text:
How can a non-professional researcher get to test ideas experimentally?
I'm not professional scientist. I work a normal job and don't make my living out of science. In fact I have never gained any money by doing science. However, I have my scientific ideas, I browse journals, collect publications and am trying to built a research program on my own. I have been doing it for years and I believe I have reached a point where I can propose something very interesting to the professional communities in several fields of science, as well as philosophy.
The problem is I'm not affiliated with anyone and don't have PhDs. I want to attract attention from professionals and even get some of the experiments I could propose done. I even don't wish to do them themselves and get money for my efforts-I just want to see am I right? I have been making advances to various journals and this site's communities in the last year or so and I think I might got to publish something soon (in a year or so), however it will most likely be in a philosophical or theoretic journal and I will be still pretty far away from experimental verification.
So, my question is, if I don't have access to any funds but want to see am I right or not what are my options to actually get someone to test my predictions and do experiments based on my ideas (or as I would like or call them-blueprints)? How can I reach a community without the needed background?

Your title is about getting published as a non-professional, and we already have questions about that. Your question body seems to be about finding someone who would execute the experiments you thought of. This seems to be an entirely different question, and one that might not be a duplicate of an existing one. Please clarify and align title and body.

I edited the title to better reflect the body of the question. (The question in the previous title would have been a duplicate; see Does one need to be affiliated with a university to publish papers? and related questions.)

Which field are you in?

@Davidmh , it's really complicated to explain, but nevertheless I will give it a try. For me all of Nature is 1, so there aren't any fields by the Nature of them. They are only man-made constructions. My primarily field (the one I have the background and degree to work in) is biology and to be more specific-a "strange combination" of theoretical biology, philosophy of biology and origins of life but the idea I want to test has more to do with organic synthesis and nanotechnology than with any of these. I really can't explain it easily but its something "special".

I used my experience in theoretical biology and philosophy of viology to devise a (purely theoretical up to now) "limit" or more like a "borderline" between a chemical system and a living organism. This is what I can publish but the paper will be more like a philosophical essay or a theoretical investigation, than an actual research proposal. Based on this "limit" however I can determine if a definite structure can have definite properties on the molecular and nano scales. This is something I think can actually be tested experimentally. Then, if one already knows what s/he is looking for s/he

can think about ways of actually building that kind of structures and performing on them the experiments I propose to see whether they behave in the way I have predicted or not. I believe that if I manage to find capable enough chemist or expert in molecular self-assembly s/he can manage to design such structures based on the blueprints I can provide and then test whether I'm right or not. My basic idea is there is unbreakable relationship on the nanoscale between complexity generating structures (which could at least in theory be reduced to extremely complex organic compounds which can be

synthesized in the lab) and the network topology of the reaction system they are synthesized, so an experimental verification of my ideas will consist of reaction bathes of certain very complex organic compounds behaving in a way I predict with a network topology of the system they are in which can be predicted by a model of mine. Again this is also verifyable. If the experiment is a success this might develop into a technology able to generate extremely large and extremely complex molecules capable of both self-assembly into nanoscale structures and of self-replication. I think may be this

fells into several fields of chemistry as well as nanotechnology and is mimicking a step in the process of origins of life (which is where my original background comes in) with the link in the whole thing coming from a certain definition of life I came up to within the borders of the philosophy of biology. It's complicated story, but basically I think if we could replicate experimentally certain stages of the process of the origin of life we could use what we learn to also build components for nanomachines. After all life is the only nanomachine we know of, right?

However, as you may be able to see the jump between origins of life and nanotechnology is a quite huge leap and it makes experts in both fields to feel uncompfortable that such a thing is even possible to conceive, let alone somebody to risk his/hers carrier to prove it. It requires huge interdisciplinary endeavor and I can't do more than just provide the blueprint for the experiment, Further, the fact I have no money and no job in science doesn't make anything better and I don't have anything to offer to anyone who is interested in following me. So it feels like an impossible quest.

What you are looking for is research collaboration. If you are not an active researcher, it is unlikely that you have a novel idea that nobody has ever considered. But if assuming that you have a brilliant idea, you can take the following steps:

You have to conduct a thorough literature review to make sure that
your idea is worthy of being tested.
You should write a brief description of your ideas, how is the
intended research, and what are the expected outcomes?
You should clarify how you can contribute to the research. Merely
having an idea is not enough.
Then, you can send your proposal to a research group to consider if
they are interested or not. Don't expect a positive response quickly. They all have lots of ideas for the funds they have.
If you are able to attract their attention, the PI can use his/her
available fund or write a joint proposal with you.

If you think you are close to publishing a research article (theoretical as you said), you have already done the steps 1-3. Send your published paper to an experimental group with similar interests.
In reply to the original title of your question, building a research collaboration has nothing to do with being a professional researcher. If you were a professional theoretical researcher, you still had to do the same thing for collaborating with an experimentalist to do the research.
As @Arno noted, your question is not about publishing, as your first step is how to conduct the research. The intended journal does not need you to be a professional researcher.
Affiliation is the place in which the research has been carried out. If your research is theoretical (not needing advanced facility), you can publish a research paper with your home address as long as the scientific content is considerable and valid. In many disciplines, the peer-review process is double-blind. Therefore, the referees do not know who you are or what your affiliation is. And no journal, to my knowledge, has an official requirement of being a professional researcher.

I have managed to do steps 1 (at least in all the areas I'm familiar with and I have my years-long background working in) and 2 and now I'm somewhat in the middle of step 3, however, what I really need to od to manage this thing work is for somebody well versed in organic synthesis (preferably) or nanotechnology (less preferable) to agree that my ideas in the field of origin of life (where my expertize lie) are applicable to their fields and could be considerate. But this quite huge leap of faith if you consider how far from each other are these fields.

If you add the fact that my background is dubious and my paper will be in theoretical/philosophical journal it really makes it all too hard to consider it, too. I'm asking this question here only to see could I make even one researcher believe that there could be a link between origins of life and nanotechnology to see how people will react in general, but managing to "sell it out" to a professional researcher is something entirely different and to be frank I doubt myself every time I try to think of it. I just want to know is it worth dreaming for or should I abandon the effort altogether?

You can write a paper, an opinion paper probably, where you put forward your ideas, theories and hypothesis. You may even make suggestions for research experiments. If you can attract the interest of other researchers, some of them might start testing your ideas, probably without asking for your help. This would get your ideas tested, and it wouldn't cost you anything (except publication costs of your paper).


text:
What counts as self-plagiarism?
I'm an undergraduate and would like to write about certain topics and post the documents online, available to everyone to read and probably indexed by search engines very soon.
However, I think that if I do this, I'm very likely to have written about the topics of my bachelor or master thesis/theses before I write it/them. What I post online is planned to be high-quality but of course not scientifically published.
If I copy parts of these works without stating I wrote and made them publicly available earlier, does it qualify as self-plagiarism? If so, does it still count if I create the documents now, copy parts of them into my thesis, but only upload them after I (hopefully) got my degree?
Are the rules the same around the world or does it depend on things like the country, the academic discipline, the university, the kind of degree or other scientific work, or other things? If it does, please tell me what's relevant in the comments so I can add that information. However, since adding the probably most relevant details isn't hard: I'm a German computer science student studying in Germany.
If I post the documents pseudonymously, do I have to prove they are written by me or does the examination office have to attempt to prove they aren't written by me? Does it make a difference whether I use a pseudonym which is clearly not a person's name? If I do, how would I quote myself if I have to?
This question is about a similar topic but I don't think mine is a duplicate of it because the linked question is about publishing in a journal, not about writing one's bachelor or master thesis.

Cite your online reference, just as you would cite some other online reference.  In neither case is it plagiarism, because you're citing it.  And in the case of your own online work, you can take credit for it as if it were not cited, as long as this work does not appear previously to when you published online.

Okay, but what about unpublished work? For example if I write my such a document now, don't quite finish it, use part of it for my thesis I write in a year, and only finish my old document after I submitted my thesis? What if I show the document to friends and a few people at uni but don't make it publicly available and someone proclaims they already read the same thing some time ago? What if someone other than me makes a document of mine publicly or at least widely available (e.g. adds it to the CS students' git repo or puts it into the CS student's Dropbox folder) without my permission?

The thing about unpublished work is that someone else might publish it before you do.  But publication takes time and effort.  This is why I think "publication" in sites like Stack Exchange of small and intermediate results is useful.  It shows the work as your and it puts a time-stamp on it.  It doesn't stop someone else from using it or publishing it, but you can write a letter to the journal pointing out that you "published" it on the web before the other author. Meanwhile you can write the rest of your thesis and include this partial result in it later.

an example of a small result that i have "published" recently on another Stack Exchange is this question and answer.  Now this is not a peer-reviewed publication, but all of the math is there and if someone else later claims the idea is theirs, I can point to this.  But perhaps someone else has previously done exactly this math (and I sorta suspect some wavelet and filterbank author might have), then my posting of this question hurts no one.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it worth submitting papers to "graduate" peer-reviewed journals?
I am a first year PhD student in the social sciences at a Canadian institution, and I'm wondering whether it's worth submitting a paper to a "graduate" peer-reviewed journal. This would be my first experience in publication.
There are a few different types of graduate journals. However, I'm referring here to those journals written and produced by PhD and post-doc students.
To my mind, the advantages would include: more chances of getting published, and this would be a great advantage in the first years of a PhD project; a smoother review process and, hence, more time to concentrate on courses and/or other projects.
The quality of the work that these journals publish is very good. However, is it better, to wait, re-read and try to improve my paper in order to submit it to higher ranked journals?

never heard of such a journal.  (would this be akin to the Harvard Law Review in which the current president had once been the editor when he was in law school?)  anyway, it seems to me that such a journal exists for a reason.  if your dissertation (or chapter therein) is on-topic for that journal, why not?

When in doubt, find a couple professors in your program that you trust, and ask them personally for their advice. If you already have a thesis advisor, ask her as well.

What does your advisor say?

Do you read papers in those journals? Do you cite them?

Please refrain from editing the question too many times. Given that answers are not likely to be changed based on edits to the question, making changes after answers are posted may make previous answers no longer applicable. We like to avoid that if possible.

You want to publish papers in the best journal or conference you can. If your Masters thesis can be published in a serious journal, you should attempt to send it there. Publications are the currency of academia and a publication in a better journal often translates to higher value.
However, there are lots of reasons to send it to a "graduate" or lower-tier journal.

The journals in your field might consider a thesis to be previously published and they might not accept previously published work.
Your Masters work might be unrelated to your PhD work and you'd rather spend your time working on new more important work.
Your thesis would require a lot of work that would take away your new work. It might be better in the long run to work on new ideas as opposed to spending time trying to clean up or improve your previous work.

Without knowing your exact situation, it's hard for random strangers on the Internet to make an exact call. You should talk to your adviser or a professor in your department to get more informed and personalized advice.
EDIT: I should point out that my experience have all been in computer science. Things may differ in the social sciences.

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


text:
Who "owns" a project idea after a grant application is rejected or declined?
This past year I put in an application to a federal agency (US) for a post-doctoral fellowship and collaborated on it with a three profs/research scientists on the proposal.  If funded, one of them will act as my post-doc supervisor and the other two as collaborators, all bring necessary skills and methodological capacity to the project.  The project idea was my own that I had before meeting or discussing it with these collaborators, I chose to work with these people because they are researchers whose work I was familiar with and they are located in a city I'm interested in living in.
I have accepted a different post-doc since that application was submitted and I expect that application to be rejected because it was still a bit rough when submitted and it's a pretty competitive grant.  Since I took the other position, I won't be doing this project with these collaborators in under this recent application.  This is my first time as part of a multiple collaborator application, so I am wondering:
Who has ownership of an idea after grant rejection/do all members of a proposal collaboration have to be informed of any member independently moving forward with an idea from the proposal?

Excellent question. Difficult answer. Depending on the contributions, it may be a wise idea to keep your collaborators on track with this, if only to maintain good relations - and, who knows, perhaps later, you will be able to work together again. Imagine you being one of them - what would you like to see happening if you give input into the development of a grant? This is far from a complete response, but perhaps a starting point.

If you can prove you are the originator of the idea with timestamped emails, notebook with dates, journals, etc. then that may be sufficient to prove priority for the idea when registering intellectual property (IP).
If the collaborators furthered the idea with you, then they own part of the idea, and may make a claim to any IP that is generated.
If you worked on this idea / project while you were being paid by University X, then University X may also own partial rights to the idea/IP.
Keeping the previous in mind, anyone that contributed to the idea could use the idea in another proposal.
If you are the originator of the idea, you can submit the idea to another group. If intellectual property is produced from the project, others that helped you develop the idea (including University X) could try to claim partial rights. You are not required to inform prior collaborators that you are using the idea, although it is a courtesy to ask them to collaborate on the new project if it is accepted.
Normally, grant application ideas are somewhat vague since you rarely know what you are going to find during the project. No one "owns" this idea until it becomes intellectual property through patents, trademarks, etc. That is when you really need to consider who contributed.
Note: Intellectual Property rights differ in every country, and Universities have very different policies. Check your local legislation and University contract.

Thanks, @Joshua, this is a very helpful answer.  I think this fits the common practices and expectations in my field (Ecology) fairly well, too.  I have accepted this as the answer but I hope others will continue to add answers and comments on how their practices or expectations in their specific field are similar or different.  I imagine expectations may vary significantly between fields and nations.


text:
How to express appreciation for an offer of science research funding
What is an acceptable way to state that you are very happy to have been offered funding for a research proposal?
"I am honored to have this offer of funding for my research"
"I am grateful for this offer..."
etc
Neither of those sound right to me -- research funding is about having a sound and interesting proposal, so feeling honored or grateful doesn't ring true to me.  I've been wondering this for a while but I now have a research fellowship offer I need to decline (already took an earlier offer) so I want to make sure my declination does not sound unappreciative.
I know this issue may seem simple or pedestrian to some, but I'd like to know how most would reply to know I'm meeting the expectations of program officers, etc.
Thanks!

You're overthinking it. "I really appreciate the offer" is fine.

Don't start with a long appreciation at the beginning as it may lead the reader to expect an acceptance. Just a short sentence on how you appreciated their recognition, and immediately tell the news neutrally. Simply state the fact that you have pursued another opportunity and hence have to decline their offer. No need to explain any pros and cons, keep it short and professional; end with a thank you. What they really would appreciate is applicants informing them with the decision in a timely manner so that they can move on to the other quickly; so do that soon.

I would just say something like. "Thank you very much for your offer of funding, I am extremely grateful.  Unfortunately I have already accepted another offer which is not compatible, so I must decline your offer."
The important thing is to show respect for the agency by replying as soon as you can, so that another deserving candidate can get the funding.  Don't worry that much about the phrasing, everyone knows these things happen, just be polite.

I received your offer for research funding. While I am honored and
  greatly appreciate your offer, I must regrettably decline as I have
  accepted another source of funding.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
[salutation, like Sincerely]
[signed]

Keep it simple, short, polite, and professional. If you are in a country where overstatement is important, throw in a "very" and/or a "deeply" to conform to your norms.
You might want something more personal only if someone was literally offering to write you a personal check to pay for your research out of their own account. Otherwise accepting/declining an offer (and applying to multiple programs which all have the same deadlines) is the norm - so don't worry about it.
Simple, short, polite, and professional.

A salutation is the thing at the start of the letter (e.g., "Dear Professor Yaffle,"). "Sincerely" and its friends are valedictions.


text:
Masters in US or (Masters + MPhil) in UK
I am an engineering student studying in India, and I will complete my Bachelor's in Electronics Engineering in June. I am looking forward to pursue a career as a researcher in Machine Learning, Signal Processing and Computer Vision.
Which is better :

a 2 year master's degree in the US.
or a 1 year master's degree  + a 1 year MPhil degree in the UK.

What I think is the advantage of the UK approach is the following :

Since the Master's course in UK is mostly coursework based and I don't have a formal background in computer science, it would be much more efficient if I learn't the relevant concepts first, before starting research.
After the Master's course where I would have completed all the required coursework, I could spend a year in a more research oriented environment (during the MPhil degree).

As a result, I think the UK option is more suitable for me (it would be a more structured approach) as a student having completed his Bachelor's degree in Electronics engineering, and wishing to pursue research in a more computer science oriented field.

What I think is the advantage of the US approach :

I plan on pursuing a PhD degree in an institution in the US, because (please correct me if I am wrong) the chances of fully funded PhD's are much higher in the US, than in UK. Thus, it would be easier for me (from the admissions point of view) to study in a Master's and a PhD program, both in the US.

Basically, what I am asking is :

What are the merits/demerits of both the approachers, from the point of view of :

Me as a researcher in the future
Admissions to a PhD program

In terms of PhD admission prospects, both the UK and US have top quality schools with international renown. However, if you're planning to study PhD in the US, having a masters in the same country can help in creating more relevant connections between other researchers, and therefore affecting your chances for PhD admission.
In terms of program structure, there are differences like you mentioned. However, even US institutions start off with a more course-heavy workload and gradually move on to a more research-focused program (second year). Also, getting familiar with basic research concepts and ideas early on (as with US programs) is not necessarily a bad thing and you shouldn't worry much because there are many cases like you who have come from a non-CS background. If you get accepted, the department is well-aware of your background and potential capabilities
EDIT: Empirically, UK institutions offer less funding options especially at the masters level. Even at the PhD level, most of the funding I've came across are offered as partial awards that don't cover the full tuition and living costs. It is still possible to obtain full funding at a UK institution, but overall, funding is usually an important factor in deciding your place of study

thanks for the great answer. You clearly explained that there is no downside studying in the US. Is there some downside of studying in the UK, other that the one that you already stated ?

Empirically, UK institutions offer less funding options especially at the masters level. Even at the PhD level, most of the funding I've came across are offered as partial awards that don't cover the full tuition and living costs. It is still possible to obtain full funding at a UK institution, but overall, funding is usually an important factor in deciding your place of study


text:
How do STEM professors become so hyper-efficient with their research?
When I compare myself to my advisor, I don’t compare our level of expertise, as I don’t think that’s so meaningful; he’s obviously years ahead of me in the field, and so any time I talk about research with him, I accept that I know less than him and am prepared to feel ignorant / make mistakes / ask silly questions.
But I do compare myself to him regarding things such as efficiency, organization, motivation, curiosity ... some other things perhaps.
And I would say it is the efficiency that stands out the most – and where he completely leaves me in the dust.
Does this mean that the writing is on the wall, and that I should drop out of the race for academia now? Is it more of an innate skill that is so significant that it separates the best researchers from the rest? Or, is that extremely high level of efficiency something that is learned throughout many years of training?

The most important parameter you are ignoring is "experience", which binds together all other parameters such as expertise, collaboration, ...

With experience, we've learned to focus on what's important and cut thru' the crap.   Otherwise, you spend lots of time separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak.  Curiosity, however, I believe is innate.  Motivation -- many ways to motivate oneself.  Other things that we do tend to be repetitive.  For example, writing a paper.  I have done 100s of papers, and so to the newbie, it seems like I'm quick and efficient. In tennis, people often comment that Roger Federer's play the game so effortlessly, why? tonnes of practice!

Does your advisor actually do the legwork of research by themselves or do they have advisees do it for them?

Your last paragraph shows that you are feeling anxious.  (Which is understandable.)  But the interesting thing is that anxiety tends to slow one down.  So, the single most important thing you can do to become more efficient would probably be to find ways of coping with anxiety.

I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up, but in my opinion, much of what you call efficiency is learned gradually over many years in which successful people (in STEM, and more generally academia, and more generally everywhere) calibrate their work and personal life habits in response to inputs from their environment. There is a very interesting feedback loop in which success begets more success and efficiency begets more efficiency: e.g., an initial wave of success can boost one's motivation and increase one's desire to succeed even more and prompt one to become more and more passionate about working hard and being efficient, and so on. Ride this wave for a while, and before you know it, you are a workaholic who spends all day working and then has enough energy left over at night to do other fun and productive things, like post answers on Academia Stack Exchange. :-)
But seriously, I think this feedback loop is much more powerful than most people realize and accounts for how a lot of very successful people reach their high levels of productivity. I am reminded of the saying "if you want something done, ask a busy person to do it", which I think nicely encapsulates part of this notion.
At the same time, I think it's also very plausible that a component of the phenomena you observe has to do with certain innate tendencies and personality traits. Nonetheless, it's not always possible to tell early on if you have those traits or not, and I think it happens quite a lot that people discover hidden strengths and abilities they didn't even know they had quite late into their working lives. It is certainly much too soon for you to write yourself off because of what you see as an unflattering comparison with your advisor. Instead, why not draw inspiration from him and seek to learn how to emulate his habits so you can reach the same level of success?

Efficiency tends to rise with demand - the more demand for a resource exceeds supply, the more efficient with it you quickly learn to be. Time in the lab/office tends to follow a similar process. When you have 10 hours to write that abstract, it often takes 10 hours. When it's gotta get done in the next 45 minutes because that's the only time you have, you just write it in 45 minutes and be done with it.
The other main issue is experience - having done this thing before - completely changes how long it takes to get something done. When you are doing something the first few times, everything is new and requires a lot of cognitive load. Nothing is automatic yet - everything is not only deliberate, but you may need to take time thinking out all the options, then going through each of a dozen possibilities trying to explore what you should try next, then wondering what you will do if that doesn't work out quite right, are you really sure that's going to work, etc. Hours (or days, or weeks, or months) of wondering and exploring can be cut down into minutes of doing. But you kind of need learn how to do it in the first place to move on to that point.
It's valuable to look up to highly effective, proficient, efficient people and try to learn from them, but there is the constant danger of discouragement if you compare where they are now - after possibly a decade or more of experience, hundreds of papers, and who knows how many collaborators and mentors they've learned from in this time - to where you are now, comparatively just starting off. And when they were just starting out, they were not so efficient as they are now (don't believe all the legends that tend to grow with time on their own, either).
I don't know how efficient you can become, and the funny thing about human growth and development is you don't really know either. No one really knows the future, or the extent of any individual's potential. It's up to you to decide if you want to find out how efficient you can become, if you can improve your organization skills, if you can cultivate greater creativity - then you can give it you all in finding out what you can accomplish, as a sort of experiment, or you can decide if you'd really rather do something else instead. But you haven't indicated anything that signifies you are doomed from the start, so long as you are willing to accept that it takes much time and sustained effort to achieve such growth in anything that you choose to do.


text:
Should I acknowledge funding from an unrelated project?
I hold a research position at a university where I'm working on a certain project in a certain field. I met another professor from another field and began working on a new project with him. I'm submitting our work for publication and I'm unsure whether I should acknowledge funding from my position in the question: “Is there funding to report for this submission?”
I haven't been paid for this particular project but my stipend is basically my livelihood so I'm in two minds about whether to acknowledge it or not.

Many journals have detailed statements about how to answer this, for instance PLOS has guidelines which include the statement: "Authors are not required to provide the complete list of every single grant that supports them if the grant is not related to the research published". However this may not be the same for all journals, so try and check with them. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/disclosure-of-funding-sources

Add a few words @StuartF, and you probably have the best available answer. I recommend formalizing the answer.

In general, only funding related to the research submitted has to be disclosed. The situation that you are funded through one project and also work on another is quite common. Yet the fact that you are paid in some way doesn't necessarily affecct the funding acknowledgements for the papers. The funding refers to projects, not to persons.
If the professor from the other department has received some kind of grant for the research that he has been doing with you, on the other hand, you would need to disclose that funding.

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


text:
Reject without a valid reason after complaining to the editor
For a manuscript we were having under review, a new reviewer was invited in the second round because another reviewer dropped out.
The new reviewer proposed some new changes, including ones regarding writing style rather than science.
For example, they suggested that hypotheses development should happen in the literature review or separate sections.
We gave our reasons and cited some articles that review literature and discuss the hypothesis in the same section.
The reviewer didn’t agree and for the third revision, they only had this concern.
We still didn’t want to make these changes, as that we felt we would have to rewrite the paper.
More important, the suggestions had too much personal perspectives inside. So we argued with more evidence. It was all about writing style instead of science.
We submitted a third revision.
Note that the other reviewers recommended accepting the paper at this point.
We also wrote an email to the editor in chief as we don’t know who the associate editor was. The editor in chief said she will review everything, and make a decision. But just today, we got email saying the article was rejected and it just said, that the reviewers only provide private comments to editor and against accepting. I just feel so upset with the editor.
Shall I appeal or move on to the next journal?

If the editor in chief has already looked at it, to whom are you going to appeal? Is it the whole board?

"Shall I appeal" You already did, you just don't like the outcome of your appeal.

Just so I get this right: You appealed to the editor in chief while submitting a third revision, i.e., before a decision was made on your paper in the ongoing review process?

The editor made her decision, using information she has. She is not bound by the fact that some reviewers seem to have recommended acceptance. Move on.
Before you resubmit elsewhere, try to read the referee's critical comments with an open mind. They may suggest changes that will in fact improve the paper.

Let her go, friend. Sometimes journals say no for silly reasons but it is still a no. If you are displeased with how your paper was handled, do not submit to this journal again.

We give our reasons and cite some articles that discuss LR and Hypothesis in the same section

(PS: one assumes that the bulk of articles you cited are from journal A)
Personally, I don't like being put down on semantics of paper style, however, at times, reviewers comments are indicators that we are not communicating well enough.
So writing in explicit mode with (lay reader) clarity is an art we perfect each time.
Should literature review and hypothesis be in the same section, that I can't comment on as we are not privy to your manuscript, (nor to your field/discipline).
Can it be, it's possible. Can LR and hypothesis be split, yes they can. In this instance, we can't say.

I just feel so upset with the editor. Shall I appeal or move it on. B journal

Simply put, relax, keep calm and re-read with open mind.
After a week or even a month, print and re-read your manuscript again. After that, likewise, re-read the reviewers comments with open mind. Then take another look at your manuscript.
Do all of this away from your desk/computer.
It might be the reviewer is off-tangent. It might be the reviewer is pedantic. It might be the reviewer got it all wrong. Yet, it might be there're golden nuggets in the comments that might yield invaluable benefits to the manuscript.
It might be, just maybe, you're not communicating well enough. At times, we oft get lost in the authors mind mode. We see what we're writing but we don't see what we're not communicating.
So calm down, read again.
Should you appeal, my understanding is that you engagement with the EiC is the appeal. If you feel otherwise, there's no harm in writing a formal appeal and await the outcome: Be calm, professional and scientific about it. (No emotions)
Should you move the manuscript on to paper B.
After the calming down process (as outlined), improve the manuscript and resubmit.
Rejections are fabric we all wear with pride as academia. Obviously, some review process (and some reviewers) can be bad experience. We shake 'em off and move on with purpose.
[Edit]

"we argued with more evidence*

Most of this evidence effort should also reflect in the manuscript (and not only in the appeal/rebuttal). I'm just indicating (for future readers), just in case it doesn't

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


text:
A potential supervisor didn't respond to my email. It's been a week, does this mean he's not interested?
A week ago I contacted a potential supervisor with shared interests. He answered back on the same day, positively reflecting his will to cooperate and support my application. I replied to him on the second day with a draft of the aimed project. It has been a week since that email and there has been no answer or reply. Should I assume that he is no longer interested?! Or should I wait a bit longer?!

See What does it mean if a professor does not answer your email in time?, What to do when emails to a potential advisor are not replied?, Is ignoring emails acceptable in academia?, etc.

IMO, a week is very short. Please be patient. Ask this question if you have not heard from him after a month.

I am worried because the application deadline is by the end of next week !

I hope you have profusely applogised for contacting him so close to the deadline,

IMO, your application and the reply from the prof should be separate. You can go ahead send the application and waiting for his reply at the same time.

He said he is interested in supporting the application but didn't answer back yet! Shall I resend him an email?

I would send a brief reminder.

shall I say : " Would You kindly acknowledge your receipt of the sent email ?!" Or another way ?!


text:
How to handle pressure from collaborators when life circumstances make it impossible to get work done?
I am looking for a bit of advice on how to handle the workload in a PhD while juggling several collaborative projects plus family pressures.
I am in the final year of my PhD which, overall, has been fairly successful to date. I am currently collaborating on a number of projects with other academics - most of which have been going on for some time and are nearing completion - which along with other work I am doing independently will form my PhD thesis. When I took on the projects I was confident that I would have the time and knowledge to turn them around fairly quickly.
However, I recently had my first child with my partner a couple of months ago and I have found it almost impossible to get much meaningful work done since (and also in later stages of the pregnancy) due to the pressure of supporting her and my child - sleepless nights, caring for the baby and her along with the additional strains on our relationship. I am now under pressure from most of these collaborators to finish my parts of the projects and this has been causing me considerable stress, which in turn has made it even more difficult to focus on projects and get them completed. I have to add that on most of these projects I have done a considerable bulk of the work, while other collaborators have at times been slow with their turn around, which is one of the reasons I now have so many ongoing projects. But I get the feeling that several of them feel I am now stringing them along but giving repeated dates for completion that I do not meet.
I feel under huge pressure and strain from multiple directions. I often do not check my emails for days knowing that there will likely be another email asking about progress, my relationship is suffering and I do not properly enjoy spending time with my child - my work seems to pollute much of my life now. Funding is not an issue as I have sources of funding that will take me well beyond the time I need to complete my thesis, but I feel I am burning bridges with other academics in the the field, which is causing me considerable stress.
I think I probably know what I need to do, but can't bear to do it... I have two first authorships and a significant authorship and am writing up a further two first authored papers. These alone would be enough for my PhD and probably a decent postdoc position. I should inform my other collaborators that I won't be able to work on their projects any longer, or at least not within the forseeable future. It would pain me to do this as I have already invested considerable time in these, and without my further input some (most?) would be unlikely to be completed and published, or would be inferior publications to what they could have been, as well as seriously damaging my reputation with these academics.
I would appreciate thoughts of people on how I should approach this - especially from people who have been in similar situations or have dealt with very slow and unreliable collaborators.

Related questions: Doing a PhD with significant external time obligations (e.g., marriage) and Points to consider when deciding whether to get married during a PhD. I also remember there is a question about having a baby during PhD. Does it ring a bell to anyone?

Found it. Related question: Maintain scientific output after having a baby.

Some colleagues had babies and went on parental leave for several months, when they don't work beyond an occasional email. Everybody seem to understand the situation, and no damage was done. Have you fully explained your situation to your collaborators?

Gnometorule - your comment is very wide of the mark, as well as borderline offensive. I made clear in the text that I do NOT need this work for my thesis - I already have enough publications out and in preparation that I could abandon the collaborations tomorrow and my thesis would be just fine. The issue is letting people down due to changes in life circumstances affecting my capacity to work.
Oh, and it is also presumptuous of you to claim I "decided" to have a child (as if there would be anything wrong with that in the first place) and that I have crumbled.

I've been on both sides of your dilemma, both as the slow and unreliable collaborator and as the person dealing with a slow and unreliable collaborator, and I deeply understand your dilemma and your pain.
The first thing to understand is that this is not an unusual situation, and you aren't a bad person for having it happen to you.  In fact, this is a fairly normal situation of life for most people pursuing post-Ph.D. research careers.  The basic problem is this: collaborations, grant proposals, professional service, and many other aspects of a scientific career all have long time horizons and high uncertainty associated with them.  That means that you often have to make a time commitment without really knowing how large it will be or what it will be competing with six months, one year, three years down the line.  What that means is that, no matter what approach you take to personal time management, you are likely to be frequently faced either with significant unfunded gaps, with majorly overloaded periods, or even both in oscillation.
At the beginning of a Ph.D., most people do not have this problem, because they have precisely one research project, and they can work consistently on just that project and their courses (and maybe TAing).  This situation sometimes persists to the end of a Ph.D. or through a postdoc.  As a person moves towards independence of a researcher, however, they start to have more opportunities and more choices, and are faced with this dilemma of planning under long-term uncertainty.
Unfortunately, under the current organization of academia at least, there seem to really be only two solutions to this problem:

Be low-ambition as a researcher, ensuring that you are never overcommitted but greatly decreasing your chances of obtaining a tenure-track position at a strong research institution, or of making tenure once you have one.
Triage and honesty.

The best advice that I have ever seen about the second path is in this blog post: "The only "balance" is in choosing which ball you are going to let drop today and deciding not to drop the same ball repeatedly."
Now, as to what to do: first, you need to be honest with your collaborators about the change in your life circumstances.  Having a child radically changes your life and your available time: as a parent of a 2-year old, I have about 20 hours/week less for work than I used to, and that's despite making compromises I'm not entirely comfortable with in the amount of time I spend with my daughter.  Science will expand to fill the time allotted to it, so the first thing you need to do is to decide how much time you are setting aside for family, and guard that time with your life.  Practice saying things like, "I'm sorry, I can't meet with you then, I have to be parenting then," and "I'm sorry, but this weekend I have family commitments." and spend the time you need to spend with your partner and your child.  Second, you also need to take care of yourself: if you aren't sleeping well and eating healthily, your research productivity will drop even as you spend more time working and your stress level rises.
Now, if you do this, it means that you are not going to be able to follow through on all of your commitments to your collaborators.  There simply aren't enough hours in the day.  And that means you're going to have to triage.  In my experience, the most important thing here is honesty.  In my collaborations, I can plan how to manage a collaboration in which somebody tells me, "I'm going to need to put this on the back burner for a couple months," or "I'm going to be able to spend only 4 hours a week on this," but I can't plan how to manage a collaboration with somebody who tries to conceal their overcommitment or who repeatedly promises things that they cannot deliver.
You need to figure out your priorities for investment on your projects, not for all time, but at least for a few months.  You can reassess afterwards.  Talk it over with your advisor, to make sure they're OK with it, and then let your other collaborators know that you've had to reassess your commitments and what they should expect from you.  Be explicit about the fact that it is becoming a parent that is driving this change: any collaborator that is worth continuing to work with will understand and respect this fact and be willing to work with you on this.  Anybody who doesn't is somebody that you want to be very cautious about continuing work with in any case.
And make sure that you have enough space to enjoy time with both your child and your partner.  Our time in life is far too short and precious as it is.

That is a really thoughtful answer - thank you! The link is also very informative. An idea I have had after reading it is to perhaps plan my life around what I do with my family, and then fit work into the spaces around that. Perhaps I am thinking of things backwards at the moment...

@rt1870 I think that if your family is important to you, that's the right approach.  Even if the "spaces around that" much significantly larger time than the family time is, it's a matter of priorities: when both your partner and your collaborator come to you at the same time saying they have an emergency that needs 6 hours of attention in the next 24, which one are you going to turn down? For example: your partner has the flu and wants you to take care of the baby, and at the same time the journal denied the request for extra time on the paper revision.  Which way do you go?

First, congratulations on the birth of your baby!
It is a wonderful and life-changing experience,
but also can stress your body, mind and relationships
as you have experienced.
I empathize with your situation,
as I also had my first baby born during my PhD studies.
In my opinion,
you are facing two different causes of stress:
stress from external sources (pressure from your collaborators)
and stress from within yourself (pressure that you give yourself).
External stress
To reduce stress from your collaborators,
I would suggest that you periodically spend some time
to make a high-level plan for the next few months of work.
How much time and energy do you have to work in the next few months?
Which projects are you going to tackle,
and what outcomes will you be able to achieve?
The goal is to come up with a realistic plan that you can work towards.
Given that you feel that you currently have too many projects,
as evidenced by not being able to complete tasks by deadlines you commit to,
I would recommend putting some of your projects on the backburner.
If your collaborators are reasonable people,
they should be understanding when you explain your situation.
Internal stress
One of the things that helped me a lot
was regular meetings with a counselor.
At my institution, there was a mental health and counseling center
as part of the student medical servies.
I was able to talk to a counselor for free on campus
about once every one or two weeks.
This was helpful because it helped me to do a "brain dump"
and forced me to explain to another person
what I was experiencing and how I planned to move forward.
I also received good suggestions
about habits that I could adopt in order to work more effectively.
In particular, my counselor suggested that
I needed to establish clear boundaries
to separate my work life from my home life,
but only working in the office,
and not bringing any work home.
By separating physically the spheres of work and family life,
this helped me to separate them emotionally as well.
For the family dimension,
I would recommend that you keep up communication with your partner,
and also stay connected with your family and friends.
Additionally, you may want to consider marriage counseling.
I was fortunate in that the mental health and counseling center at my institution
was also able to provide marriage counseling (also free!),
and we both found it extremely helpful
in terms of forcing us to communicate and talk deeply with each other.
Finally: Don't give up.
Things do settle down with the baby after the first few months.


text:
Collection of examples of course designs with the flaws pointed out and explained?
We have a course on didactics in the curriculum, accomplishing which we should be able to evaluate courses and design our ones. I wonder if there is a collection of good course examples or examples of reviewing/evaluating a course with flaws exposed. Can I look at courses as a math/physics student looks at solved problems from the end of the book?

Can you please elaborate a bit?  I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're asking about.

If I understand correctly, you're asking for a set of examples of course designs with the flaws pointed out and explained? Is that right?

@ff524 You basically repeat my words. This is what I am asking indeed :)

@user37208 By course design I mean the delivery. I think that didactics abstracts away from subject and just concentrates on the form. So, it cannot discuss the subject/content. It discusses the ability of teacher to fill students with content, is he using right techniques for that or not, does he communicate with students enough or not. Actually, I just started. I cannot tell you for sure. :) I expect that people who are familiar with the didactics and course designs should know better what is expected :)


text:
Is it okay for a PhD student to go on holidays in breaks?
I am a first year STEM PhD student in a US university, but I come from a different country. I took a couple of weeks off in this winter break to travel within the US, as it was too expensive to visit my home country.
Now, I have two options -
1. To visit my home country in the next winter (2016-17) for around a month.
 2. To visit my home country in the coming summer (2016) for a short period (say 2 weeks) and get back to work AND to go back again in the next winter for around a month.
Now, the problem with 1 is that there is still a year to go (well, almost a year), and so there is a possibility of being homesick.
So, there is 2. However, I am concerned if it will be seen as I am slacking off / going on holidays too many times etc. Now, I obviously understand that I should discuss this with my advisor and s/he should take the decision, but I am concerned if this is even a reasonable discussion topic (as opposed to the idea being so preposterous that there is no point even asking, and I should just stick to 2)
Note that even if I go on a short holiday in the summer, I plan to spend most of the summer doing research at my university.
So, tl;dr:
Is going on holidays in 3 consecutive breaks considered reasonable? Or is it too preposterous?

You haven't said anything about whether you have a teaching or research assistantship that supports your studies.  It's obviously necessary to satisfy the requirements of any assistantship that you might have.  You also haven't said anything about whether you intend to be registered for classes or thesis/dissertation credits during the summer (you would normally need to be on campus and working if you are registered for credits.)

@BrianBorchers I think if I were only to go in the summer, the TA/RA requirements shouldn't be a problem. So, maybe I should clarify -- suppose all the "technicalities" are taken care of, would the idea in itself raise eyebrows?

Do you have an adviser? Have you talked to them about this? Most should be fine with you taking some time off to visit your family, but you should probably discuss longer breaks with them to work out all the details.

As I said, if the idea makes sense, I would ask my advisor, before taking the final decision. But before talking to him/her, I just want to make sure that it won't raise eyebrows.

If it doesn't affect your work, it shouldn't be an issue. However, whether your adviser approves is very different. I know some that want 9-5 workdays and little vacation from their students. I know others that don't care where you are or how often you work as long as you get results. I even know some that don't mind if their students randomly disappear for two weeks without notice.

I understand. However, probably I won't get little to no time for research if/when I visit my home country...

Something is very wrong with your relationship with your advisor if you're afraid to raise their eyebrows occasionally.


text:
Finding postdoc in US
I am from Singapore and I am about the graduated from PhD.
My field is in software engineering, computer science.
I plan to further my study as postdoc in US, looking at my friends, it seems that although some of them have 1-2 top ranked publications in
conference, but they are hard to secure a desired postdoc position in US.
I wish to get a postdoc position in US, hopefully in some top research labs, is there anyone has some general recommendations on how to improve one's chance in getting those labs in US?

What are your qualifications exactly and what is probably hindering you? I.e. in which fields do you lack experience?

Hi William07. Postdoc hirin' theme has been amply discussed on this website. You might find this question [http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/986/how-do-you-grow-your-own-post-doc-opportunity] and this question  [http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/73/what-are-the-most-important-criteria-to-consider-when-hiring-postdocs-for-a-rese] very interesting. G-Luck!

This topic has definitely been covered. See: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7371/what-is-the-perception-of-foreign-universities-non-uk-in-the-us-for-prospectiv and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8274/is-one-or-two-years-postdoc-experience-helpful-for-a-nonacademic-research-car and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/970/postdoc-opportunities-in-mathematics and http://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=postdoc+in+US


text:
How to find h-index in microsoft academic?
I am wondering how do we find h-index here:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

it was there on the old version of MAS. Now they removed it and put total citations instead. I really recommend not to check MAS since updates are very slow compared to Google Scholar. I have published a paper in a conference (indexed by MAS) almost three years ago and its still does not show up in their website. As an alternative, http://arnetminer.org is fairly updated with h-index while GScholar rocks at this matter.

@seteropere regarding arnetminer.org, it seems very specialized (although I don't know in what field)… definitely not a generic tool, unlike Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic

Publish or Perish is a very handy application to dig all the data on the web about an author. It report h-index, g-index and a bunch of other influence factors.

The h-index was removed from Microsoft Academic Search in January 2013, according to the features update list (which, not surprisingly, is the first Google result for “h-index Microsoft Academic Search”).


text:
Found error in published article where to submit a correspondence?
I have found an error in a published article. The error lies within the method section.
I would like then to write a correspondence to let people know about this issue and to explain what could have been done correctly.
I tried to look into the journal webpage but it seems they do not publish correspondences. Where can I then submit my ‘correction’?
My field is applied physical science.
Thanks

How much of an error is it?

Some high-profile journals such as Nature and Science accept and publish comments and critiques of their published articles. That's understandable since many of the articles published in such journals are of frontier-level research and, hence, often controversial. But I don't believe that most journals have a mechanism for publishing comments and critiques of published articles. If you want to be helpful, you could just look up the email address of the first author or corresponding author of the article that you have a problem with (oftentimes the email address of the corresponding author is listed on the article itself), and then write a diplomatic email to him or her asking for clarification about the point which you believe is in error. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification about a point. Also, keep in mind that there's always a possibility that you may be the one who is wrong, and that they may have a good explanation for the point which you believe to be an error.


text:
Publication fee paid, but no response from editor
I submitted a paper to a journal, which was accepted for publishing. I made the payment and signed the copyright form. I enquired the state of the transaction of the bank and the amount was credited to the journal’s account. After that, I got no response from their side.
What should I do?

Accept that you've been scammed? What's the journal name? We may be able to determine whether you've been duped by one of the predator journals.

How long since you paid the fee and signed the copyright form?

In the published version of the journal, do they say when papers were submitted?  Maybe you can tell if yours is just taking the normal amount of time before appearing.

As a rule of thumb, be weary of journals that request payment form authors.

Can you include: what country you are in, and the approximate time table for this question (for example, I sent in payment 3 days/weeks/months ago)

Before jumping to conclusions, the first thing to do is to send a polite email to the editor for an acknowledgement or current status of transaction. Short delays are manageable, but how long or short differs from one journal to another.
There are several factors that you might have to think through to determine your next action.

Whether you have submitted your manuscript to a hijacked/predatory journal; these journals might pretend to be a reputable journal by sounding the same but differing in spelling to mislead you.
Whether the journal is reputable; one of the ways to rule this out would be to check the volume and issue number. This would give an idea of how long was this journal was publishing.
Whether this level of delay is usual; sometimes even if the money is credited on the other end, it may take some time reach the necessary department.

Resorting to legal action would be the last thing to do.


text:
How can I (masters in mathematics) prepare for an admission for PhD in economics?
I finished my master’s in mathematics a year ago from ETH Zurich.  Now I want to do a PhD in economics, preferably at a top graduate school. My questions are:

Would admission committee give minus points for me if I have a gap for two years at the time of PhD application? I want to apply in the US in December 2020, and it would be two years of my masters completion by then. I will be teaching mathematics at undergraduate level during these two years.
How can I prepare myself for an admission into a top PhD program for economics? Would getting involved in a research project in economics with a local economist be seen an advantage for me? Would working at a local research institute be helpful? How can I make my application competitive? How can I exhibit the knowledge in economics that the top PhD programs demand?

The last time I studied economics was during my high school, where I did two basic courses on micro- and macro-economics.

teaching mathematics at undergraduate level during these two years. Why? I don't see how this will help your application.

Would getting involved in a research project in economics with a local economist be seen an advantage for me? Would working at a local research institute be helpful? Yes and yes, imo, but these activities will delay your entry, why delay?

Questions regarding preparation have already been asked on this site, what is new about your question?

I have edited my question, having read your first response. For the second, all the good universities that I have looked into say that I need to have some sort of background in economics. Just with a high school level micro, macro knowledge, I am not sure if my application will be competitive. That's why I want to know how can I preprare myself?

@user2768 "Why delay?" Because I do not know if my application as it is now will be competitive. So the idea is to delay and do the necessary things to make my application competitive...

all the good universities that I have looked into say that I need to have some sort of background in economics What do they explicitly say? Is mathematics not a sufficient footing? Do they explicitly say getting involved in a research project in economics with a local economist or working at a local research institute is useful? If they don't explicitly advise, then ask. (My first comment has been updated following your edit.)

[I'm delaying b]ecause I do not know if my application as it is now will be competitive It seems you don't know whether executing your plan will help make your application more competitive. This makes your question rather personal. (You've gotten a close vote - not mine - suggesting the question is personal.) I strongly recommend asking the institutes involved, the relevant professors, or a combination of both, they can guide you, the broader Internet cannot.

I'd consider mathematics as an excellent footing for economics, perhaps top graduate schools and their professors will agree, ask them.
I don't see that delaying your application to teach mathematics for two years will help, and I don't think that delaying to "[get] involved in a research project in economics with a local economist" or "working at a local research institute" will provide a significant advantage. But, top graduate schools and their professors may disagree. Again, ask them.
It seems you don't know whether executing your plan (or aspects of your plan) will help make your application more competitive. This makes your question rather personal (indeed, you've gotten at least one close vote - not mine - on this basis). I strongly recommend asking the institutes involved, the relevant professors, or a combination of both, they can guide you, the broader Internet cannot.

Whether an undergraduate degree in mathematics is still an excellent footing for economics can only be discovered by asking, but even without having to look them up I thought immediately of Oliver Hart and Nick Stern, both of whom achieved great prominence in economics very quickly after graduating in mathematics.


text:
My professor says I would not graduate my PhD, although I fulfilled all the requirements
I am a Ph.D. student at a university in Germany.
After about four years of research, my supervisor told me to write my thesis.
After I sent him my thesis, he told me that he now thinks my work did not have enough scientific soundness and that I would not be graduating anymore.
I published more than eight papers with him, including international journals and conferences with him, and worked as he suggested.
One year before, he wrote me saying I had enough material to write a thesis, so I should start writing, and now he is 100 percent the opposite.
His behavior is so bossy now that he won't hear whatever I say. Even the other professors can not challenge his decision because of their personal relations with him.
Should I take legal action against him based on his previous and current statements.
If not, then what could be the alternate way?

Welcome to Academia SE. I somewhat streamlined your question to focus on your problem. That is not to say that the consequences on your psyche are not important, but we can do little to help you with those (except informing you that your situation is not as bad as you might think it is). Please consider seeking professional help on this.

Has he said anything about what he thinks is missing from the thesis? Sometimes a thesis does need to be rewritten or additional work needs to be done, and it's his responsibility to give you advice, not just say "no". On the other hand, his objection may be valid; a PhD is a research degree and in some fields you are expected to earn it by making a significant contribution to the area of study; "meeting requirements" may in fact not be enough. Again, ask for specifics.

Stay positive.  Also, did you ever get a master's degree?

@JosephDoggie: PhD programmes in Germany require a master’s degree (or equivalent) by default. Exceptions exist but are, well, exceptions.

As a general rule, never threaten legal action unless it's for something trivial, like replacing a small appliance in a shop. You don't want the other person to think they need to be 100% careful of everything they do. As soon as you threaten legal action all communication will stop.

Related- https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/114193/what-to-do-when-an-advisor-repeatedly-changes-graduation-requirements/114196#114196

Just to get the timeline right: He told you to start writing your thesis a year ago and you just (i.e. after a year) handed him a complete thesis without any intermediate feedback ?

Is there any chance he finds it useful to collaborate with you, and just wants you around longer so you can keep publishing with him?  Maybe his own publication productivity has been low lately, and you're helping to boost it.

For what it's worth, my impression is that it's uncommon to complete a PhD in only 4 years. So maybe all your professor is saying is "no, not quite enough there yet." ASK HIM.

@keshlam The standard time for a PhD is 3 years in many places and 2 in some. It may depend on the subject of course.

@keshlam: So maybe all your professor is saying is "no, not quite enough there yet." – The asker stated: “he told me that he now thinks my work did not have enough scientific soundness”. That’s quite a different thing. (Of course the professor could be horribly miscommunicating, but on that basis we can pretty much assume anything.)

"Not enough scientific soundness" could be "not statistically strong enough". I still think the only way to resolve this is to go back and ask for specific guidance, which is, after all, why one has an advisor.

I am sorry this is happening to you. Unfortunately, in Germany the PhD supervisor has a lot of power about the graduation of their PhD students. However, it is not in the best interest of the university to prevent students from graduating based on whims rather than merit.
Your points of contact should be the graduate school (if your university has one), the Promotionsausschuss (might be called differently), the Prüfungsamt (they are normally not directly responsible for PhD students, but they can help you find the right person to contact), or as a last step the Dekan of your faculty directly.
Let them know about your situation as objectively as you can. Do not accuse your professor of anything, but describe your situation that you fulfill all criteria, list your publications, and if you have written proof that your professor told you start writing your thesis, include that.
Then describe all the ways you have tried to talk to him and what exactly he said why you could not graduate and ask them how to proceed (and start writing down every conversation you have about this word-by-word).
In my personal experience, a legal action from a student is the last thing a university wants and they will definitely try to find another solution. But this should be your last resort (it will be expensive, it will take forever, and you might still not get anything).

Threatening legal action will also make everyone more likely to back the supervisor.

Since all the work is done, would it be feasible to have him, and his work, transfer to a willing professor who is familiar with the students work, so that professor can move the candidate forward? Sounds like it'd be relatively painless, all they'd be doing is moving him through his defense?

@Issel - I'm familiar with a perhaps somewhat similar situation at the institution where I am employed: a student was being "held onto" by her mentor despite having finished her requirements and produced excellent work.  Two of this man's colleagues were infuriated by this and managed to generate enough pressure that she was able to transfer her association to a more helpful mentor and graduate.  How similar a situation this is, and how likely such a solution could be created here is not something I can say, though.

@JohnRobinson Same thing happened with a coworker of mine.

The precedent for trying to take legal action against universities is not good (at least in the UK).

+1 a fine and detailed answer. I would like to add that in nearly all German universities you usually can find an "Ombudsperson" who is your go-to-contact for any conflicts, especially concerning PhD and Dissertation related conflicts with your supervisor.

First of all, I strongly recommend that you consult somebody with whom you can share all the details and who ideally has some insight into your faculty’s rules and structures. It depends a bit on your university’s organisation where exactly you can find somebody to provide confidential advice and support you, but they clearly exist. At least the PhD office (usually called Promotionsbüro) or student union should be able to point you to the right people.
That being said, here are a few thoughts on what you are writing:

After I sent him my thesis, he told me that he now thinks my work did not have enough scientific soundness, and he told me that I would not be graduating anymore. […] Although I published more than 8 papers with him, including international journals and conferences with him, and worked as he suggested.

Let’s assume for a second that his assessment is correct and your work is not sound.
How could he not have noticed over eight papers? Does he intend to to retract those papers?
This is casting a very bad light on his academic integrity and supervision.
In fact, if he honestly believes that your work is bad, bullying you into not submitting your thesis could be him trying to save face by sweeping everything under the rug, which brings me to the next point:

If you just submit your thesis, your professor would have to give some pretty strong arguments to let you fail, given that you have eight papers.
Most importantly, he would have to present those arguments in writing.
As he co-authored your papers, I see little way for him to do this without severely shooting himself in the foot (see the above point).
Also people failing their PhD at this stage is extremely rare and would therefore draw quite some negative attention (to your supervisor) and there are many safety nets that would get activated.
Finally, depending on the faculty’s rules, he might not be able to do this alone, but would have to convince at least one colleague of this extreme step.
I therefore find it much more likely that your supervisor’s threats are just empty bluffs.
Instead, you will likely pass if you simply submit your thesis, although possibly with a bad grade.
If your faculty’s rules allow for a cumulative thesis, consider doing one, since then your supervisor would directly be rejecting papers he co-authored (also, it’s less work).

Even the other professors can not challenge his decision because of their personal relations with him.

What makes you so sure about this?
A PhD is awarded by a faculty and, even if your university has small faculties (e.g., you are at the faculty of computer science), it is unlikely that your professor has positive personal ties with everybody, in particular given your description of him.
There are likely hidden animosities and factions within your department; at the very least, there are some other professors who could not care less about your supervisor.
As internal department politics are usually not shared publicly, I find it very unlikely that you can assess your supervisor’s popularity with the other professors.
(The main exception would be that you have some insider in the faculty, but then this person could either support you or is not trustworthy.)

The entire situation sounds a lot like your supervisor is gaslighting you.

Please suggest to me whether I should take legal action against him based on his previous and current statements.

Unless you have some clear statements in writing, I don’t think you have much basis for legal action.
And even if you have, what exactly would you be suing over?
If you take any legal action at all, I would wait for some substantial result, e.g., if you submitted your thesis and failed.

The supervisor does not need to call into question the correctness of the punished papers. They can simply argue that the students contribution to the results do not merit a PhD. In general submitting your thesis against your supervisor's advice is risky at best.

They can simply argue that the students contribution to the results do not merit a PhD. – Unless most of the mentioned 8+ papers are big collaborations (as opposed to just supervisor and student), this will be difficult even in a field with high publication counts. — In general submitting your thesis against your supervisor's advice is risky at best. – Sure, but the supervisor here may never recommend submitting. Even if the asker will work towards fixing the relationship with their supervisor, it is helpful to know that they can do without their supervisor’s recommendation.

At least at my university it is not possible to submit the PhD thesis without the supervisors consent.

At my university you technically can submit without you supervisor's consent. It's an application to the Promotionsausschuss which consists of all Professors of the faculty, including the supervisor. Before a decision is reached, the supervisor will be asked to comment with the expectation that they will give a short explanation of what the thesis contains and their view on the quality of the thesis. As such a submission against the advice of you supervisor can easily be sunk there without a long written argument. If you're going to go that route, talk to people beforehand!

@Wrzlprmft if student wasnt first author on any of the 8 papers, it would be very easy to make the argument against him (assuming this isnt maths). in fact, if he was a contributing author and not the primary on any of the 8, that would in fact be an indictment of his ability and not an endorsement. stlil a dirtbag thing to do to someone

In my PhD program, the norm is to be the corresponding author of every published paper towards that PhD. And there are minimum requirements about the journal impact factor (Q2 and, exceptionally, Q3). That way, the student contribution to a paper or the actual contribution to the state of the art is not a matter of discussion. The problem with a PhD gathered by working on collective papers is that the supervisor, mentor, director or research team leader has a decisive say on the merit of each member based on their contribution. That seems to be the case for the OP.

Or maybe the staple thesis is not an option and the writing was so terrible the entire thing has to be completely redone.

A key factor here is what your contribution was to the eight papers. If these are papers you made a substantial contribution to, or even were part of your PhD work then you have a good case as clearly your own research work is worthy of publication.
If, however, this is a bigger research group or network, and you are included on the papers as one of several authors and you were part of a team on those projects, it unfortunately makes less of an indication as to whether your own research is up to standard.
I just point that out as it’s a key distinction others haven't mentioned in answers.
My advice is to firstly try and get proper feedback from your advisor in writing (whether this is notes on the draft, or a text summary). Your question indicates you don't have this. This will give you more specifics to think about and to maybe ask someone for a second opinion. It's also an important component of supervision that you should have been given.
From there you can try and formulate a plan.

if you are sure they are wrong or refusing to give you feedback at all, then you can look to get a second person to look over it, and/or speak to graduate school.
if they are correct then you need to speak to graduate school about what the route forward is. If you have listened to the advisor all along then this is their failure as a supervisor as well. Is there a way to address the issues? Extra time to fill in experimental work, etc.
it may be necessary to get a replacement or second advisor to finish it off, but this needs to be managed carefully. Hard as it is, you don't want to make your advisor defensive or adversarial about this because if they are the type they may try and sabotage your thesis and/or career.

Legal action is a last resort and will not give you what you want. You'd be very unlikely in my opinion to win a legal case and be awarded a PhD. You may get damages. But your case would have to be on grounds of insufficient/bad supervision, so it would have to be that vs. the university regulations of what your supervision should have been.

There are a few possible things going on here. It is possible your supervisor is purposefully harming your chances of getting a PhD, and if that is the case, you should be sure to talk to your department's, or your university's, student support.
I'm going to present another possibility -- note that I can't know if this is what's happening, and if this is the problem, your supervisor is still describing poorly what the problem is.
When the supervisor says your "work did not have enough scientific soundness", this may be a specific discussion of the thesis writeup. Taking eight co-written papers and re-writing them in your own words is non-trivial, and you may be suffering from a poor presentation -- you can have an unscientific writeup of perfectly correct work.
If things have not fundamentally broken down with your supervisor, I would try to understand if they think the work is fundamentally bad (in which case this does raise issues about why they wrote so many papers with you) or if it is the presentation in the thesis. In general, it would be useful to get someone else to look at your thesis draft and give you honest feedback on it.

Thanks for mentioning this. I had a similar weird interaction with my chair in my last year. He just couldn’t understand why one of my papers was a contribution. Really, it was about how I framed it. He also loved a good diagram. Then suddenly it was my most impressive paper.

"he now thinks my work did not have enough scientific soundness and that I would not be graduating anymore." Because why? That's not enough information to say anything about it, +1.

I couldn't find this in the other answers: Another place to contact would be the Ombudskommission / Ombudsperson for your faculty. Most universities in Germany have this institution to support questions of good scientific research as well as scientific misconduct. They would launch an independent investigation and look to resolve the issue. I would guess that in your case, a change of advisor would be recommended.
The amount of papers you have published with your advisor directly and transparently contradicts their evaluation of your work, so I think your chances of resolving this situation by involving the Ombudskomission are quite good.
All the best to you.

In many German universities, you can hand in a PhD thesis without the consent of your advisor, sometimes even without having an advisor at all.
While this is not advisable in most situations, it may be in yours because then, a committee will be set up and your thesis will be judged by more than one person.

Though I'm unfamiliar with the German system, I'd assume that before going ahead and submitting a thesis without advisor consent, one would first want to consult with the sorts of people mentioned at the beginning of Wrzlprmft's answer, correct?

While technically correct, I believe this needs a big disclaimer that such action usually goes wrong a lot more often than it goes right. And if it goes wrong, OP has successfully deepened the hole they are in.

"Should I take legal action..." probably, or even definitely, not at this stage before you exhaust internal means.
You should of course take the advice of many other answers and try to resolve the issue internally. But I do not think consulting a lawyer is necessarily a bad thing, if you have the means to do so (it is expensive).
Within their academic freedoms, professors at public universities are still public officials under the law who must not act arbitrarily; their decisions must be justified and are subject to internal and judicial review (where the degree conferring power is granted by the state, including in Germany).
There are lawyers specializing in higher education law under which disputes between students and universities may arise (even if their existence and social "utility" may be questioned). If the internal contact person or the student/staff unions cannot point you to the right direction, a lawyer may still be able to help you navigate internal regulations or support you in in an internal process (even if they do not communicate with the university directly at first stages). They may also tell you if a legal case is impossible or unlikely or likely to succeed based on the full circumstances you tell them.

You could move universities and find another supervisor elsewhere to finish up.
I have personally had a great experience in the UK with the PhD system there, in particular does your PhD not get graded by your own supervisor, and they are not permitted to speak at your doctoral defense, only listen.
A few German friends of mine had similar problems like you described, some picked other supervisors and finished at the same university, whereas others changed universities and in one case countries to finish up. The good news is: do not despair - all these friends ended in a good position in the end.
The German system gives professors too much power as supervisors, who often are also employers. I would like to see the system change towards supervisors playing more of a "guide" role, independent of the assessment, which should not be done by conflicted people.
German PhDs seem more political than focused on the science, I know one person who was not permitted to talk to a professor from another department when he wanted help from a statistician. In the UK, cross-departmental collaboration is much more part of the culture.
If the original poster could be reached (e.g. disposable email account) I'd be happy to have an independent discussion. In any case, I wish you all the best and a satisfactory outcome. Meanwhile, tell yourself, "The first PhD is the hardest!"

I did my PhD in the UK, and the supervisors here have pretty much the same powers as in Germany. In fact (at least in physics) PhD committees are larger in Germany than in the UK (= 2 people, including one from your own group).

Yes in the UK there is only internal and external evaluators, with absolute power. In Germany the committee is usually larger and more balanced. And your comments about German PhDs being political is just an anecdote, it is not true in general.

I had deep, long-running personal problems with my PhD supervisor.
All those problems instantly vanished once we stopped meeting one-on-one and every meeting became a group meeting.
The situation you describe does not have a single answer. You’re going to need to address multiple smaller issues as part of the whole.
You think your supervisor is unreasonable? Make it a group conversation and get objectivity in the room.
Focus on minutiae. What can you actually achieve? Make a giant pile of small victories, because the problem as you describe is too large to solve at once.
Isn’t your research  where it needs to be? Fix that. The thesis is one document. Do whatever it takes to improve that document. Whatever it takes.
Hit the panic button and get all the help you can from wherever you can, because it’s time to show up and finish.
It’s one guy standing in the way. Manipulate him, intimidate him, beg him, and lie to his face. Anything it takes. Just overcome. the end justifies the means in the situation you describe.
Do not be combative, be a PhD. Identify issues and tackle them. Don't give him any excuses.

I'd guess your penultimate paragraph is generating the downvotes. It is profoundly bad advice.

You're contradicting yourself. I do not expect manipulative, intimidative or even lying behaviour from anyone much less a PhD.

@Buffy Yes of course you are right. My heart goes out to the guy. Its stories like this that keep me awake at night. I guess I get worked up.

@infinitezero: While I don't approve of the answer, I don't understand the following part of your comment either: "I do not expect manipulative, intimidative or even lying behaviour from anyone much less a PhD." How is having a PhD related to any of this? I don't see any reason to assume that people with a PhD would act, on average, more ethically than other people.

@infinitezero i am prepared to make the argument that academia in the USA survives on scheming and nepotism. anytime. dinner. middle of the night. anytime. i might get worked up though :)

My hat's off to you for even trying. This site and the entire industry is a sham. Dude's in college and still hasn't learned when to smile and nod their head, and when or how to say no, or doesn't have the balls to ask why? GL....

@JochenGlueck at least in theory, people with an academic carrier should be able to reflect more, both on their work and on themselves. That being said, in theory. Unfortunately I know too many counterexamples myself.

@infinitezero as a scientist, my theories are based on data. and based on my data, your theory is more of an opinion.


text:
If I buy a research article, will I get any potential retraction statement or erratum free of charge?
If I buy a research article, will I get any potential retraction statement or erratum free of charge? Or will I have to spend additional money to obtain access to it? I see that some retraction statements are behind paywall, so I wonder whether the people who bought the article also cannot access it free of charge.

I like the sentiment behind the question, but in my experience this depends entirely on the mechanics of the journal.  If they replace the older version of the paper by a newer, corrected version -- and one may well think that they should never do this for anything other than publication errors on their part -- then your access should convert to the new paper.  However if the corrigendum is a separate paper, then it's a separate paper: their online system doesn't know the difference and will charge you for it.
(It is not inevitably thus, of course, but journals would have to update the "sell pages" of their older papers to automatically point to the corrigendum, at least.  I have not seen this.  If anyone has, I'd be interested to know.)
One might regard this as the proof that buying journal papers individually out of your pocket is simply not a reasonable practice.  I certainly recommend against it.  If you need a paper and don't have institutional access to it: that's what friends / colleagues / collaborators / inter-library loans are for...

It's also something that deserves some feedback to the journals who do not allow free access to retractions. For example, write the journal/editors when you cannot access a retraction. I think this is one of the issues that needs more exposure and public comment.


text:
Can we first claim and then find the evidence when we write the literature review (i.e., using confirmatory technique)?
I have a question regarding a researcher’s practice in writing.
Let me give you some background about this issue. Here’s what this researcher does when writing introductions and literature reviews. He makes certain speculations first and then proceeds to making claims based on those initial speculations. It is worth noting that the claims he makes are sometimes too specific. Following that, he starts looking for evidence to support his claims.
I have tried many times to convince him and have told him that this is not the right way to write a research paper. It’s more like writing a composition rather than an academic piece of writing which aims at making contributions to the world of education.
Here’s part of what he recently wrote in an email in response to me:
“I disagree that making claims and looking for evidence supporting them is "not academic". Maybe I am wrong but this approach is less exploratory than the method you have in mind. For example, [Michael] Kane's framework is based on this method: Claim --> evidence. Kane specifically stresses the importance of opinions/judgments etc. I personally do not prefer to tie my mind merely to the literature --I do not find it much academic in the sense it does not engage me in critical thinking. My method is: "The theory I wish to develop does not exist out there; I develop and support it"”
I would like to have your opinion regarding this issue. Is what the researcher claims really right? If not, can you introduce some published sources which have attacked this practice?

Making a claim and using published literature to support it is completely fine. Otherwise every research paper would need to start from A plus B equals B plus A. However, if there is contradictory evidence regarding the claim, you may not cherry pick what suits you best.

Maybe you should look up the difference between exploratory and confirmatory research techniques.

Claim -> evidence is a perfectly valid approach. It is just that evidence is not the same as only looking for supporting information, it means critically scrutinizing all aspects that speaks for or against the claim and then drawing an educated conclusion on whether the claim is good or not. In the end the "evidence" is the net outcome of positive and negative support to the claim. So to me the claim that one should come up for an idea an then look for support is either poorly phrased, leading to misunderstanding, or plainly bad.

You'll find some evidence for pretty much anything
It is okay to make assumptions and verify them afterwards. However, there is a problem with "looking for evidence to support his claims" - verifying claims requires looking both for evidence that supports the claim, and also for evidence that would disprove the claim.
Doing only one half of that will be a failure since if the claim is contested, then you'll find only what you're looking for even if the 'other side' has overwhelming support. There are many proven false things that have also some published supporting evidence.
You don't know if the claim is contradictory
There are many cases when seemingly obvious things aren't actually true. If a seemingly obvious issue is a core of your argument, you should make sure that it's  true - and that includes looking also for contradictory evidence; and you know that it's not contradictory only after checking it. If it turns out false, you'd want to say "There wasn't any published data about the falseness", not "Well, it was on the first page of google but I didn't bother to look for it".

Another way to frame this matter is in the context of the "confirmation bias."  This is the tendency to favor evidence to support one's stance, while ignoring contrary evidence.  The social psychology literature has produced an abundance of research to show this is a very common (and unintentional) bias.  I think it is perfectly acceptable to make a claim (or hypothesis) that is informed by good theory, and then seek out the relevant evidence that can help refine the claim (or hypothesis).
The problem is not in the process of making the claim and then reviewing evidence -- rather, the problem occurs during the actual review of the evidence.  If your colleague isn't aware of the possibility of a confirmation bias, it is likely that she or he will look only at the evidence that aligns with the claim.  One way of minimizing the confirmation bias is to begin the search process with more of an open question that allows one to capture the full range of evidence, as opposed to just one of many possible sides.
I highly recommend the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, which does an excellent job of describing many decision making processes and where people can go wrong.

Honestly, I suspect that a lot of research is done this way.  Read a couple of papers, get an idea, collect data and then write the paper.  During the paper writing one has to do a reasonable literature review (at least in my field) to give context to your work and why it is better.  This isn't the best way of doing it.
I believe this really separates researchers from great researchers. The great researchers have a strong knowledge of all the background papers and understand how they relate to their topic.
As someone who has done research for 20+ years, I would really encourage any newer researcher to get a good grasp of the background papers and create an understanding of how they fit together and how your work fits into theirs.
We all build on the shoulders of the past, it is rare to create a new research topic that is not based on past research.
The person you mention, I think, is not creating objective work, it seems a little more subjective (though it is hard to distance yourself from your own ideas :-) ).  My feeling is that you need to do the right thing and realize that what they are doing is not a great model (which I think you have realized already).
I think there is a difference between assumptions and hypothesis.  Assumptions, to me, seem to be unsubstantiated ideas. Hypotheses, to me, are substantiated ideas. A hypothesis typically comes from a strong knowledge of the background literature and a few good ideas you have come up with.
Just my 2 cents.