputable journal indexing service?

Would it be possible to reword it so each subject gets to select one (or a few) indexing services that they deem relevant and reputable? So for example for mathematics one could list MathSciNet and/or Zentralblatt

@TobiasKildetoft This question is also about non-topical indexing services (WoS and Scopus are not restricted to a particular subject). For instance, CrossRef (http://search.crossref.org) or BASE (http://www.base-search.net) have a broad coverage.

@pintoch Sure, there is no reason some subject could not name one or more of these assuming those are the ones that provide broad coverage in that subject.

@TobiasKildetoft, the policy applies to the whole university.  If necessary, I suppose I can look for the most highly regarded indexing services in the main fields of academic study, but I'm hoping for a way to avoid explicitly naming the indexing services.

@pintoch CrossRef is not an indexing service (in the context it's meant here), surely?

Plenty of low-quality journals are indexed by WoS or Scopus.  This is a terrible way to decide how valuable a publication is.

@DavidKetcheson I think the issue here is to incentivize people to publish in well-known and indexed publication channels, for the purpose of discoverability. In some fields/places, it is an issue to get researchers to publish in e.g. journals that are covered by Web of Science (instead of e.g. poorly known, regional journals). The issue is then not to "decide how valuable a publication is", but to set a baseline of for instance "reputable, international, peer-reviewed publication channels".

@DavidKetcheson I think deciding on value is a far too strong description - the point is to set a (low) bar of inclusion, not to rank papers. And I do not really see how you can set any type of "quality" criteria - be it peer-review, international readership, indexing, logical coherence etc, etc - without some element of evaluation and deciding on whether papers or venues are worthy of consideration (for different purposes). I don't think there is any misunderstanding here though, just a difference of opinion.

@DavidKetcheson On the point of irreputable journals in WoS/Scopus - sure there might be (again, depending on your definition of irreputable, so you are in effect also "deciding how valuable" publication venues are), but the idea is to set a relatively low bar on inclusion, not to say that all journals are highly reputable. I'm also not saying that WoS/Scopus is an ideal way to select sources - in my answer below I suggest two lists of publication venues that are based on field expert judgements.

I think that there is a critical distinction to be made here between defining reputable indexing services and identifying such services.
I suspect that for most well-established scholars, it is relatively straightforward to identify whether an indexing service is reputable or not. For example, if you talk to a computer scientist, they'll point to DBLP, MathSciNet is a good one for mathematicians as noted in the comments, and PubMed is good for life sciences.  Random predatory anything is usually pretty easy to determine with a little bit of research.
In order to define "reputable indexing service" for the sake of policy, then, I would suggest that it is likely to be effective to have a process by which faculty members can request an index be considered and then a few internal and external experts in the field are asked to certify whether the index is reputable or not.  That way, there's not a formal definition enshrined in policy that might be evaded by technicalities, but instead some human judgement is involved.

Thank you for this.  I agree that your approach might be the most practical.  I will seriously consider it.

I have been using Scimago Journal & Country Rank
It's apparently powered by Scopus.
You can select among different science fields and see the top journals.
Journals are put in categories of quality (can be different for each field in multidisciplinary journals).
You can rank the journals per field or see how a specific journal performs now and in the last years.
You could generally aim at publishing in Q1 journals, rather than simply journals indexed by Scopus and Web of Science.
I hope it helps.

Thank you, but this doesn't seem to answer my question.  I'm looking for a way to identify (or a definition of) "a reputable indexing service."

@JoelReyesNoche I misread "avoiding predatory indeces" as "avoiding predatory journals"... In that case, I could add that a way to identify a reputable indexing service would be by setting your own requirements for such an index, e.g. high citations, rather than (only) high pageviews.

I sounds like you want to identify reputable publication channels, and not indexing services (which can be a source of information on publication channels though). Several countries have produced such lists, and it might be useful for you to look at some of these, or use them directly in guidelines to researchers. These lists are usually created by consulting experts in different scientific fields or having permanent panels of experts that review the different publication channels.
Two such examples are:

Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Outlet Ranking
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers

Thank you, but this doesn't seem to answer my question.  I'm looking for a way to identify (or a definition of) "a reputable indexing service."

@JoelReyesNoche I dont think there are any general way to identify what is "reputable indexing service". Since your aim seems to be to incentivize publication in certain publication channels I instead suggested that you look at lists that aim to include "reputable" journals. These lists usually take indexing in different databases into account, but also other sources of information (such as if journals can be deemed "predatory"). The indexing in particular databases can be a useful proxy for "reputability" but is surely not the only source of information.

If it is possible to have a list of "reputable" journals, then wouldn't it be possible to have a list of "reputable" journal indexing services?

@JoelReyesNoche Sure, I just don't think that there are any such lists. But you can of course create one for your own purpose. I just think that a list of publication venues would be more relevant and useful to your researchers, instead of a list of indexing services (since researchers choose journals to publish in, not indexing services). If you give them a list of indexing services they will have to wade thought these to see which journals are indexed where, and the incentive will be rather indirect. And there might still be other sources of information to determine if channels are reputable

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


text:
How much delay is normal in publication of a Special Issue?
I submitted a paper to a special issue of a very reputed computer science journal. Now as per the original timelines, the special issue was expected to be published by this month with two cycles of revisions. However, there was an extension for a month in submission deadline.
I submitted the paper within the extended deadline and yet to receive even the reviewer comments (4 months since submission while as per timeline the period for first review was two months). During this time, the manuscript was in peer-review. It went to "Awaiting Decision" three weeks ago, but I am still to hear on any decision.
Since this is my first submission to a reputed journal, is it normal for special issues to be delayed to such an extent?

I had a 1 year delay few years ago.

Reviews for periodicals can drag on ... see many previous questions in this forum in that regard. It can certainly sit with the editor for a recommendation for a while. And if a special issue, one possibility is that the editor needs reviews of other submissions to make the call as to whether yours will make the cut.
If a special issue of a CS journal, I think it is common for the date not to match the official publication date. But if a magazine then they do keep to a tight schedule, at least for IEEE Computer Society (where I served as an editor in chief of a magazine). And that definitely does put pressure on the deadlines ... but submission dates and such were padded to allow for some slippage.

From my experience, special issues are rarely published on the announced date. The review process for papers submitted to the special issue should be as rigorous as for any other journal article and thus, may experience all the usual delays (referees not answering, promising a review but not delivering, contradicting reports…). The only difference is that the journal has announced a time frame for the whole process which puts a little more pressure on the handling editors. However, this does not necessarily imply that the whole process is any quicker (also note that the guest editors of a special issue may not be as experienced).
I do not know too much about the usual delays for papers in computer science, but for math, the times you describe still sound pretty short.

I agree: the reviewing process in computer science is often just as slow and unpredictable in timing as in math.


text:
Undergraduate supervisor is way too hands-off. Is that normal?
I'm a junior student at a competitive university in my home country and I major in a mathematical field. Last year, I went to the (tenured) professor who matched my interest and she said she normally doesn't give students problems, but we should find our own research problems and write a research proposal. We had some high-level talks about her work but she didn't give me any list of papers to read, etc. After several months I found a problem and wrote a proposal with a method to solve it. I submitted it and she said the problem was not very meaningful. She suggested I talk to some of her Ph.D. students, which I did.
The first semester I attended her group meeting but gradually chose not to attend the second semester. At that time I suffered from some mental health problems, like very low self-esteem and severe procrastination. But by reading papers, taking courses, and talking to my peers, I cultivated my own understanding of the field and gained a lot of technical skills.
I eventually submitted another proposal, which she also rejected (said it was common sense), but she suggested that I should work on one of her projects with her Ph.D. student (~1-year after I first contacted her). It is an ambitious, challenging big problem, but she said it's okay if we don't get the ideal result.
I did learn (in a rather painful way) a lot about the research process. My advisor will reply to my email and schedule a meeting with me whenever I want, and we can talk happily about technical detail and general questions. However most of the time I don't have something meaningful to say to her so I choose not to send an email. She never sends emails/messages to her students to ask how they're doing and said it is the student's duty to take care of their own research and plans etc.
She says what she is doing is cultivating our independence. I think perhaps I was not mature enough and there was some miscommunication between us at least in the beginning. I'm in general enjoying the research and considering applying for a decent Ph.D. program. But I am a little concerned about continuing in research after this experience. Is my experience normal?

I took a stab at shortening this; very long questions with too many details are likely to be closed. You may make further [edit]s if needed.

Thanks for the effort!

There are very different approaches to student project supervision. I think your supervisor's approach is one that you will find fairly often, although maybe not among a majority of supervisors.
The problematic thing I see here is the expectation that you find your own project topic. It's for sure good to give students the possibility to come up with their own topics, but I don't think this can be expected at undergraduate (or even MSc) level. So in principle a supervisor should also be available who ultimately defines a topic if the student can't do that. Now this to some extent depends on how the workload coming from project supervision is organised. It may be that your supervisor has decided (rightly or wrongly) that she has overall so much work from project supervision that she wouldn't want another student who needs a large supervision effort and a topic designed. Depending on the departmental workload organisation, she may be well within her rights to act like this (and even "ethically justified" if her workload is high). For the students this should be OK as long as they have the option to find another supervisor who is willing to define a topic for the student (I'm not quite sure whether this would've been possible for you).
Personally I was pretty independent as UG student (maths) and my supervisor wasn't very present and had the reputation to leave lots of freedom to the student (and would steer only very lightly), but he'd provide me with a topic. Not a detailed plan but at least directions good enough that I had a fairly clear idea where to start and how to go on (as far as I couldn't then make that up myself).

My advisor will reply to my email and schedule a meeting with me whenever I want, and we can talk happily about technical detail and general questions. However most of the time I don't have something meaningful to say to her so I choose not to send an email. She never sends emails/messages to her students to ask how they're doing and said it is the student's duty to take care of their own research and plans etc.

This is consistent with my own attitude as a supervisor, and therefore seems normal to me. Yes I'm available for helping, but the students need to take responsibility for their own process, particularly deciding when they need help and what help they need. This can be rather fundamental (I'd be happy also to help with "I don't know what to do next"/"I'm stuck"), but still it's up to the student to bring it up.

Thanks for answering! I'm gradually learning what professors think. But he is the only person in my department whose interest match mine, so I don't have a choice.

What you describe is not normal. Research is about the unknown, but throwing students in the deep end with no training or guidance is not good practice.

I think perhaps...there was some miscommunication between us at least in the beginning.

I agree. I think the professor was saying "If you have an idea for a project, I can advise it" and you heard "I am advising you and your first task is to come up with an idea for a project." Since you didn't actually have an idea for a project, nor much an plan for how to come up with an idea, it probably would have been better if you had continued looking for an advisor with a more hands-on style of advising.

gradually chose not to attend the second semester...a lack of sense of belonging..severe procrastination

Assigning blame after-the-fact is rarely productive, but I think there is some on both sides here. On one hand, I don't blame you for the above miscommunication: undergrad students "don't know what they don't know," so the professor should have stepped in once it was clear that you had no ideas and were floundering. Letting you waste years coming up with bad ideas is not good practice.  On the other hand, if you were an absentee researcher with a procrastination problem, she may not have realized you were floundering.

I am a little concerned about continuing in research after this experience. Is my experience normal?

Bear in mind that you are no longer a second-year undergraduate, you have learned a lot. So while your first experience may have been a little bit painful, it is likely that starting a new position with a new advisor will be much less painful, since you now have more technical knowledge and also more knowledge about what good research looks like.

Thank you so much for reading my post and answering my question! However, she did mean "one should reach her with a project plan to do" and the misunderstanding part is I thought it was just finding something interested to work on and didn't understand the potential hardness.

What you describe is normal. Research is about the unknown. Fruitful questions to answer are hard to find, especially (perhaps) in math and math-adjacent fields. It took Einstein 10 years of thought to finally understand Special Relativity. If you can predict the outcome when you begin, then it isn't really research.
Your advisor may be doing you a favor, actually, by not disguising the difficulty. It is impossible to comment on her ability, however.
But you seem to me to have been doing just the right things. Finding and reading papers, looking for possible extensions or alternatives.
I hope that your system is flexible enough to count you a success even if you didn't wind up with results. That happens in research all the time. You follow a thread that leads nowhere. Or where it leads has no impact. Don't be discouraged. I'd guess you learned a lot and gained some insight. That alone is very valuable.

I cannot upvote your answer now. Thank you for reading and answering to my post!

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


text:
How long does it take for the University to send decisions post dept recommendations?
I applied for a Masters in the first week of December. I haven't heard back about the decision yet. After emailing the head of the department, he told me that the department's recommendations have been sent to the University and I should hear about the decision shortly. What could this mean?
The Program's assistant previously told me that the department is running late with evaluations. Any insight would be helpful here!

What could this mean? Exactly what it says, these things almost never have a hidden subtext. See also: How long does it usually take to hear back for academic positions? Why haven't I heard back and when should I follow up?

Nobody can give you a more definite answer than the "Program Assistant" here, especially since you do not name the department to which you applied. All universities have procedures for admissions that they follow, but admissions to graduate programs in the US are more varied. It sounds like there was a glitch in their admission procedure this year, but we do not know their work-flow.
This question cannot be answered, even if we would now the program to which you applied. We cannot even speculate why the chair could not give you better feed-back.

Previously the same head of department mentioned she would consider my application (to supervisor me in the program) Do they typically not disclose if you have been or not been recommended?

That would depend on the rules at the institution. If a department head promises you something, but then the university decides that they cannot admit you, you could cause trouble. So, department heads either are or are told to not make promises.

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


text:
Postdoc wanting to go to industry - need advice
I have been a STEM postdoc for almost 7 years. I am based in Australia and currently looking for a permanent position, preferably in industry. As I have not done this transition, I would appreciate it if anyone who has done this can share their experience, and address my question below.
My question is: given that by having a STEM education one has developed multiple skills (e.g., research, writing, project management, analytical thinking, data analysis, as well as advanced maths and statistical skills), is it an effective strategy to apply to any job that makes use of some combination of the above skills, with suitably tailored resume and cover letter for each application?
I am asking this because due to my time constraints, I am weighing between applying to many industries or focussing on one or two industries and networking in those areas.

I'm surprised that your time, rather than the number of desirable positions that you know about, is the limiting factor. Are there really so many jobs that appeal to you? Or are you desperate and you need to find something ASAP?

With all due respect, it sounds like you first have to decide what it is that you want to contribute in an industry-type job. A PhD in STEM doesn't make yu a jack of all trades. Take the time to see whether there is something that you like to do, do the necessary training for it, and apply. Not the other way around.

You might consider a postdoc at a company or government lab. The former often views postdocs as ‘extended interviews,’ and the experience might give you the opportunity to explore your options and your own talents.

It sounds to me like you should start with informational interviews before starting applications. Your goal in these interviews would be not to apply for a specific job, but to discuss your resume, skills, and interests with people who are more familiar with work in industry and who can help point you to the types of positions you would qualify for (and maybe even suggest specific jobs to apply for).
The challenge of informational interviews is figuring out who's willing to spend the time talking to you. The institution you're working at (or past institutions) may be able to connect you with people; there may be student organizations for those intending to enter certain professions that have industry connections and these may be available to you even as a post doc (or they may at least be willing to circulate your contact info).
Another place to start would be any of your previous academic colleagues who now work in industry: very few people are able to stay in academia and if you've been a post doc for 7 years you have anyone you were a colleague with during your PhD as well as anyone from that post doc period that has gone on to industry.
Other connections are your casual network: friends and friends of friends. Ask other people about their jobs and job searches outside of academia. Ask whether you can have a deeper conversation about your goals and interests, or for people to connect you with others they know that would be a good resource.

Is it an effective strategy for one to just apply to any job that makes use some combination of the above skills, with suitably tailored résumé and cover letter for each application?

Yes, with caveats. There's a good chance the first screen will be from a HR executive who'll be looking to see if you meet their "on paper" qualifications, e.g. if you look at this advertisement you can see that they are looking for:

Preferred 3-5 years shown experience in business development, sales or account relationship management, experience in instrumentation solutions sales preferably in the analytical instruments (Mass Spectrometry) sector will be highly regarded.  A shown understanding of NZ market and workflows is desired.
Preferred tertiary qualifications to be in science with strong analytical science, proteomics, chemistry knowledge highly regarded.

As a STEM postdoc you probably will not have the first paragraph's experience, but you will pass the second one. If the first paragraph's experience is a hard requirement, then the HR executive might exclude you in the first screening and you never make it pass the first stage. Accordingly, ideally you apply to any job that uses some combination of the skills you have, and lists your paper qualifications as desirable.

Now, if one were a postdoc working on developing novel measurements using one of their mass specs (including interactions with field service) you would be a shoo-in

I did my PhD in stem after several years of work in industry. Before I even submitted thesis I got a new job in industry (UK). I applied for a very remotely linked field to my PhD (or any of my previous work for that matter). Now I know that I got the job because they were looking for someone with a broad experience in multiple sectors.
So I would say if you don't like your area and want a change it's possible to transition from academia and from your field at the same time. I wouldn't apply for multiple unrelated jobs within a small network though because you may get noticed in a negative way.


text:
What would a paper proposing a new theory to explain something with several lines of evidence look like?
As an example, suppose I come up with a theory that removes the need for dark matter. Dark matter is a hypothetical substance with many different lines of evidence for its existence, but it hasn't been directly detected, so it's conceivable that it doesn't exist. However, there are several independent lines of evidence indicating it exists, and it's not easy to explain all of them within one new theory/model.
Which of the following is more appropriate?

The paper I write must simultaneously address every line of evidence. In other words, my new paper must explain all the observations. A single one is not enough.
The paper I write must explain one of the observations. Then it can end with "We leave the explanation of the other lines of evidence to future work", and that's enough for this paper (New Theory Paper: Part #1).

Option #1 seems like it requires a formidably large amount of work, taking at least several years to complete. There'd also be a high failure rate, so it would not be easy to even embark on such an endeavor. On the other hand, with option #2, it seems like a natural question the reviewer will ask is "What about the other lines of evidence?" and to conclusively answer that would require doing option #1. Furthermore, I would also expect option #2 to lead to New Theory Paper: Part #2 which says "We tried to explain ___ with our theory, but we couldn't get it to work, therefore the theory is probably wrong", and I'm not aware of any papers of this kind.
If option #1 is more appropriate, are there any examples of such papers? If option #2 is more appropriate, what does one say when the reviewer asks "What about the other lines of evidence"? What about when one later discovers that the theory cannot explain a different line of evidence?

(1) Of course, there are options between one and all. (2) The answer to the reviewer is essentially that the paper concentrates on one aspect. Whether a paper that concentrates on one topic and consciously leaves out other related aspects is publishable will depend on the paper and on the field.

As a non-physicist, it feels natural to me that the more independent evidence there is for a theory the harder it will be to establish a new explanation. I am not sure whether it is indeed a problem or the system working as intended if it takes a lot of work to publish a new theory for something that is currently supported by a lot of independent but corroborating evidence.

Do you work on this alone or with a professor as an advisor ? If you have a professor, then he/she would provide you with excellent advice or guildance.

In mathematics, there are legitimate write-only journals that will accept even the narrowest of Option 2 papers.  The higher up the prestige ladder of journals you go, the more comprehensive in accounting for all points you would need to be.

There's a difference between getting a paper published and getting a theory accepted. You can look at the historical examples of both MOND and dark matter, both of which were new and wacky theories a couple decades ago. In both cases you start with short papers that explain isolated anomalies. That's enough to get published. To get people to believe it, you need a couple hundred more papers (made by a whole research community) which fully explore the implications of the theory. (Of course, the fact that MOND never progressed to that second stage is why it's taken less seriously.)

Or, if you don't like the standard model of cosmology, note that people publish articles advocating its modification in good journals, literally every day! It's not like that's illegal -- crackpots trying to do the same get rejected only because their papers are total nonsense without any real mathematics. But no theory is going to get consensus behind it without a lot more work. Even general relativity took decades to be fully accepted.

Good physicists, even famous physicists, have written tons of papers that nonphysicists often claim are "forbidden". I mean breaking special relativity, going backwards in time, tachyons, wormholes, and even more exotic things than that. But these topics also attract legions of crackpots who don't know how to add 2 and 2. Your typical commenter on the internet sees the crackpots and, trying to argue against them, says that considering such topics must just not be allowed in physics.  But everything is allowed, as long as you do it well. The crackpots just never do.

@Job_September_2020 neither. It's just an example. On a personal level I think dark matter exists, although it might not be CDM.

@knzhou you should write that as an answer =)

A lot depends on the purpose and claims of the paper. If you claim to fully solve a problem, you'd better address the key lines of evidence and appropriate consistency criteria for a theory. (Note the restriction from all to key, as some observations are less certain or carry less weight than others.)
But there is no need to make this a forced dichotomy between addressing all or only one of the key lines of evidence; as an author you should strive to write good, accurate papers that address what you can. Certainly, full agreement with all key lines of evidence need not be demonstrated in the initial paper, rather it may be enough to sketch a promising path forward (which may require expertise you don't have). In general, promising ideas are worth exploring, and are thus worth publishing. On the other hand, if you propose a model of dark matter that can never explain the observed galaxy rotation curves, your model just does not stand much chance as an explanation for our universe. I can still imagine cases where it would be valuable as a toy model or to provide constraints on future models, but any such paper should spell out this restriction.
This is all research, so much is always in flux or unclear. It is thus much more common to write papers addressing some specific properties and to treat them as pieces in a much larger jigsaw puzzle than it is to claim to have arrived at a true resolution. Genuine scientific progress is typically messy and hard to capture in a single paper. There are always future questions to be addressed. This is especially the case if your paper (like many of the most important theoretical physics papers) makes novel predictions.
Consider Steven Weinberg's famous A Model of Leptons paper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967). This short letter brought together many ideas, and unified the electromagnetic and weak interactions. Weinberg did not declare this the theory of electroweak interactions, he just called it a model. And he flagged that the question of whether the model was renormalizable would need further investigation. That question was addressed affirmatively in 1971 by Gerard 't Hooft. Following experimental confirmation of weak neutral currents and the development of quantum chromodynamics, the remarkably successful standard model of particle physics was formed.

Option #1 seems like it requires a formidably large amount of work, taking at least several years to complete. There'd also be a high failure rate, so it would not be easy to even embark on such an endeavor.

Well, yes, nature provides many constraints on what kind of physical theories are useful for describing our universe. This is a feature, not a bug. However, we also don't want to stay trapped in local but not global minima in "theory space", so appropriately disclosed speculative excursions in various directions can be useful. Hence, as I outlined above, papers rarely go to the extreme of your option #1. However, it is a common criticism that the current funding climate and publish-or-perish culture systematically discourage the type of long-term and risk-taking efforts that are needed for truly groundbreaking work. Instead, more and more papers are produced, most incremental or of dubious value. After all, that's what the system rewards.

On the other hand, with option #2, it seems like a natural question the reviewer will ask is "What about the other lines of evidence?" and to conclusively answer that would require doing option #1.

It is a reasonable question to ask, but reasonable reviewers and editors also understand that some aspects will be left for future work. Again, if you can demonstrate your approach is promising also regarding aspects not addressed head-on in your paper your work is likely to be taken more seriously. If there are strong reasons to think your approach will never work in these regards, it might not be worth publishing.

Furthermore, I would also expect option #2 to lead to New Theory Paper: Part #2 which says "We tried to explain ___ with our theory, but we couldn't get it to work, therefore the theory is probably wrong", and I'm not aware of any papers of this kind.

I don't have an example of a paper like that off the top of my head. Of course, there is a bias against publishing purely negative results, with the possible exception of comment papers by other authors. Many other things can occur too: perhaps an observational paper comes out noting disagreement with the theory, or perhaps a new paper is written by the original author(s), highlighting some issue and proposing a tweak to resolve it or an entirely different model. But sometimes a dead end is a dead end and there are no more papers. The citation record can be a helpful heuristic for figuring out the usefulness of specific papers.

I just revisited Milgrom's original three back-to-back  MOND papers. They might actually make for an approximate example of option #1, but I don't know the intricacies of the history of dark matter well enough to tell for sure.

A published academic paper merely needs to add some novel contribution that is of value to the profession, and conducted in a scholarly way.  When putting forward a new theory, it is possible to present a theory that is not fully worked out, so long as the contribution is sufficient to be of genuine value.  A paper that presents a partially-worked theory that does not address all lines of evidence might still be of sufficient value to warrant publication.  If there are lines of evidence that count against the theory then it would be expected that you would disclose these and draw them to the reader's attention, even if you don't deal with them.
Rather than the two options you present, I would recommend you go with option #3: Set out your theory and disclose all relevant lines of evidence on the problem, then state which lines of evidence are consistent with your theory and which lines of evidence you are (presently) unable to explain or which potentially count as evidence against your theory.  You should at least mention all the relevant lines of evidence (and give citation to the relevant literature) so that the reader is given full information on the problem, and so that the reviewers are aware that you have considered the full problem.  You can restrict your analysis to only some parts of the evidence if you wish, but it might be worth giving some brief remarks on part of the evidence you don't analyse --- e.g., are these something you think could potentially be explained in future, or do they flat-out contradict your theory?
Your goal in this kind of paper would be to make your reader familiar with the full problem, and all relevant lines of evidence, and then present your partial theory and show analysis of some of these lines of evidence.  Be open about the fact that the theory is still partial and does not yet include analysis of all these lines of evidence, and be open about any lines of evidence that you think might be problematic to the theory.

Here's an Option 3: state a new or unexplained observation that a new theory explains, but an existing theory doesn't. (If you could only write one paper, a new theory's consistency with existing evidence would almost certainly end up in an appendix or supplementary section.)
This most clearly states how your new theory would be different from the status quo, why it exists, and why it would be exciting and interesting for other people to pursue it.
After all, most people don't introduce relativity by saying "Einstein's groundbreaking realizations were that, at small speeds and low spacetime curvature, classical mechanics are correct."

Let us continue on the example of dark matter. There has so far been no direct evidence of its existence, but it is an assumption that allows to explain certain indirect observations that cannot be explained otherwise. If you have a model without dark matter, it would be necessary that it can explain these observations (if not all, then certainly the main ones) and that there are no inconsistencies with generally accepted theories that have already been confirmed by observation.


text:
PhD in Germany after Dipl.-Ing. in Austria
I did my Bachelor's (STEM) at a German university and I'm considering doing my Master's in Austria. For now, I also want to do a Ph.D. in Germany later.
How are degrees from Austria viewed in Germany - especially concerning PhD applications? I heard most of the German PhD students and professors studied in Germany. Is it a problem that in Austria you receive a Dipl.-Ing. instead of a M.Sc.?
I know the biggest factors for being accepted in a PhD position are the overlaps in research interests of the supervisor and me, grades, and selected courses but if I wanted to maximize my chances, would it be "safer" to stay in Germany for my Master's as well?

I'm tempted to say the most significant difference between Austria and Germany regarding degrees probably is that the Austrians have an even stronger fetish about showing off with their degrees than the Germans... ;-) On a more serious note, re "How are degrees from Austria viewed in Germany - especially concerning PhD applications?" I would be very surprised if any potential PhD advisor cared whether you got your degree in Austria or in Germany. (I don't post this as an answer though, since I'm not in engineering and also since I don't know whether the Diplom could cause any formal issues.)

"Is it a problem that in Austria you receive a Dipl.-Ing. instead of a M.Sc.?" - This statement is false. As most European countries, Austria follows the Bologna process (BSc/MSc/PhD). Outside of the (performing) arts and/or a time machine, you can't enrol in a Diplom degree. Some Master programs in engineering additionally convey the title of "Dipl.-Ing.", which will be translated as "M.Sc." on English documents. But it is literally the same program.

@coffee_into_plots This statement is not entirely correct. In Austria, some places still award a "Dipl.-Ing." degree, even though the course as such is a master's program. See, e.g. https://www.tuwien.at/en/studies/studies/master-programmes/technical-physics/  In particular, the corresponding degree certificate states that it conveys the title Dipl.-Ing., and says it is "Equivalent to MSc" - but MSc is not the actual title conveyed.

@user151413 Huh, fair enough, thought it was the other way round as stated.

The academic communities in Germany and Austria, and also the German speaking part of Switzerland, are so much intertwined that it will hardly matter whether you get a degree in one country or the other. I think academic mobility between these countries is so high that it's not really distinguishable from academic mobility between say different regions of Germany. When you heard that most researchers or professors in Germany studied in Germany, I think what was meant is that they studied in German-speaking countries.
Degrees from Austria would be seen as in principle equivalent to their German counterparts, but of course professors would to some extent be familiar with whether a specific study program in another country is a good or not so good program, similarly like they would be aware of that for programs at other universities in their own country.
Regarding the MSc vs. Dipl.-Ing., you should be aware that the MSc was introduced in German engineering programs only maybe 10 - 15 years ago, so many professors in engineering will still have a Dipl.-Ing. degree themselves!
Overall, if the particular program that you are interested in is of a similar quality than possible alternatives in Germany, getting a degree in Austria will not impact your career options in Germany.
One point maybe is that irrespective of the country it can generally be a bit easier to get a PhD position in the same university where you are doing your master than somewhere else. If you have particular universities in mind where you'd want to do a PhD, whether German or Austrian, it could pay off to try doing already your master there.

Maybe a small addition is that it might matter what the official subject of the master's/diploma programme is: If it is not considered to cover the "right" contents, you might be required to take some additional courses, depending on the admission rules of the place.


text:
I was caught cheating in a University exam. No action was taken but my professor is very angry with me. My main concern is how to face my classmates
I was caught cheating in a University exam. However, no action was taken because I am a good student. Moreover, my professor is very angry with me.
My main concern now is how to face my classmates and friends in the remaining papers.
I think that people have lost all respect for me and think badly of me. How should I handle this situation now?

Can you explain how your post is different from "I got caught doing a bad thing, how can I avoid any consequences of my own actions?"

Regrets are important, they help you to do better in future.  Acknowledge your mistake, make amends as best you can (see @Buffy's answer), make sure you don't do it again and carry on.  Don't ignore your regrets, but don't be crushed by them either - that is unhelpful.  In Japan they have a thing called Kintsugi - repairing ceramics with gold cement, which becomes part of the aesthetic of the piece.  It seems to me to be a good metaphor for life - our flaws are part of what define us, properly repaired they can be a good thing.

"Though no action was taken because I am a good student." I'd say that is a really bad reason for not taking action, I think your professor needs some gold cement as well ;o)

What does "good student" mean? Are your grades good? Have they been achieved the same way as this case now, in which you were merely caught or are you really a normally good student who panicked this one time? Don't answer this here, just reflect on it. The situation is very different if it is a one-off or this is just the first time you got caught.

If no action was taken, do your classmates and friends actually know you cheated? Are you ashamed that now they know you cheated, or are you ashamed intrinsically of your own actions and getting caught didn’t actually factor into it?

If you do something bad, then you need to accept the consequences. You may need, in some cases, to take effective action to ameliorate any negative outcomes of your action. If you have behaved badly in public, or it becomes public, one place to start is with a sincere apology, not a "no-pology", to those witnesses.
"I'm sorry that you were offended" isn't an apology. "I'm sorry that I did the bad thing and will work to improve" is an apology. Make sure you know the difference. The first is a kind of arrogance. Maybe people will choose to give you another chance. Maybe they will require some action on your part.
In a different context I've been in a similar situation. It worked out for me, but not without embarrassment, and not without changing some behavior.

Note also, that everyone has failings at times. No-one is perfect in every way at all times.

A missing part of your apology is acknowledging the harm caused to others.

@BryanKrause, subsumed into "the bad thing", actually. But yes. Make it obvious that you understand the harm caused.

I will adopt the word nopology. Genius.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a
late 14th-century chivalric romance in Middle English alliterative verse.
The summary on the wikipedia page ends with

Gawain is ashamed to have behaved deceitfully, but the Green Knight laughs and pronounces him the most blameless knight in all the land. The two part on cordial terms. Gawain returns to Camelot wearing the sash as a token of his failure to keep his promise. The Knights of the Round Table absolve him of the blame and decide that henceforth each will wear a green sash in recognition of Gawain's adventure and as a reminder to be honest.

Are you suggesting OP wear a Green Sash?


text:
Post Doc position in USA after j-1 visa?
I don't know if this is the right section.
I am a Ph.D. student in Italy in my second year (next year, It will be the last one). I have been accepted for a research internship at Cornell from June to January. Right now, I am doing the J-1 visa "professor and research scholar".
This type of visa is subject to 2-Year Repeat Participation Bar.
If I want to do a PostDoc in the US, I will have to wait a year to be able to do a j-1 visa. I'm a little worried that this could be a big limitation for my career.
At the same time, I am thinking that I am rushing out too much and It would be a nonsense to reduce the research internship in order to have a J-1 visa for "short term scholar" (max 6 months).
Have you any advice?

Are you simply asking whether or not you should cut your stay short (6 months instead of 8), so that you can have a chance at securing a postdoc in the U.S. after you graduate? Surely the answer to that depends entirely on how much you want to do a postdoc in the U.S.! If it were me and if I were serious about trying to find a postdoc in the U.S. after I graduate, it would be a no-brainer to do 6 months instead 8 if possible. (But keep in mind the home residency thing mentioned in the answer of J.Galt.)

Generally, there are two things to watch out for: the two-year home residency requirement, and the repeat participation bar.
The two-year home residency requirement depends on your type of funding, but can be waived if both the U.S. and your home country agree. To my knowledge, there are some countries which always agree (e.g., Sweden, Germany) and some countries who almost never do (e.g., India, China). From what I have heard, Italy is in a bit of a danger zone - a friend of mine did get a waiver agreement from the U.S.'s side, but not from Italy. I heard conflicting things about this, though.
As for the two-year repeat participation bar, there is no waiver for that, as far as I know. This doesn't mean that you can't work in the U.S., just that you cannot do so under a J-1 visa immediately again (see, e.g., the description here). For instance, you could try to get an O-1 visa status, but that is a quite involved process, from what I have heard.
Personally, I would not sweat this decision. If you don't want to limit the length of your stay to get the short-term scholar category, I would say just go for it. You can always bridge the period until you are eligible again with postdoc positions in other countries. And if you want to return Cornell, you'll likely already have one foot in the door anyways.
In any case, I would recommend contacting the international services of Cornell. They know the ins-and-outs of the relevant immigration rules and could certainly give you more precise advice!

Thank you. Yeah, you are probably right, I should not swat this decision. I am not 100% sure about doing a post-doc in the USA, and even if I chose so, it would be only one year or less, and I have already been offered a research grant for 1/2 year where I am doing Ph.D., so I would not be a problem.


text:
Advice on Transitioning from Master's to PhD in the Same Research Group
I am a master's student in theoretical physics currently in my final semester in Germany. My master's thesis is already underway, and I aim to complete it by April next year. Recently, my partner and I have discussed my future job prospects, and I am interested in the possibility of continuing my research as a PhD within my current research group.
I am relatively new to academia and would appreciate advice on how to approach the idea of pursuing a PhD within the same research group with my supervisor(who is not the professor of the group) where I am working on my master's thesis. Specifically, I'm seeking guidance on increasing my chances of securing a Ph.D. opportunity within this group. Any tips or insights would be greatly appreciated.

The answer seems obvious. Have chat with the PI and discuss both your plans and your suitability in that group. The conversation might need to include your supervisor as well and it would be good to do so if you think they support you.
These sorts of things are best done face to face if that is at all possible. But it is likely the PI that makes the decisions, probably with advice from your supervisor. This is a bit less formal than what is possible by an external applicant, but can also be more productive, since people have had a chance to see and evaluate your work. Good luck.


text:
Networking in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics: How to Build Professional Relationships and Expand Your Network as a Master's Student?
As a master's student in theoretical and mathematical physics, I've been advised that networking with fellow scientists is crucial for securing a good PhD position and building a successful career in the field. While I get along well with my postdoc supervisor, I'm interested in expanding my network and getting to know other scientists in the field.
For instance, I've been studying the dissertation of a former member of my current research group who is now a professor in another country. I'd like to connect with them, but I'm not sure how to reach out.
What are the best ways to broaden your network and make connections with other scientists in your field?
What is the best way to initiate contact and build a professional relationship with someone in your field?

Go to as many conferences as you can, even if you are not presenting.
Preferably go together with your colleagues or advisor, and ask them to introduce them to their network.
This is the easy way.
If they are not willing (for whatever reason) you can still go to conferences and start meeting people there. Poster sessions are perfect for starting scientific discussions, and conference dinners/social events are useful for getting to know people from the community even if you don't share exactly the same scientific interests.
Some people start collaborations and "friendships" over e-mails. I never managed to maintain these kind of interactions with people I do not know personally, but I may be doing sth wrong myself.
However when you read a pre-print or paper of authors you don't know, and you really like the method, or you have questions about their approach, do not hesitate to cold-email the authors and ask/congratulate etc. Probably this will not lead to a collaboration from the get go, but eventually you might meet them in person at a conference and continue the discussion/interactions there.


text:
Can I reconsider a grad school offer that I declined?
Can I reconsider a grad school offer that I declined?
Due to personal reasons, I was delayed in my applications to STEM graduate programs in the US. Finally, I directly got in touch with a faculty member at a program I was interested in, to check with him if I could turn in a late application. He was very kind and helped me get in touch with the admissions committee in his department. While the process took sometime I was finally offered a position in their program. But given my personal and financial constraints, it became clear to me that it was difficult for me to move the US for graduate school. I did try to get some extra time to get help to make alternative arrangements to let me move to the US graduate school, but it couldn't happen within the extended deadline that was given to me. But, just after 3 weeks from rejecting the offer, I could finally get help and I am in a position accept the offer.
Would it be appropriate to reach to the faculty, and request them if I could reconsider my decision to join their graduate program.

"but it couldn't happen within the extended deadline that was given to me. But, just after 3 weeks from rejecting the offer"
Did you communicate you could not meet the deadline, or did you went into radio-silence mode?
Are you being offered a paid position in the program or is it self-funded?

It was a paid position. I was initially hesitant if my fellowship would be enough to cover the rising living costs in the US.  Additionally, I needed to borrow a significant amount of money to relocate to the US. I did tell them that I couldn't accept their offer due financial and personal constraints.

Clearly you are reconsidering it. The question is whether the institution will reconsider you after you declining the offer. After 3 weeks they may well have moved on and offered a position to someone else. Or not. Only way to know is to ask.

Yes, it is appropriate to ask, explaining the situation as it stands now. You may not be accepted, but asking is certainly an option that people will understand.
Explain your actions in the interim and be sure you can accept an offer if given.
The outcome is impossible to predict, however, but asking leads to the best possible result. Good luck.

plus, the power balance is clear, OP is no one, so the department will not have a negative impression of someone first rejecting and then asking again. They may even be sorry for already having offered the position to the next good candidate and in that case they may be willing to come up with a plan B (not likely, but not impossible either). If, on the other hand, the same behavior takes place when someone is discussing for a professorship, that's a tad different ...


text:
How much overlap is permitted between a submitted journal article and a thesis?
I'm currently writing a journal article to be published, and the work from this article is basically the entire work of my Master's thesis.
Clearly a thesis is usually more involved and fleshed out than a journal article, but how much direct copying is usually permitted?  Is it okay to directly copy-and-paste an entire chapter (or multiple chapters) of this article into my thesis, given that I wrote it anyway?  At what point am I plagiarising myself?

Just saw the question on the thesis sandwich, perhaps this answers my question.

Here's another similar question.

Generally, many publishers and fields have rules against reuse of one's own text if that use is a (a) substantial; (b) not disclosed/attributed; (c) published.
How these terms are interpreted varies among publishers and disciplines. Most publishers would not consider a thesis or dissertation to be a "publication" for this purpose (hence the still widespread practice of converting dissertations into "book"). However, to avoid misunderstandings and keep definitively within the rules it is good practice to cite one's thesis, and to provide a brief summary of what content was reused and the extent it was updated, in the cover letter and in an introductory footnote.

This answer seems to refer to using parts of a thesis within a publication. The question (as I read it) was about the reverse.

You are in a unique position if you can literally copy-and-paste from your thesis directly to a journal article.  If that is the case, take that opportunity and don't worry about self-plagiarism.  The issue is whether your work has been previously published in some fashion.  A thesis that has been submitted to a university is not considered a publication and, generally speaking, no copyright agreements have been signed.  This is, indeed, your work.  You are plagiarizing yourself when you publish an article and then lift text directly from that article.  If your thesis has not been 'published,' then shape it into a journal article and send it off ...

In Computer Science, many publishers (well all of those I published with) have an automated system of requesting re-use permissions. For inclusion in a thesis, these tend to be 'as published' or 'post-review, but not typeset' which allows verbatim copies. Verbatim as in: insert the pdf from the journal into the thesis.
You should check for your field but might be pleasently surprised.
Please check with your advisor what he allows you to do.


text:
Is it self-plagiarism to reuse my own unpublished material?
If I reuse unpublished work in new unpublished work, would this be considered self-plagiarism?
Examples would be:

Use the same paragraph of text in more than one cover letter for job applications
Use the same unpublished results in more than one funding application

I would usually say better safe than sorry but it just seems silly to state I previously used this text/material in [unpublished work X], in contexts such as the examples I gave above.

Why the downvotes?

For a particularly extreme example, it is not plagiarism to copy a paragraph verbatim from your own unpublished first draft of a work, into the draft for submission ;-)

I think for most people, the cover letter is more or less the same in many job applications. It's a letter intended for the selection committee and noone cares if you use the same paragraph. For funding application, again, you can write the same proposal for different funding applications, so similarities can occur. Again, the results are intended only for the selection committee.

No. Unpublished work is unpublished. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. Given that it is your work, there is no case of plagiarism. I don't even think you need to cite yourself --- what would you actually be citing?
Indeed, how would you prove that you plagiarised yourself?
If your unpublished work has been circulated among other authors and has been cited by them, maybe you can cite it too. But that seems a bit odd.

The exception would be for coursework. Instructors should have a policy on whether they permit you to submit work you've created for or used in another course...

@ff524 Right.  But then the issue would not be plagiarism as such?  I mean, even if it was published it is not plagiarism if I clearly indicate the sources.  Copy-pasting a public domain source with proper attribution is neither plagiarism nor a copyright violation, but is likely not acceptable in the context of coursework.

@gerrit I'm referring to the practice of submitting a piece of original work you wrote & submitted for an assignment in course A, as an assignment in course B. Or even submitting something you did as part of your research for a course assignment (I've known instructors who disallowed this).

Self-plagiarism is attempting to pass off your own words as previously unpublished original work when they are not.  If you are copying text from a work that is not intended for publication, then it cannot be a prior publication, and thus it cannot be self-plagiarism.  Likewise, it is OK to take text from one of your rejected works if you have decided not to publish it.  If the other work is not published but is also aiming for publication, however, then it would be self-plagiarism (though which of the two works would be "original" and which "self-plagiarized" could depend on the details of the progress of each toward publication).
Many pieces of text, however, do not expect the work to be original, in which case you can plagiarize, but not self-plagiarize.  Taking your example: if you create job application letters by modifying a base template, the duplication from letter to letter is perfectly ethical, because there is no expectation of originality in a job application, just for truthfulness.
Funding applications are a funny in-between state.  They do not have the same expectation of originality in text as a publication, but most funding agencies require that you not be attempting to fund the same proposed research through any other application.  Thus, you would be safe to use the same preliminary work text as part of pitching two different ideas (though it will probably need to be customized for context in any case).  Pitching closely related ideas, however, even with different text, would typically be a violation of the funding agency rules.  Since there is a decent chance that some of the same people will see both proposals, it's a fast track to rejection and burning bridges with funders.  Don't do it.

Yes, technically you CAN plagiarize yourself.
According to this page on the Lancaster University's page, for example, they say: "Duplication of your own work:It is possible to plagiarise yourself by directly copying a section from a previous essay you have written and submitting it as part of your new essay."
You need to check the student policies of the school you attend, most likely there is a clause that specifically forbids you from handing in two separate essays that share sections containing the same work.
I'm not sure if this is really what you are asking though, because you make it sound more like you will be paraphrasing previous work within a new context, which I believe would be acceptable use.

Can the downvoter please explain?

I cannot find such a section in my college's conduct guide or policies. All sources I can find refer to copying of other people's work as the definition for plagiarism.


text:
What are the typical differences between doing a math phd and an engineering phd on the same research topic?
What are the typical differences between doing a math phd and an engineering phd on the same research topic?
Take, for example, fluid dynamics.
Does working on a phd thesis on a problem in fluid dynamics, in an engineering program make the problem "more applied" than working on the same problem in the math program?  Do engineering phd programs do any work on theory at all? Or is it strictly applications?

@Magic That obviously depends on what sort of job you apply for.

There is a wide spectrum of possibilities in doing research in either mathematics or engineering. There are definitely people doing research under the auspices of an engineering department that is nearly as mathematically rigorous as in a pure math program.
The only exception to this is that pure mathematics programs do not look highly upon a fully applications-driven project under its auspices: there needs to be some sort of additional theory or analysis development.
But it's certainly possible to do a very highly mathematical project in an engineer department. My own thesis work amounted to algorithm development and analysis, with very limited application demonstrations. While I didn't have formal proofs the way you might in a pure math thesis, the project wouldn't really look like an "engineering" project—and certainly wasn't published in engineering journals!
So, in short, the main distinction I'd make is that one might expect to see more formal proofs and analysis, but no real distinctions in the kinds of problems that are tackled.

On the flip side, it's entirely possible to have formal proofs in an applied engineering project if you're working on, say, code verification. Theorem provers are really useful tools.

Absolutely. It's just that it tends not to work in reverse.


text:
Contributing to a software project vs double blind review
We have added a new experimental feature to an existing software project (e.g. on GitHub), and we would like to publish a paper about it. However, we want to publish it in a venue which uses double-blind review. What is the correct method of anonymization in this case?
I see several ways which all seem to have major issues:

cite the project, clearly state which part is our contribution,
include it as a supplementary material anonymizing our contribution
-> the issue here is that the reviewers will either already know the software project (and then likely know that such a feature has been
added), or they will not know about it, look at it, and likely find out
that this feature has been added, breaking anonymity. This seems to
be the best solution to me, however, since the rules for anonymity
tend to be quite strict, we are not sure whether this would be
acceptable.

anonymize the whole project -> this is basically
(self)-plagiarism (especially if there are  already papers published
about the original project).

do not include the implementation, only the results -> this
makes it less reproducible, and more difficult for the referees to
review. Also it might be still good to cite the original project, with the drawbacks of (1).

This would not be a problem for a normal peer review (not double blind), or if the project is completely original (there are several questions on this site about this case).

Your best bet is probably to contact the chairs. That said, (2) would not be self-plagiarism if you clarify that you anonymize things for the double-blind peer review (instead, the usual issue with this option is anonymization effort). Regarding option (3): Does the venue have an artifact evaluation process?

I think you should submit the article to the venue of your choice, with a note to the editor/administrator explaining that although your names will not be on the paper when it goes out for review, a reviewer in your field could easily deduce your identity from the references to public software.
In double blind refereeing the onus on blindess is shared. You don't say who you are, and the referees don't try to find out. The fact that they might be able to identify you from something in your work is not necessarily your problem.

Try not to use first person pronouns with citations, perhaps. But the final paper will always be different from what goes to the reviewers.

"You don't say who you are, and the referees don't try to find out": I wish this was true. I know so many people who are incredibly eager to find out who is this unknown person involved.


text:
Google scholar search query issue
Last year Economics of Governance (Springer) published an article that I co-authored  titled "Political determinants of fiscal transparency: a panel data empirical investigation".
Google Scholar  appears to find the article only if I search for the complete title or search for political determinants of fiscal transparency. If I enter any other combination of words of the title or the keywords  in the search query the article disappears from the results.
Even more strangely, Google Scholar does not find the article when I look for political determinants fiscal transparency. How is it possible that the word of makes such a difference for Google Scholar?
Thank you!
P.S. I wrote to the journal and they replied that this is how it is supposed to work, but this answer is not really convincing.

I don't think anyone is going to be able to answer such a specific question about the inner workings of Google's search engine.

I don't think it disappears: it's probably just ranked low in the general query results.
If you restrict the search with keywords "political determinants fiscal transparency" to "results since 2017" (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=political+determinants+fiscal+transparency&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33) (note the "as_ylo=2017" in the URL), your paper is ranked first.

Thank you, I checked and the article actually appears at page 23 of the search results. I suppose there is no way to increase the ranking of  paper but wait for citations?

What would you want in a search?  The paper with most citations, or the paper paired with an algorithm-cheating method to move it up?  For straight Google searching, there are (shady?) outfits who claim they will (for a fee) get your page moved up in the search listings.

Well, I was not thinking about cheating. I'd want the papers that match my search query better, but it appears that this is not the way Google Scholar's algorithm works


text:
Can I pursue a PhD while working as an Accounting Instructor/Lecturer?
I plan on becoming an Accounting Professor in the near future. What I was hoping to do was pursue my PhD while working for the university as a lecturer/instructor. I read that many people work as a lecturer while pursuing their PhD, and that many universities offer this opportunity. I also read that it usually depends on your field of study. That being said, my question is:
Is this the case for Accounting lecturers?

What country is this?

United States of America

You may have got things backwards; yes, people work as TAs/ instructors during their PhDs, but they are there primarily as PhD students, not as lecturers (i.e. they apply for a PhD and use the TAship to pay for it, rather than being hired as a professor and then working on the PhD in their spare time). Check job ads for accounting professors and see what the required qualifications are-- that may well give you your answer.

That's not entirely true. For Tenure at most universities, you have to get the highest degree in your field, which in my case would be my PhD. Therefore, I could become a lecturer (like I said before, which is different from a professor), take my PhD part time. That's what many many people do.

There are many fields—including accounting—which offer “adjunct” positions which allow professionals to give lectures while not having full PhD qualifications necessary to be a professor. They’re usually advertised as “adjunct” or “contract” positions. But it’s also true that in many disciplines, such instructor positions are given to graduate students. It’s largely a question of how financing in the given program is handled.


text:
Time conflict concerning the deadline for deciding on Ph.D. offers
I am talking about US universities in what follows.
So currently I have a Ph.D. offer from a less prestigious school that pushes me to decide whether I will take the offer or decline, without giving me any extensions. However, a more prestigious school, to which I have applied, told me that they are still making decisions, and cannot decide on the deadline of the first school (to which I am accepted). Historically, the prestigious school DID admit students late in previous years.
I don't want to find myself in a situation in which I accept my current offer but later the more prestigious school offers me a position. How can I handle this kind of situation so that I am not going to act unprofessionally? Thanks!

In essence you are wait-listed at the other school?

I doubt there are legal issues unless you sign a contract. You are stuck, but may have to make that decision. Don't put too much emphasis on differences in reputation. You can get a fine education at any R1 university in the US. Your career will depend much more on what you do than on the name of the institution you graduate from (within limits). But even if you get a PhD from MIT, your career still depends on you.
What to do depends on how much risk you are willing to take. And, how much setback you would suffer from no viable offer this year.
It is possible that having accepted a slot in a doctoral program you could still back out, just by requesting it. Most places won't bother to hold you to it unless they spend considerable money (effort, ...) after you accept. There is little advantage to the program to have disgruntled students.  But, don't take that as legal advice.


text:
Is the GRE general test score necessary for the 2024-2025 year?
I am an international student from Georgia. I’m aiming to enroll in a Ph.D. program in mathematics in the 2024-2025 year. I’ve already passed the TOEFL Exams and the GRE subject test. Is it necessary to also take GRE general test? Do I stand a chance without the GRE general score?

Some schools will require it, some make it optional, and others ignore it. There is no general answer for the US. It is a difficult test, but my experience was that I did far better than I thought I'd done when I exited the exam. Very broad set of questions. More than most have studied. But the grading accounts for that.

Agree with Buffy. The same applies to GRE Subject.

I think the most general answer we can have, is that given to this related question: Status of the GRE exams for PhD programs in mathematics in 2023

It depends on the schools you are applying to. To be on the safe side, I'd take the general test anyway since you have already taken the subject GRE and TOEFL tests. With all 3 tests taken, you can apply to almost any school in the US/Canada (for a Ph.D. in Math/Applied Math), and, additionally, with the general test you might even explore interdisciplinary PhDs in some of the engineering schools if you are interested. Good luck!


text:
Transferring to another Ph.D. program
I came here to ask some questions regarding transferring to another Ph.D. program.
I am in a top-tier Stat Ph.D. program, under a well-known advisor. However, security problems keep becoming more serious in my college town and I'm afraid that one day my personal security will be compromised. Therefore, I intend to transfer to another school B (from which I had an offer from three different professors in the past). My program does not require attending a lab or any in-person activity. I am still a first-year student.
My questions are:

Is this a common reason for program transferring?
Will my transfer have a higher success probability because I used to have an offer from school B?

Thanks a lot!

How well do you understand the situation in the town B is in?

Good sugg, I will learn more about it.


text:
Is it common to email researchers to "sell" your work?
I recently read a paper with a research direction similar to mine. The paper builds an extension for a class of models that is very similar to the one I've been developing, but the paper doesn't mention my work, which is understandable, as my work is new.
Would it be considered rude or arrogant to email the authors and point them toward my work as potential future avenues to explore for them? I don't want it to come across as if I'm trying to sell my work for citations, but I do think their extension would be interesting to apply to the class of models I work on, but I can't explore it myself.
This is in the statistics/mathematics field.

You never know the outcome of sending an email as every professor is different and they might view such emails proposing modifications/extensions/improvements in their work from different angles and viewpoints. It also depends on how you draft your email and the tone/impression it gives to the reader. I think sending an email does not hurt, but you should also make the intention behind sending the email clear.

Most of the time, researchers are open to collaborating with people working on similar subjects. The reason is quite understandable; very few people specialize in a specific problem, so it's often beneficial to have different points of view on the same subject.
Of course, everything depends on the intention. If you want to contact the person in question, it is important to express your motivation. Having genuine curiosity, the desire to create something new, and sharing this motivation with a researcher should not normally be a problem.

Some people are extremely open to criticism and suggestion while others are arrogant and may take offense, it completely depends on the person. As others have said, your tone is the deciding factor. If you know nothing about them, choose your tone and narrative of the email to be the most flattering toward their work it can be.
If they might tend toward inflated ego or they are a bigger name in the field: make it clear that their work is great and amazing and that you want to know if they think your work could be of use or interesting to their work. This makes absolutely no suggestion as to any (perhaps perceived) lack in their work or that it needs improving.
Just don't go over the top with the flattery.


text:
What is the non-European perception of Marie-Curie postdoctoral fellowships?
I recently posted the above question along with another in the same post and was asked to post this one separately.
I have received a Marie-Curie individual fellowship from the European Commission. As a non-European, this allows me to take up research in a Member State. I know this fellowship is prestigious in Europe, but I'm not sure how it's perceived in other parts of the world like the USA, Canada, Australia...etc. Any idea on this?

This seems very opinion-based. In general, the best way to find out how prestigious X is is to see what the people currently or formerly   affiliated with X are doing.

Seems to be this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108216/can-i-deviate-from-my-fellowship-proposal

Speaking as a researcher in the USA, I would say that Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions are clearly perceived as having significant prestige.
Even not knowing all of the details, one immediately sees:

It's an EU-wide program, and those generally have high competition.
Curie remains widely famous, and nations and organizations are protective of her name.

Exactly how prestigious it is compared to other prestigious fellowships I wouldn't care to speculate, but it's clearly a noteworthy addition to any researcher's CV.


text:
Request not to be named as a co-author on my own paper
In a semi-hypothetical situation, assume that I'm a postdoc at a certain university and my supervisor pushed (forced) me to work on a journal paper that I hated but finished eventually. I say I hated it because the work is so silly, not at par with my previously published excellent work and will be published in a mediocre journal. My concern is that it may hurt my CV and compromise my profile. I should also say that it is not in the exact field in which I have been building a profile.
Although I have finished the paper, can I possibly tell my supervisor that I don't wish to be named on it?

I think many of us have ‘OK’ papers we published, knowing they weren’t great but only kind of interesting. Usually some project we thought would work out better than it did - sometimes Nature doesn’t work the way we hoped. But, you write up the result and at worst it might keep someone else from going down that road. Don’t sweat it, you put in the work.

"My concern is that it may hurt my CV and compromise my profile. I should also say that it is not in the exact field in which I have been building a profile."
I don't know what field you are in, but in most fields, this isn't a worry. Unless the paper is an extremely bad journal (e.g. borderline predatory journal), a mediocre paper on your CV isn't going to hurt. And if there's an extra paper in a related field that isn't your center area that isn't going to hurt either. It will not help as much as a paper in your own exact field from a better journal, but it will likely still help.

You certainly can refuse to be named as co-author, but at this point it's probably easier just to sign off publication, unless there are stronger reasons than you've given.
Most reputable journals have processes that require all credited authors to sign off on publication, so you can't be credited as an author if you don't want to be*. However, this may mean that the paper can't be published at all - your supervisor shouldn't be claiming sole author credit for something that is largely your work, and even a mediocre journal is likely to balk at accepting a paper if it learns that one of the authors is unwilling to be associated with that work.
Publishing this paper probably won't help your career significantly, but from the description you've given it doesn't sound likely to harm it either, especially if it's not in the field that you're aiming for. I changed career and I have several publications on my CV that have no relevance to my current career; I doubt any of my co-workers have even bothered looking them up, let alone passing judgement on whether they're a valuable contribution to the literature.
*Some loopholes may apply. I had an ex-boss who listed me and another researcher as co-authors on a poster and conference presentation, even though he knew we had significant objections to the content. While the associated journal required sign-off from all authors on published papers, this was not the case for conference material. We had to write in to request that the "error" be corrected for the published proceedings.

I'm sorry that you had such a poor experience. I think that you'd be right to politely ask to withdraw your name from the manuscript. However, bear in mind that the supervisor may be offended by your choice, and that person would have to recommend you to others. So, act wisely!

you're right. There may be an offensive part of that.

"I think that you'd be right to politely ask to withdraw your name from the manuscript". Can you explain your reasoning here? The other answers/comments seem to disagree (and so do I), so you may want to give more detail.