text:
Professor uses academic employees to write proposals
I am working at a German university after I obtained my PhD. My professor asked me to write project proposals to get funding. One and a half years ago, I spent all my time during 6~8 months writing a DFG proposal that is supposed to be a joint effort between our university and another institution. No one contributed to the proposal except me. My professor used to give me some general feedback.
When we submitted the proposal, I wanted to submit it under my name but my professor convinced me that it would have higher chances under his name than mine and at the end, it did not change anything. I accepted, and the proposal was submitted under his name and the name of our partner and me as a co-applicant.
During the review process, my professor changed university and asked me to join him. However, due to private reasons, I couldn't join him. Now, the proposal has been accepted and I asked my former professor to keep the project in my university as my contract will end soon and because I wrote the entire proposal.
His answer was "No, I don't want to". I argued with him and he replied “it is normal to write a proposal for me when you are at the beginning of your postdoc”. In this situation, I am not getting any credit and the project will move with him and another person will be hired for it, where I might be unemployed.
Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals and what to do in similar situations because I find it stealing my effort and credit?
EDIT
Currently, I am hired by the university and affiliated to a research group, so we can work on the project in our institution. Originally, the project was granted to my current institution.
EDIT 2
I think it is getting more into a discussion rather than answering a question. I allow my self to EDIT the question according to the answers and the comments. I didn't get a clear answer, but people were divided into three categories:

It is unethical and the professor did a terrible thing.
It is unethical but the professor has fulfilled his moral responsibility be offering a position in his new institution.
It is ethical and universities/professors can use employees or professional writers to write proposals. (Btw. I did not mention that I wrote the proposal but I also developed the ideas, where my professor did not agree with most of them).

The goal of my question is not to find who is wrong or to prove that I am a victim of my former professor's behaviour but to know if we are working in a healthy atmosphere or not and if it is unethical I would reject to write proposals for my next professor. Otherwise, I need to agree with the fact that this is how it works and continue doing it without feeling bad about my self.
EDIT 3
Consequently, I would vote to close the question as it is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations.

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

What kind of proposal requires 6-8 months to write?

@user151413 The one you sent to a supervisor who says "Everything has to be rewritten" $N$ times, where $N >> being reasonable$ and in the end "Even this is a bad proposal and won't be accepted, let's submit it" but when it gets accepted it suddenly becomes worthy  ;)

If I understand correctly, you (as a postdoc) developed a research proposal, your professor submitted it under their name, and the project was funded. Then you were sidelined --- you will not be a PI on this project and you will not even take any role in it. This is a terrible experience and I am sorry to hear it happened to you.
The professor's behaviour is wrong. Even for German academia, notoriously famous for being professor-centred and often exploiting young researchers unfairly, this is probably beyond what can be considered normal.
Now, what can probably happen if you expose the story? Likely, not much. There are two issues here:

It is impossible to verify reliably who was the author of the proposal. Even if you show the time stamped drafts, it only proves that you typeset the material and prepared it for submission. Your former professor may say that they explained you the main idea and asked you to type it. It's very hard to prove authorship.
Even when evidence is quite convincing, most academics and academic administrators won't pursue an established professor for a single case of academic misconduct, if it does not directly hurt the University. Ideas are stolen very often, but such stories rarely made headlines, so most administrators won't bother dealing with them. Of course, there are exceptions, when even a single problem can unexpectedly grow big and eventually cost academic their job (there were several such stories recently related to hot topics in political/social discourse). But as far as I see quite a few professors made their carriers by borrowing ideas of others and making their students and postdocs to do a lot of their own work.

So, what can you take from this story? First, you know that you can develop a winning research proposal. This is a sign of a great researcher! Not many people can do it in their postdoc. This is something you should be proud of, and this skill and dedication is something no-one can steal from you. If you decide to leave this story behind and focus on what's ahead, I hope you will be able to repeat this success and now get the full credit for your hard work and creativity.
Good luck!

Thank you for the nice answer and motivating words! 1) But if I let it go, isn't it like I am encouraging this behaviour and this professor will keep doing this with junior postdocs.
2) I knew this issue when we submitted but the problem is that the goal was that I take the position in this project but now it won't be possible.

@CaptainEmacs It would be nice if you could elaborate more and put it as an answer.
"what's gained by that?" == No one takes me effort and put it under his name, where I don't get anything (even credit)

@CaptainEmacs You are legitimizing something illegetimate. Like what he told me justifying the situation: "It is part of you job to write proposal and get funding for the university". This is of course true if it is applied with the name of the applicant. Even if we get tolerant, the proposal is to get funding for the university not for a person and on this basis I accepted to write the proposal but now it is moving with him. It is like I worked for him and not for the university. It is also like I used the money of the university X to get funding for university Y.

@CaptainEmacs please do not take it wrongly. I am saying that manipulating is not right. We could also convince students to work on their topics and we revise their manuscripts and submit them under our names with their permission. This does not make it right because it is manipulating and using power and fake promises to convince them. Academia is the first place in my opinion which should be clear of this kind of behaviour. Thank you for all the explanation!

@Alpha Understood. My point is: I don't legitimize anything. All here including me say the ethics here is severely wanting. However, the comparison to a paper is not quite the same; no one is going to write a paper for an advisor when they do not get anything. You had hopes that you would get the position, you were prepared to play this game - and indeed the prof offered you first choice both on location and after move, the latter of which you declined. It's only after the confluence of these factors that ethics came to the fore. I merely tried to address your apparent priorities in situ.

@Alpha I tried to help address the problem as it presented itself. The ethics horse had bolted long ago. Does it mean I condone it? No. BTW, one reason why one should be wary of questionable setups, in academia as well as elsewhere.

It is impossible to verify reliably who was the author of the proposal. Never say "impossible". Anonymous internet posters have been uncovered by their sentence patterns, and vocabulary.

@Kaz If A told B a solution to a problem, and B wrote it in their own words, the sentence patterns will point to B. Still, A is the original author of the solution. It is the same with proposals.

I feel weird trying to play "the devil's advocate" in this case. It is quite clear that doing some work and getting nothing in return is frustrating at least and might be connected with unethical behavior indeed. However, I still want to share a couple of "balancing" thoughts that might be or might not be true in this situation.
First, I see no major issues in outsourcing proposal writing to someone else if it is done properly. In my early postdoc years I was myself hired to co-author a large proposal. It was implied that I am to be in the project if it is funded, but ultimately it was just work for hire, and there was no promise of any future employment. The project was tied to the university rather than individuals, so my name wasn't anywhere in the document as far as I remember (but it was long time ago). I consider such situation a fair deal.
Next, sometimes a project is really connected to a specific PI/Co-PI team. A part of project evaluation is the assessment of PIs abilities to conduct the proposed research, so a plan might be rejected merely on the basis of "inappropriate team". The implication here is that changing a PI after acceptance might be nearly impossible — one cannot just pass a project from one team to another, as the grant is awarded to a specific team.
Finally, your moral standards are really high if you expect people to give up grant money on moral grounds in such situations. Yep, I agree your case is unfair, but from the professor's perspective you got the offer, and you turned it down. So in his point of view he tried to fulfill his moral obligation, and now he is free to go.
While I might say that the moral of this story is to always negotiate on the land before you sail, but in reality life is too complicated, and it's hard to predict all possibilities. There are no winning scenarios here — it's either you without work or the professor without an accepted grant proposal. BTW, remember that he also has obligations to the other participant university — it is probably a part of their agreement that they are going to deal with him rather than with you. So, frankly speaking, I don't see a solution that would make everyone happy here.

very nice points, but let me comment some of them; 1) "The project was tied to the university rather than individuals", that's the point, if I am the one who is leaving the university, I wouldn't not argue or even if someone else will be hired but when the professor take it away with him, it just feels like I was working for him (personally) rather than the university. 2) "The implication here is that changing a PI after acceptance might be nearly impossible", it is not about the possibility but the willing; he could stay a PI from another university but he said "I don't want to".

+1 for “you got the offer, and you turned it down” — this seems to be two people being stubborn rather than clearly unethical behavior

Frankly speaking, you turned down your prof's offer for the same reason -- "you don't want to". I mean, there could be some rational private reason behind his unwillingness, but maybe he doesn't want to discuss it with you.

@rg_software this comparison is not rational! The professor obviously got a better offer and there is no moral responability that makes his employees move with him. On the opposite, the professor put under his name someone else's work. This is awfal to think that they are equal.

@Younes, Maybe he moved to another place due to a better offer, but we don't know why he doesn't want to keep the project in his past university -- so I am not ready to judge. Then, proposals don't have "authors" -- they have PIs, co-PIs, participants, etc. There is no implication that PI is also the author of the proposal text, so it isn't the case of plagiarism or similar issues. A text can be written by an external paid professional author, which is normal practice in some places.

@rg_software I got your point, but here the answer to the PO's question would be: Yes, it is ethical that you write proposals for your supervisor and (s)he gets the funding and takes wherever (s)he goes to. The issue I am seeing is that no it is not ethical but you should understand the reason.

@Younes, I think it is very much "it depends" -- in my personal case I got paid for writing a proposal, and there was no promise whatsoever to hire me after that. In the OPs case, you can call prof's behavior "betrayal" if it helps. It's bad to betray, but not against the rules, let's say.

Summary: there may be unethical details here. On the whole, I consider

the professor offering you a job in their new group fair treatment
that you cannot complain of not getting a job when you refuse to move there
the ethics of the professor taking the grant with them unanswerable here
a successful proposal a very important achievement for a fresh postdoc. This should show up in your CV and Arbeitszeugnis.
the ethics of postdocs writing proposals complicated - thus long answer below.

I've known similar things happen. In the case I'm thinking of everyone stayed at the same institution, but someone else was assigned to do the research. The grant writer was not threatened by unemployment, though. To some extent, it would be seen as OK (solidarity as in: everyone may occasionally need a grant that they did not propose, so in turn, others occasionally need to write successful grants that they won't work on). But when this turned too disparate (someone writing several successful grants and not getting any of them for their resarch), it caused bad blood and IMHO rightly so.

I think your question hinges on whether it is ethical for the professor to take the grant with them.  Which I think cannot be answered by strangers on the internet, since the answer would depend on details for the grant. However, such a move/change is certainly approved by the funding agency.
What you may do is contacting the funding agency to learn how they handle/consider changes such as the professor moving. It may also be instructive to learn what they expect of their applicants.
Without knowing further details, I think it quite likely that the funding agency considers the professor's research group a highly important "infrastructure" aspect for the grant* - and that would likely also have been the case with you as main applicant. It may also be that a fresh postdoc doesn't have any chance as applicant not because of lacking scientific ability but because they want to see someone experienced in the grant business and someone who is in a position to actually do hiring decisions.

Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals

IMHO it is perfectly fine if a professor (or rather: a university) employs people to write proposals. This is certainly academic work. Unfortunately, it is a large part of academic work that is often not recognized and appreciated at its true importance.
From the employment perspective, the university pays a salary and gets written proposals in exchange. This is not different from hiring an employee to do research where salary is exchanged for research work.
Things turn murky when someone is told to write proposals who was hired for other work (e.g. doing research):

On the one hand, most employment contracts that I've seen (I'm in germany) have a clause that allows the employer to assign the employee to other work (typically: at a comparable level of expertise). My guess would be that the writing of scientific proposals compared to doing research as postdoc would easily pass this test.
On the other hand, if the employee was funded by grant money and several person-months of work went into writing proposals rather than research on the project that pays, this is IMHO corruption.

In academia, there's an additional conflict here: In industry, everyone knows that an employee is typically not allowed to talk too freely about what they did for their salary. In constast, in academia there is an assumption that the work can be judged correctly from what is publicly visible.
When that assumption is not met, difficulties ensue. This is the case with your proposal but it can happen also e.g. if the employer does not allow scientific publication of a piece of work - which is within their legal rights (legally speaking, you were compensated by your salary).
IMHO it is unethical to hamper your professional career by assigning you work that will not have the same visibility as the work you were hired for without any compensation or measures to mitigate this disadvantage. IMHO, a certain compensation may be reached quite easily:

am not getting any credit

That would clearly be unethical. Your Arbeitszeugnis should certify that you wrote a successful grant application. As a fresh postdoc, having written a successful grant proposal deserves to go into your CV, so when you apply for another job the hiring committee sees this experience.
What would also be clearly unethical is promising a grant to someone who writes a proposal and then breaking that promise. I'd also include deliberately creating the impression of such a promise as unethical.
But again, we strangers on the internet do not know here how much was actually promised to you vs. you not seeing the risks of the proposal not working out to a contract for you even though the proposal its granted.
For a fresh postdoc, I'd even say that a nice professor may prepare a "green" postdoc that things can go wrong.  I would not call this an ethical obligation though, since it is somewhat in conflict with treating you on eye-level as a fully grown-up professional (who'd be aware of such risks without being told). In that case, misjudging your understanding of how academic funding works would not make this ethical misconduct.

 and the project will move with him and another person will be hired for it, where I might be unemployed.

As I said above, we cannot know whether the grant should or even can stay at your university after the professor moved.

The professor asking you (= offering you a job at their new university) is very fair treatment. I therefore don't see cause for complaint for this aspect of the situation. Why you do not want to take this offer does not matter at all.
(If not all bridges are burnt by now, it may be worth while exploring whether you could work remotely/mostly remotely on that project - I'd think that right now, you may have extra-good chances with such a request).

Someone who wrote the proposal does have an "objective head start" compared to other applicants for the job since they are obviously up to date already with the topic. OTOH, hiring someone only because they wrote the proposal without considering other candidates could have a smell of nepotism, which would also be unethical.

 it is normal to write a proposal for me when you are at the beginning of your postdoc

The professor may argue that this is ethical: starting a postdoc directly after PhD means that you are currently funded by a project that someone else wrote. The may argue that it is only fair if you work off this "debt" by writing a proposal that funds some other fresh postdoc.

In future, you may want to discuss very openly the implications and prospects for you when asked to write a proposal. Like discussing authorship right at the beginning of a collaborative paper, this is a lesson often painfully learned. And something that you may find difficult to achieve in practice (in particular as a still quite fresh postdoc).
I'd take good care to make clear that you do not want to question the good faith of your collaborators/professsors but that you need such things to be spelled out quite clearly for your own sake/for your own professional improvement/to better learn how academia works.

* I had a scholarship during my PhD time - the funding agency thought the research group aspect sufficiently important to ask me whether there's any other group where I could do the proposed research better than at my "home" group and offered to help with a transfer if so. (My project was quite interdisciplinary - they asked whether moving my "base camp" to the other discipline would help me)

I don't actually see a clear cut ethical problem here. It is likely that the grant DID in fact have a better chance of success with the established professor as the PI. There was probably a considerable part of the proposal that involved the professor's research record, their connections to other scientists, etc. which played a large part in the decision process (regardless of who compiled and wrote the section highlighting this, this is something significant they brought to the table in this proposal).
It is possible the professor knew in advance that they were leaving, but honestly, it is not always safe to discuss these things until they are set in stone so I don't know what they could do there in terms of being upfront about this. And they DID offer you a position in the new group, so if you are left unemployed by this turn of events, that is a choice that you made and not a situation forced on you by the professor.
Could the professor hand off the PI position to someone else? Who would that be? Should they make YOU the PI of the grant and leave the project behind? I'm not sure that is fair to ask, honestly.
You did good, you apparently wrote a good proposal, this is a valuable skill to have. Keep at it, try to collaborate with this current project in any way you can, and keep writing good grant proposals (next time with your name as either PI or co-PI).

The way the story here was told, it seems to me it would indeed be fair to make OP the PI and leave the project behind.

I agree: It makes sense for the prof to take the grant because then he has the grant and the OP cannot do anything against it. I just do not agree with "I'm not sure this is fair to ask". I think it would be fair to ask.

Is it ethical that the professor uses his academic employees to write proposals and what to do in similar situations because I find it stealing my effort and credit?

Someone should come out and say it clearly. No, the behavior you described is not ethical. The professor clearly exploited your work and skills, and his blunt refusal to cede to your request at least partially shows bad faith on his part. How bad the behavior is precisely may depend on various details, such as whether he knew he was going to leave the university and was not straight with you about his plans and intentions at a time when you could have used that information to decide how much effort to invest in the venture. But any way you look at it, he took advantage of you.

@Morgan he could easily come up with alternative arrangements, like offering to pay OP as a consultant to work on the project from the old university, leaving the grant at the old university (with OP or a senior faculty member in charge) or exploring other options with the funding agency. Just saying “I don’t want to” without showing any willingness to entertain different solutions shows bad faith. Also, I don’t see why it’s too much to ask the professor to abandon the project if that’s the only option. It was OP who did all the work. The professor’s behavior stinks, plain and simple.

You have to live with your decisions and accept that you didn't move for personal reasons and now won't be a part of that work.

This answer reads like if you did not read the question and also can not understand why one might not want to move for personal reasons (why the quotation marks?)


text:
Are fear and concerns stemmed from being sexual assaulted generally understandable by grad schools? Would it be seen as a negative trait?
I am a victim of sexual assault and I need to talk to the school (in the US) about it for accommodation reasons. I feel if I don't disclose enough I may not be able to get the accommodation, yet I don't feel comfortable of disclosing that much to the school. I am trying to decide what is safe to say. I am scared and nervous about saying something wrong or causing any consequences. For example, I don’t want to disclose the identity of the people who did it. I don’t want to bring them more back into my life.  The people who did it are not related to the school.
Are these concerns generally immediately understandable by grad schools?
Would any of the above I mentioned be considered negative traits as a student? For example, sometimes I get nervous and clumsy when I talk about it.
Thank you!
Edit: Thank you very much for all of your comments and answers. They are all very helpful informations to know. I am sorry if some aspects are not very clear in the questions because I am trying to avoid specific details but still ask questions. In reality it is a very complicated situation.

Hi Lucy, I think that who you disclose to and when is a very personal choice. In terms of who to disclose to and when, there is something in the US called mandatory reporting for certain staff and not others. Are you in the US? You should be able to find some info on who is confidential and who is not on the university Title IX page.

And no one should think poorly of you for disclosing if you choose to do so! You should get the accommodations you need. Student counseling services and victim advocate services (if they exist) would be great places to start. They can help you figure out accommodation processes and the language you feel comfortable using (maybe a vague “traumatic event” is all some people need to know).

If you choose to disclose more broadly, you should have the right to ask that a formal investigation not be opened, especially if this happened away from school (at most institutions in the US).

Hi @Dawn, thank you so much for saying that. I am in the US. It is a situation I feel I may need to disclose more than what I wanted to, in order to get the accommodation that I need. I was told Title XI office might be able to help, but I am concerned about the confidentiality because it is a non-confidential & reporting office.

Hi @Lucy, sorry you're dealing with this. I have no direct experience, so not an answer - but one route forward might be to contact the Title XI office anonymously (telephone/anonymous email), explain that you are a student contemplating making a disclosure, and ask if they could explain your options/what is involved/etc. Your discussion can (and probably should) be entirely non-specific as to people, departments, etc.

I'm confused.  Do you need accommodation in order to apply for graduate school?  Are you planning to apply but want accommodation after you enroll?  Or are you currently enrolled and want accommodation now?

You might also look at what other support services are available on campus. Typically there are welfare officers associated with student organisations; counsellors in the medical centre; ministers of religion... these are people who may have past experience navigating procedures, or who can help you make enquiries about your options going forward.

Hi Lucy, the Title IX office is not confidential, but they can give out resources/connect you with the people on campus who ARE confidential. Confidential options always include mental health services and often some sort of victim services who can help with accommodations.

@AnonymousPhysicist, I am sorry I purposely tried to avoid specific details to be discreet. In reality it is a very complicated situation. I simplified it to be discreet and still ask questions.

If you can't tell us if you are a student or not, we can't tell you where to look for help.

There are two parts of your question - how to get accommodations and whether you will be judged in some way.
Also, this answer assumes you are a current student, not a prospective student.
The first part of the question varies a bit from university to university. It sounds like you would like to figure out accommodations without making a formal report, which should be possible. You can start by visiting the website for the Title IX office at your specific school. You might need to click around a bit, but this website likely has quite a bit of information on resources for victims of assault. Some of these will be confidential (and labeled as such), including mental health services and often some sort of victim advocacy office. So you can start there to figure out how accommodations work at your school. Generally, accommodations are determined by trained administrators, not faculty.
For my institution (perhaps this is universal in the US, not sure), once the administration has decided on an accommodation for you, the faculty members affected simply get letters or emails explaining what they need to do. If I have any questions or concerns, I contact the accommodations office rather than putting the student in an awkward position of justifying themselves.
The second part of your question is about others’ judgement. The first point I’d like to make here is that very few people who actually matter to your student career need to know your personal business. In the information I gave above about how to get accommodations you note that no one in your department needs to find out anything until the administration has determined what accommodations you should get. Within your department, you could choose to be very vague about what is going on ("personal situation" or even "traumatic incident") and generally people know not to pry. If you do decide to disclose, also know that no one in their right mind is going to correlate your emotions about handling a sexual assault with your skills as a student. Those are such different domains of life that I can’t imagine any connection.

Yes, at my R1 in the US there is a special office that generates "accommodation" letters, that simply describe a reasonable accommodation, without any mention of what issue led to or leads to the problem. The decisions about this are not made in academic departments here.

@paulgarrett Yes, that is the case for us as well. I was not sure if it was universal. Also, if I have a reason I think that accommodation won't work in my class, I am supposed to contact the office to discuss rather than putting the student in the middle of it. Is that the case for you as well?

Yes, Dawn, instructors are to deal with the office, not the student. (And I do think that is appropriate, although some of my colleagues somehow manage to construe this as an abrogation of their rights and powers as instructors... jerks.)

That are all great to know, thank you!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why did Sci Hub stop uploading papers?
I looked at the most recent metadata (actually a compressed list of the DOIs of some 88 million publications) from the Sci-Hub project. None of the DOIs appear to be from later than 2021.
I can understand why Sci-Hub might choose, or be involuntarily forced, to close down ... but the choice to leave it online but in a frozen historical state seems unusual. What has happened in the legal, or domain registration space that would have motivated the choice?

Maybe it has something to do with library GEnesis ? https://librarygenesis.net/

I believe there are no post-2021 papers on Library Genesis either

It was due to a lawsuit going on about copyright infringement.
You can check the announcement here.
I tried to look for newer updates, but the only one I could find was a comment on the same thread. The owner used to be very active about posting updates, but I'd assume the lawyers advised her against it.

I have been aware of the lawsuit since its inception. But it explains almost nothing. What logic (if indeed any) led to the conclusion that they should continue to provide all the papers that they have in their database yet not allow more to be uploaded. I suspect that the lawsuit in and of itself was not especially important. More likely, I suspect is that they did not have the money (money being the critical thing here) both to defend the lawsuit and expand their database.  Hence continuing with the behavior that is being challenged .

I don't think she could take it down since it is evidence of an ongoing case. If you follow her twitter, you can see that she is trying really hard to make sci-hub not die and be able to add new papers to it. In terms of hosting papers and the impact of money on them, I highly doubt it since she hosts the PDF and not the source, which is relatively low memory, and a server with just a lot of hard drive space is very cheap, and there were many donations in the past.

The Twitter account, of course, was silenced 3 years ago and in the meantime, much of the function of SciHub has been taken over by Anna's Archive.

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


text:
How deeply should one understand other people's work before building on them?
I have a few results during my math PhD that I used in a black-box or grey-box sense. I have a rough idea of how it is proved but the proof itself is extremely long and detailed. I cannot reproduce it off the top of my head without looking at the paper and going through it line by line again. Some of these proofs also themselves refer to other lemmas and proofs in different papers and it can become quite a deep rabbit hole.
I am at a stage now where I can either spend some weeks studying these proofs in detail or I can focus more new research and take these results as black box results. What is the right/expected thing to do from a scientific mindset? On the one hand, understanding everything from scratch would be nice but on the other hand, the reason we write lemmas is so that others can use them as a springboard to develop new ideas.
TL;DR how deeply do mathematicians understand other people's work before using their results? My practical concern would be my thesis defence but the broader scientific "best practice" would be good to know too.

Does this answer your question? I conceptually understand a result, but not its mathematical implementation – how can I defend using it?

Most people I know would be okay in using the result in your situation.

@GoodDeeds, thank you. I'd say it's related although I'm working in a field where computational implementations aren't involved. Also, the questioner there is a biologist using a math result while my case is that the results I'm building on are from my own field (linear algebra). But it certainly helps!

As an analogy, we usually do not take apart the legs of a chair just to see why they provide adequate support.   Unless you are interested in building a 'better' chair or have a clear goal in mind,  like using them for a table, then I would say you should make better use of your time.  In general, I learn only those concepts/tools/ideas that would help me achieve a research aim or solve a problem.

This depends on the individual case and requires judgment.
On the one hand, understanding the past work completely gives you a better base of understanding going forward.
On the other hand, there are circumstances in which you understand the past work sufficiently to go forward, and you have enough trust in it to know that you won't be embarrassed in future for doing dead end work.
That complete understanding takes time, as you note. It is seldom necessary for a mathematician to recapitulate the entire history of mathematics since, say, Euclid, to do significant work.
For some problems in some (sub) fields, more understanding is needed. In others, less. But there is an old saying "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." (Usually attributed to Voltaire.)
If you are good enough to recognize problems with lines of thought and you have insight into the underlying structure of the field, then trust your judgement. If you smell a skunk, delve deeper, otherwise, move on. It isn't a perfect defense against error, but.... Voltaire, again.

I think this does depend a bit on each person's approach, but what you've described to me sounds totally fine and normal.  I quite regularly use results where I could give a gauzy explanation of the proof, but nothing good enough for, say, a Ph.D. qualifying exam, and I feel no compunction about using well-established results where I could not even summarize the proof (for example, the classification of finite simple groups). I can't imagine deciding to dedicate even a full work day, let alone weeks, to trying to understand a proof without some clear goal in mind for using that understanding.

Whether people expect you to know the proofs of results that you use will depend on (at least) two factors. First, how complicated is the proof? I wouldn't expect anyone to know the whole proof of the classification of the finite simple groups or the solution of the Kepler problem, etc.  Second, how close is the result to your research area?  I once used, in a paper about the axiom of choice, the result (which I hope I'm remembering correctly) that, over the group ring of a cyclic group of order 23, not all projective modules are free. I didn't learn the proof of that, and I don't feel guilty about not learning it. I just cited the paper where it was proved. But, depending on the complexity of the proof, I might well feel guilty in the same situation if the result was in set theory.

You don't need to know all the proofs. That wouldn't be practical. If it helps you prove your result or uses a common technique then it could be worth learning. Otherwise you would be spending lots of time reading a proof, but for what purpose? Just knowing why a theorem is true can be satisfying, but that's about it.
It does help to keep in mind whether a theorem you read follows from the definitions in a straightforward way or whether it uses some deep facts.

Hmmm, actually proofs are the most important thing in mathematics. They bring insight. This might be a safe move if you already had the needed insight, but a poor way to develop it. Of course, trivial theorems have trivial proofs.


text:
Reporting error in publication after copyright transfer
Last year my paper got accepted in a Mathematics journal. This year the online first version of the article came out. I put the online version on research gate and a lot of people read the article. Then a fellow reader pointed out a big mistake in last part of the paper.
I mailed and informed the journal regarding the error.I told them the error does not seem to be fixable at the moment and requested them if they could update the paper by removing the erroneous part.  After a week I noticed that the journal has taken down the online first version from their website. But till now I haven’t received a reply to my mail. It has been a month now.
Can anyone tell what I should do now? I mailed the journal secretary yesterday, but no response.
I should also mention that I had submitted the copyright transfer form , after proof reading i.e Just before the online first version came out.
Also the journal is a decent one with .50 MCQ on mathscinet.
Well I expect a response from them because then I would know what their plan is with my paper, so that without loosing time I can publish it somewhere else if required.

What do you expect? You reported an error (and probably asked to take it down?), they took it down.  What do you expect them to do? Wouldn't it be on you to follow up?

It is my work in the first place and I expect that they at least inform me about their plan with my paper. Or tell me if I can try publishing my paper somewhere else.

But what did you write them?

In the first mail where I informed about the error, I also mentioned that the error does not seem to be fixable at present. Since I did not get any reply since then, I mailed the secretary yesterday asking if I can get a update on the status of the paper.

Well, if there is a non-fixable error, it is not unlikely they withdrew it?  Or they are waiting for you to update them on whether you were able to fix it or not?  --  I'm just not sure why you expect they should get back to you?

I think from what you write it is unclear why they should get back to you. You said "There's an error", they acted upon it.  If you want to know what their plans are, I think it is on you to ask.

I think it is quite clear from my mail and asking them for an update on the status of the publication.  A lot of time and hardwork is put into a paper and is not subject to disposal just like that without providing information about future actions.

Have you fixed the mistake by now? Otherwise, there seems no hurry, unless you intend to submit the erroneous paper to another journal.

What makes you think I would send the erroneous paper to another journal? I will remove the part with the error. My paper with the remaining results still holds value after that.

Why not stick with the same journal, but update your submission by removing the erroneous part?

I had proposed that option too in the first mail. But no reply.

You can't submit it elsewhere unless you get the copyright back. If they have otherwise published it (print, say), then that is probably impossible.

This is a question (or series of questions) for the editor. You can ask what they intend to do beyond taking down the online version. Ask if you can provide a correction (assuming that is possible). Ask if there is anything else you can do.
And an email "yesterday" won't get a response for a while.
But look for some mutually acceptable outcome.
I don't think the copyright transfer has any bearing on this, actually, other than that they have the responsibility now.

Actually I messaged the secretary again almost a month after the paper was taken down and not getting any reply after informing the error.

I think you've done the right thing, but, but don't be too optimistic about replies. You expected something more after the first communication, but it is possible that they thought taking it down was enough, unless you specifically asked for more of a response. Hopefully you will get something from the secretary soon-ish.


text:
Is it ok to upload encrypted pdf file on arXiv?
Is it ok to upload a pdf file of my paper with "edit with permission of author-password encryption" on arXiv? Is it good? And also please answer, can your paper show "submitted" status and then put "on hold"?

It’s not ok even to upload an unencrypted PDF. I believe that nowadays you are required to upload the source files of your paper.

You know PDF edit passwords are easily broken, right? There is a billion tools to remove them even online.

This would definitely be in the category of things you shouldn't do, even if you can.

See "red herrings" https://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex

Why is this getting downvotes? It's a bad idea, but this does not make it a bad question.

"On hold" comes after "submitted", if it is put on hold.

@DanRomik PDF option is there!

@FedericoPoloni hmm I got your point.

@AnonymousPhysicist you mean I should not encrypt file or I should not submit pdf files? why?

Friends, talking about plagiarism and copying, no format can prevent it. So why to choose TeX over pdf?

@user151413 Thanks

What is "edit with permission of author-password encryption"?

@Dumb The link provided by Anonumous Physicist provides ample of reasons why to use tex.  Did you read it?

It's a password encryption method for pdfs, it's not really rigorous term though.

@user151413 yes, but that does not help in stopping people copying the content of paper, right?

@Dumb You ask " So why to choose TeX over pdf?". Under the link provided, there are ample of reasons listed.

By the way, you should focus on one question. You have two completely unrelated questions.

@user151413 Sure!

The "submit as PDF" option on the arXiv might be there, but if you use it without providing good reason (e.g., your paper is written in Word or troff, or your LaTeX packages clash with arXiv's in an unfixable way), they might still block your submission. (I've even seen a PDF submission getting removed a few days after appearing, in a rare deviation from arXiv's "what's posted stays forever" principle. In that case, though, the author had it coming by writing their paper in LaTeX, then compiling, then saving the result as bitmap images and gluing them back together as PDF...)


text:
Postdoc at another university in another country. My previous team wants to stay connected and do research with me!
I obtained my PhD from a very low ranked university in Africa. Research was really hard due to a lack of many resources. But by working hard I managed to land a postdoc at a top world research intensive university. It wasn't easy to get the job as I had good papers but published in "average" journals. My PI even told me that I need to publish in top quality journals because that was the main issue in my profile and other candidate.
6 months later, my previous PHD supervisor wants me to do research with him. There were a couple of research papers that I was working on with a PhD student in my previous lab, my ex-supervisor also had an idea for another paper. I don't how to approach this situation because I have the following issues:

I need to publish in top quality journals and I don't think I would be able to do so if I helped my previous team. To be honest, the "average" journals I published in were the best ones my previous teams published in.
I also need to publish!
I don't know how my PI will take this. Perhaps I need to use my old affiliation!
This will probably steal a few weekends from me. I am not planning to dedicate a lot of time to my previous team.

Sometimes it looks that doing research with my old team has more harm than good for my profile. Sometimes, I say "why? it's just research". Should I do research with my previous team? What advice would you give me?

Well, definitely talk to your PI rather than speculate about what they might or might not think! It is not uncommon for people who have left one research position to still collaborate on finishing work they started in their previous positions (I have published a number of papers with my former postdoc PI despite no longer working in academia, or even in a remotely related industry field!)
However, you probably should be choosing based on if you are, or are not, interested in the research your former group is doing. Finishing off work started during your PhD is one thing, and is good for maintaining relations with your old supervisor. Starting something completely new with them depends on if you have interest in the collaboration and the time to dedicate to it.
Ultimately if you have a bunch of papers in whatever your field deems as top quality journals, and also some in lesser quality journals, nobody is going to dock points for the latter. Nobody's publication record is 100% in Nature or Science, variation in where you publish is normal!

Hey @jovisg, thank you for your email. I 100% agree you about judging work by the quality of the journals. But sadly, having only "average quality journals" did hurt me in some interviews. I noticed that some PIs the first thing they do is look at the quality of your journals. But you're right, I need to talk to my PI about this first.

I agree with @josivg that there is a big difference between finishing papers (depending how far along the research/writing is) and starting new ones. If the part-written papers are mostly done, then I'd consider finishing them, especially if other PhD students are relying on you.
I think it's fine to say no to new research though. I assume you're doing a postdoc now? Or at least have some fixed term position? In which case, I think it's fine to be selfish in your writing & collaboration strategy. Once you have a permanent position you can think about 'giving back' to your old collaborators. By then you will have experience to lead high-quality work, and may be able to include your old collaborators in top quality publications, which will help them much more than another 'average' publication (especially if that helps a future PhD student the kind of publication profile that international universities are looking for).

Glad that I read this as I was just about to write the same thing. The postdoc period is probably not the best time to do this unless it clearly helps you toward a permanent position. By tending to your own career now you will have a better opportunity to help others later.


text:
Switch Fields for my PhD
Short General Question

Is it possible to do a PhD in a seperate field apart from the field I had done my Undergraduate on ?

Detail Question

I am a holding a degree in relation to Construction Industry, but I love to do a PhD in Remote Sensing which is totally seperate field from my undergraduate program. but I have self studied Remote Sensing and Machine Learning for over a year and half as well as done my M.Sc research project using applications of Remote Sensing. In addition I have a promising research idea on Remote Sensing and Machine Learning. Thus is it possible to do a PhD in a totally different filed apart from the field I had done my undergraduate on.

Background,
I had completed my B.Sc (hons) Quantity Surveying and Construction Management with First class honors. Then I followed MBA and a M.Sc in Water Resources Management with 3.74 GPA
I had never followed Remote Sensing in my undergraduate program and only followed a one course module in my M.Sc as GIS and Remote Sensing and further studied it for my research project

Do you want to use Remote Sensing as a technique to collect/analyze data related to Water Resource Managment/Costruction? then yes, it is certainly possible.
Do you want to develop new way of processing Remote Sensing data? more difficult, not impossible, you probably need a solid understanding of Signal theory (and therefore advanced calculus knowledge).

I am leaving both construction and water resource management fields. and yes it will be a rough journey. I am going to find a solution for an Agricultural issue with using Remote Sensing and Machine Learning where I had found while working unofficially in a research project due to Covid. my Idea is my original one and not even marginally related to the project I had worked in. I had done some tests on my own for over year and a half and they are giving very much promising results.

Having been exposed to different fields/topics is your strongpoint, not your weakness. Look for openings related to applying ML methods to agricultural issue (there is a lot of interest) and at the same time build your ML skills by following one of the 1000s online course on the subject (I suggest you the hands-on approach via Python or similar tools).
Good luck!

You can certainly apply to positions you find interesting, and might even get an offer. However, I think it is important to consider how difficult it will be to get up to speed to the topics of interest in the PhD.


text:
And the improvements shown in the results section could be result of random initialization. There should be multiple runs with means and standard
I got this feedback for my thesis paper. Can anyone explain this feedback with details?

I  just did my thesis alone and it was my undergrad thesis. And I submit the conference alone and gave this feedback from them. So that I need help from you who expert in this field.

This sounds like machine learning, where the result of training a model (often neural networks trained with gradient descent) are known to depend on the random initialization of the network parameters. A quick google search will help you find much more details.
Just re-run the training multiple times with different random seeds (you should manually set them so you can be sure they are different) and report what happens as suggested.

Thanks a lot for your answer. "There should be multiple runs with means and standard deviations reported." - is that means to run with different random seeds?

Yes. The seed changes the initialization.

Thank you. Instead of run different random seeds if I run with k-fold cross-validation. Is this the same then?

No, but you should ask this on another SE site like stats or ai.

More context would be helpful. It is possible that your result is simulation-based (such as a bootstrap CI, simulated permutation test, or simulated P-value for a chi-squared test with sparse cell counts). Then the referee may wonder whether results are affected by your particular simulation.
In that case, you might (a) show the seed (and software) for the simulation, (b) estimate simulation error, (c) show results of two or three additional simulations, and/or (d) if feasible, use a larger number of iterations in the simulation to make simulation error smaller.
In any simulation, it is good practice to include at least (a) along with (b) or (c).

And the improvements shown in the results section could be a result of random initialization. There should be multiple runs with means and standard deviations reported. -  the full review. In the title can't put full review for the word limit.

There should be multiple runs with means and standard deviations reported. - This context is the main confusion for me.

By context, I mean what are you trying to show, why are you using simulation, what do you suppose the referee means by 'random initialization', and how do you know how good your simulation is?


text:
Informing a university about an offer from another university
I've received an offer from university A and I'm waiting for a decision from university B (both prestigious).
Would it be sensible to inform university B about my offer from university A and tell them that I would still be interested in their program, or would university B think that I would probably not accept their offer and hence not make me one.
To clarify, I haven't yet decided which university I would choose.

What country? .

A is in the UK, B is in the US.

US schools will not care about other offers you've received, it wouldn't even make it past the dept secretary. I don't know about the UK.

@AzorAhai-him- This is not true.  For top PhD applicants, elite universities will attempt to outbid each other.

My advice is:  decide what conditions would cause you to choose B.  Then say to university B:  I have an offer from A.  I would really like to come to your university, especially if you can ...  then list what you want.  If what you want is not reasonable, then don't bother.

Which stage are you at, PhD, postdoc, research group leader, ...?

@AnonymousPhysicist Perhaps that's common in physics, not really in my areas

@AzorAhai-him- It's more about differences in financial resources than differences in disciplines.

We can’t predict the effects of your telling B about the acceptance to A. This can depend on small details, including the precise way you phrase your email to them.
However, broadly speaking, departments try to recruit the best students; have some flexibility to offer better terms to some applicants than to others; and use that flexibility in a strategic manner based on information that they have about the applicants’ situation. The knowledge that you were accepted to A is certainly relevant to that sort of strategizing, and can in theory affect department B’s decision on how attractive of an offer they want to make you. In some situations it could lead to a more generous offer.

I interpreted the question as being about admission to a PhD program, not faculty appointment. Do we have different interpretations here? Perhaps the OP will clarify.

@Buffy we have the same interpretation, where did I suggest otherwise? Where I said “offer I’m referring to an offer of admission to a grad program, just like you are.

"More generous offer" seems odd to me. Aside from a few fields in the sciences (grant funded positions), most starting doctoral students get the same deal, usually a TA. And I think it is a coin flip whether saying this would help or hurt unless the person has some evidence that they are being actively pursued. The humanities are worse, I suspect.

@Buffy I don’t know what’s odd about what I wrote. There are funded offers, unfunded offers, offers with four years of support, offers with five years of support, etc. For superstar candidates there are various additional perks that may be included. That’s true in mathematics and various other disciplines I’m aware of. So yes, it’s certainly the case that some offers are more generous than others.

You really only need to tell the "other" university when you accept an offer and won't consider another.
The effect of telling B is unknown, but also unnecessary. Don't confuse issues. When you accept an offer, then inform any others out of courtesy.


text:
Approach a new advisor in addition to existing one
What should one do if one is interested in working on a subfield not within her advisor's expertise during PhD? I'm still in 1st year but have been working with current advisor for 2 years before PhD. I just become really interested in this other topic. The final PhD advisor pick is not confirmed until 2nd year but I feel it's not right to "abandon ship" because the advisor was main reason I was here in the first place. Plus I have become "estranged" from my advisor. We met twice in the past year and is not working on anything together. Usually it was me who read and work on things and approach her for a discussion. But since I shifted my attention elsewhere, this link is broken. She was like a friend who would occasionally check in on what you are reading and are doing what, as opposed to someone who guides you on which research question is important in the field and which direction you should and should not go. I feel it is right to approach some other people because I can genuinely use some expert guidance and I'm sure she wouldn't mind it too much so long as I eventually kept her as co-advisor. After all, most her previous advisees did the same thing because of her hands-off style.
The main issue is when I approach professors in this other field, what should I say? Do I just ask if they want to advise me directly or do I beat around the bush by talking about a "potential research question" etc as an interested student as  opposed to someone who is looking for an advisor.  Also how should I address my relationship to the current advisor? In fact, I think whoever I approach now will become the primary advisor. Should I just present myself as a "vanilla" student who is looking for full, devoted advisory or someone who they will advise on a shared capacity?

There shouldn't be any issues with this, but people have different personalities. In the best case your current advisor wants what is best for you. You seem to have that opinion of her.
I would open any discussion with another potential advisor as an "exploration" of the possibilities. You are interested in their field and wonder what problems there might be to work on for a degree. If you have your own ideas about a problem, bring them up, surely, and ask for advice. You could mention this to your current advisor first, though it isn't truly necessary. You are early in your studies and it is a good time to be exploring your options.
If both individuals are willing (and able) to advise you it might be good, but having your current advisor just as a support, rather than a formal advisor, is also good.
These sorts of conversations are best done face to face if that can be arranged safely now.

Thank you sir. It's very helpful. If I understand correctly, you support the "beat around the bush" approach. But what would you say is the right time and approach to reveal the "I want to work with you" intention. A prof could misunderstand it as "here is a student who just wants to have a friendly chat" as opposed to someone who intends to have them to commit their time in a significant way.

Make it informal, but clear that you are looking for a formal advisor. One thing that might occur is that you get turned down but recommended to someone even better. This happened to me, actually. The person I approached said he had no real ideas and sent me to the top person in our sub-field, who took me on.

Thank you sir. So basically something like "I'm interested in the field. What are some interesting questions in your opinion? I have this or that ideas etc.  I'm looking to do phd in this field. Would you be interested in taking a new student?"

Along those lines, yes. Good luck.


text:
Would this situation be considered plagiarism? - humanities assignment
Here is what happened.
In one of my humanities class, I had to do a project that involved creating exam questions from the reading material and explain why they a relevant in today’s society. In my rough drafts, I would write key points from the readings as a reference for writing my questions. One of the questions I chose was a true and false format for the definition of culture. I made it a false statement by switching the the word culture with civilization. I wrote the definition of culture from my professor’s presentation and underneath I wrote my own definition. Later in the day after I got home from work, I wrote the question into my final draft. I don’t know why this occurred maybe I was tired but when I was writing it into my final draft, I misread and included the professor’s definition rather than my own. I did not include in text citations; however, in the study guide we had to create, I included my professor’s name, the name of the presentation, and where I got the information. I sent an email to my professor, but it has been four days and he still hasn’t contacted me.

You did the right thing in informing your professor.  It's Sunday; one or maybe two of your four days are part of the weekend.  Try not to worry.  No answer is much more likely to mean all is well than that you are in difficulty.

It is hard for me to see plagiarism here, since you say you used the professor's definition, which is clearly known to both of you.
Of course, it is up to the professor to judge and if the rules are ver strict then perhaps you will be called to account for it.
But you did the right thing in informing the professor of the issue. I'll just have to guess that you are safe.


text:
can I not mention that I have will complete a PhD degree while applying for another one in another country
I am a second-year Ph.D. student/ RA from a university in country A. I had no problem with my laboratory or supervisor; however, as I could not speak the country language and was not able to find a post-doc position due to COVID, I applied for another Ph.D. positions in the same field in an English speaking country (B) where I can immigrate and settle. In the application form for the universities and during my interviews I mentioned that I am a Research assistant, omitting the fact that I am a Ph.D. candidate. Also, my supervisors mentioned that I am RA in their recommendation letters understating the fact that I want to go to an English-speaking country. The problem is that due to my successful publications our department from country A decided to grant me the Ph.D. degree at the end of this year.
I read some posts that mentioned that omitting your academic records is the same as falsifying them. I am afraid if I go to country B without mentioning that I was in fact a Ph.D. candidate and RA and get in huge trouble, so what should I do?
Is it be unethical if I omit this fact that I would have a Ph.D., refer it to RA and start the second Ph.D. in the same field in country B, or should I contact the prospective professors from country B and tell him/her that I did a mistake in my application?

Are the two PhDs in the same field? Also, did the award o the first one come after the application for the second? Ethically you need to inform them somehow.

I'm not clear on your motivation for all this.  If your current department is awarding you your PhD, couldn't you take that and move to another country?  Why start over in a new program in the same field?

@Buffy yes they are in the same field and yes I have already applied for the second university (that time I did not think that I am going to be granted the PhD in just two years) and will get the PhD in the upcoming months.

@jeff To be honest, I applied because I was not ready to start to career cause I got both of my master and PhD faster than expected, so I wanted to expand my knowledge on different fields of the same subject. Also as mentioned I was to immigrate to country B and amid covid I could not find a job there so I applied for PhD. And while I have applied for the same school research subject and proposal is completely different.

I see, is a post-doc an option?

Beware how immigration officials may look on someone seeking a degree as a path to immigration rather than for education.

@jeff I did not consult with the prospective professors about this, but in their website they mentioned that they have fund for graduate students and nothing mentioned about post doc. Also I do not have too much publications (5-6), experience to do the post-doc

I voted to close because the answer was in the question: "I read some posts that mentioned that omitting your academic records is the same as falsifying them."

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104671/can-i-legally-omit-the-fact-i-hold-a-ph-d-degree

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/105551/is-it-ethical-to-omit-the-phd-credential-from-my-resume

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40854/can-i-hide-my-bachelor-and-master-degrees-in-cv-when-i-apply-for-a-phd-position

The comment of Jeff is worth considering. Do you really need a second doctorate to migrate.
But, under the circumstances, send a message to the new university stating that since your application, you were awarded a PhD, but, assuming you want to, that you still want to continue your application and enter the new program. Stress that the research proposal will be different if accepted.
Hiding the recent degree could come back to harm you.

Does country B automatically recognize academic degrees from country A? If yes, I'm afraid you have to mention your PhD. If no, technically for them in country B you are (academically) nobody.


text:
Should I talk to my advisor on this?
I really need some advice on this.
I don't trust the other PhD student in our group at all.
Reasons; The first week I came, he bothered me with his questions 'What is your religion?, When I will go?, etc.'. he did not ask something scientific.
And with the other student they spoke in their own language whenever there was just the three of us.
I felt excluded and did not built any friendship.
Yes, I know it's not a big problem, but since I didn't act close to this person, I look unfriendly at the moment.
Should I talk with my advisor? or Should I talk while there is this Phd student with us?
Thank you.
edit:
Thank you and I am sorry for shortcomings. I don't want to go into too much detail, in fact, I just want to take comments on what I wrote.
We are only 2 doctoral and 1 postdoctoral students (because of covid restrictions they couldn't take a new students). Now, I have no problem with my group, also with other postdoc but I am really tired of this PhD student. We just use the same lab.
If I go into detail, I have a lot to write, so I do not want to write. For example, I want something from the other people or from our advisor, the next day she comes and takes the everything.
she does silly things and asks silly questions towards me, but she is very good to the advisor. I am just saying 'yes, ok, no problem' to her.
I want to talk with my advisor, but I don't want to be trouble maker.
Common language is English, our group is international.
I submit my papers, so I going well.

I suspect we need more details, particularly since you reported similar problems six months ago. How far into the program are you? Is the problem only with one student, or with the whole group? How closely do you work with this student? Is there any problem that affects your research, or just a lack of friendliness? You report concern about a language barrier; are they speaking the local language, or is it just a coincidence that they all speak some other language that you do not speak?

As far you are going well, I do not see anything dramatic and inherent to Academia. Of course, it would be better to work in a nice environment but nothing is perfect. You may said something in future, if the supervisor ask for a strict collaboration between you and that student. It seems to me a general problem of interpersonal relations, so it is hard to say something.


text:
Etiquette for publicizing postdoc position
What is the etiquette for publicizing your postdoc decision on your professional website once you've accepted a position?
I've seen people write something like "Starting in Fall 2020, I will be an X Instructor/Fellow/Researcher at Y University" on their website but I don't know when these kinds of public statements typically go up. Are you supposed to wait until late in the process when most people know where they'll end up? Or if you're lucky enough to get a position early, is it ok to post then?
I'm specifically interested in comments relevant to math positions, but I'm assuming the etiquette is similar throughout STEM.

You are unlikely to offend a reasonable person by revealing you got a job.  So I would say there is not an etiquette beyond avoiding excessive boasting.  Don't talk about how you are better than the people who did not get the job.  Don't talk about how your job is better than other people's jobs.  You probably knew that.
This is not etiquette, but:  If you get a job "early" it is in your interest to keep it secret for a while.  A lot of people think that "I have a new job starting in September" is the same as "I am leaving tomorrow."  They will quit contacting you and quit collaborating with you because they are confused.  You will constantly have to answer questions about why you are still around.

I doubt that the last paragraph applies to a student taking their first post-doc position.

No, students need collaborators and they sometimes get jobs that do not start for many months.

Thanks! I was really asking about posting to a professional website specifically. I definitely wouldn't go around boasting out loud or telling people that I'm better than them, that would be pretty bad.

@AnonymousPhysicist: In math in academia in the US, up to a first and second approximation, all jobs start in August.  If you tell someone now (or told someone two months ago when the first offers came out) that you got a new job, the assumption will be that it starts in August.  If anything, we are getting close to the time of the year when I would be reluctant to start a collaboration with a student or a postdoc who did not have a job offer, because they might end up forced to take a job that does not leave them time for research to continue and finish whatever we are working on.

@AlexanderWoo I knew that; the point I was making is that many people who are inexperienced or not academics do not know that, and you should be careful with how you communicate with them so they do not think you already left.

@AlexanderWoo: Note that not everyone knows about US math start conventions.


text:
I submitted the correct essay in an exam, but I did not remove my draft outline at the beginning of the essay. Is it going be a problem?
I was taking a language exam that asked us to finish writing an essay. Because of COVID, the exam went online and used Canvas as the platform. Neither scratch paper nor any other software was allowed so we had to use the textbox to draft the outline. The textbox was tiny. Therefore, I had to scroll the sidebar and I could not see what I wrote at the beginning while proofreading.
I finished the essay and submitted it. However, after submission, I realized I did not remove the draft outline at the beginning of my essay and submitted it as well.
The exam was super important for me and I am now literally freaked out. Is it going to be a huge problem? What should I do?

There is really no reason to assume this is a problem, but if you're concerned you should contact your instructor as soon as possible.  There is every chance they'll be understanding (and every chance they'll understand what the situation is before getting your explanation), but taking what is really the only constructive action available at this point may help you relax.

@MarkMeckes That does not seem constructive to me.  The instructor will be able to tell what happened without being contacted.

How on earth should we know how your instructor reacts to this (or anything)?

@AnonymousPhysicist It's constructive because it may help the OP to relax about the situation.  I agree that the instructor will be able to tell what happened; the real problem here is the anxiety the OP feels.

@MarkMeckes Instructors in general cannot be expected to know what to do about anxiety, nor is that their responsibility.  Universities have (or should have) counseling offices.

@AnonymousPhysicist Of course the instructor cannot and should not be expected to address the OP's anxiety; that was not my suggestion at all. It's the act of sending the message itself that can help assuage that anxiety, especially if the OP has a hard time sharing our confidence that the instructor will understand and handle the situation appropriately in any case.

If the asker is anxious they should directly tell that to someone who is trained to help people with anxiety.  Sending messages that are not about anxiety to people who are not trained will not help with anxiety.

@MarkMeckes I agree with you. Mailing the instructor will give OP confidence that the instructor will be aware of the mistake and not by chance mark the wrong part of the submission (i.e. the outline).

@AnonymousPhysicist I have to say, I certainly don't want to live in a society where you are supposed to go see a psychiatrist instead of simply writing a short friendly e-mail to clear up the source of the anxiety.

@Nobody As I said in my answer, only persistent anxiety needs treatment.  Also, "freaked out" is not a usual or proportionate response to an exam mistake.  Anxiety is an extremely common problem which does not get treated as much as it should.

Probably not.
But there is really only one person that knows for sure: the professor in question. So, as Mark Meckes already mentioned in the comments, send them a message, explain that you forgot to remove the draft outline at the beginning of your essay and ask them to ignore that part, and to exclude it from the word count limit if applicable.
Be aware that you might not get a response if the professor is busy, which doesn't mean there is a problem.

Making a mistake on an exam is, in most cases, not a huge problem.
Exams are, by definition, a measurement of the work you can do during an exam.  In most cases, you cannot do anything about a mistake on an exam after the exam is over.
Move on to the next stage of your studies/career.  If you continue to feel distressed, seek assistance from a mental health professional.

I don't see how that answers the question. There are very important exams, and one standard disclaimer that is often encountered is that if you submit multiple solutions to the same question, neither of them will be graded, so the OP's fear seems perfectly justified. OP is also justified, in my opinion, in hoping for some understanding and lenciency in this case, which might be granted only if asked for.

@Nobody "one standard disclaimer that is often encountered is that if you submit multiple solutions to the same question, neither of them will be graded,"  Never heard of that, and it's a bad policy.  I'd really expect the asker not be penalized, but we can't read the grader's mind.

That was pretty standard in the engineering/math courses I took. You had to submit one and only one answer for each question.

Maybe it makes sense for engineering or medicine, where you really have to get things right the first time.  But this is a language exam.  Also, an outline obviously is not an essay.


text:
I will apply to another Phd program, and I don't know how to explain my problem with my current program. (phd student)
I posted my problem a few weeks ago here:
My advisor has literally no idea what my research is about and I am freaking out (phd student)
Now I am considering applying to another PhD program. I am going to go to the university and talk to them. However, I am not sure how to explain my problem without sounding like I am trying to trash my advisor (as explained, he is very nice, but he is not a specialist, and what is really making me want to change the program is that he doesn't know what my research is about).
Also, should I mention that in my SOP? How should I put it?
I am really worried that my advisor would know (people know each other, he might have contacts especially that both universities are in the same state. what if they call my university to ask? I am okay with that, but if I did not get in I'll be in a problem with my advisor).
Should I just say that I want to change the program because I am interested in prof.x work instead? What if he is not interested in my research? This would cost me my chances with other professors (while I really like his work, I need ro transfer and I really don't see him as my priority)

Related, possible duplicate: What do grad schools want to hear about why I'm changing PhD programs?

No not related. The reasons are different. I can easily say that I don't feel comfortable in the location. Saying you don't think your supervisor is interested is not easy and you might come across rude


text:
My advisor has literally no idea what my research is about and I am freaking out (phd student)
I am a PhD student. This is my first month in the program. I met my advisor a while ago. Very nice guy, but as the title says, he does not know what I am writing about. I don't mean it figuratively. He literally does not know what I am writing about.
I was taken aback when I realized he is not specialized in my area of research. But not knowing what my research is about is just plainly freaking me out! (He thought that I was writing about a different subject, and he doesn't have any other PhD students besides myself)
There is only one professor who is specialized in my area of research in the school, and she is not taking students.
I thought about it, and decided that transferring to another school is on the table. The thing is that the closest school is ranked higher than mine. (Mine in the top 50, the other school in the top 15), and I am not sure if they are going to accept me.
Should I go to the other school and talk to the admission office? To the dean perhaps? For my major, it is not common for students to contact prospective supervisors. (I don't know anyone in there who I am interested in working with because I did not see this coming).
What should I do?
*This a comment that I posted below, but just because it came up many times, I'll put it here:
"Just to clarify, and this is something I clarified above, it is not a common practice in my field that we -students- contact supervisors before getting into the program. We apply and then the school itself assigns students to supervisors. Actually, some departments ask explicitly that you DON'T contact any faculty member. I did not choose my supervisor. I was not given his name until I get into the program and started"
Someone has pointed out another question about a similar case, the lonk has been useful. But, my situation is different as I have no other alternatives. (Advisors)

What country, and what field?  (In some fields it's common for PhD students to have different research interests than their advisors; in others it's impossible.)  How did you end up in this situation? Why aren't you changing your area?  Why aren't you thinking of 10 other schools to do your PhD?

The U.S. I cannot give details I am really afraid that my advisor would find this post. Why not 10? There are less than 20 program that I can apply to and some of them already rejected me. Others are just not a good fit. I am not changing my area because I have 0 interest in my advisor aera. I don't know how I ended up here. I just found myself here!

I don't understand how you've been accepted by a supervisor who doesn't work in your subject. Why did you apply for a PhD with them if you want to work on something different? Ultimately if you've only been there a month you have nothing to lose by leaving and going somewhere else where your research interests are more in line with your supervisor's.

@astronat, actually, you have a year to lose. But, yes, it may be worth it.

Do you have only a bachelors or also a masters? For the US it seems unusual to have a commitment to a specific research topic with only a month in the program. Was this advisor assigned to you or was it your choice?

What does your advisor think about the current situation? They will also not be happy that they have no idea what you are doing, so what was their response, did they come up with a plan to continue?

Are you taking classes, or working on research full-time? And you started in January, not in September?

I think you're misunderstanding the situation.  My guess is that your current advisor is not the person intended to actually supervise your dissertation, but someone who is a placeholder to help you identify classes to take and find your dissertation advisor.  Now your problem is that there is no one in your department who works in your area of interest.

@Basha re: "My advisor did not give any comments about what he thinks. In our first meeting, he actually told me that he is not specialized and that "we will learn together" " - actually your advisor did tell you what he thinks, and it seems to be that he thinks this will not be a big problem.

Assuming this is the case, I wonder to what extent you can trust an opinion of someone who do not know what the subject of you're research is. How would he judge if it is a problem or not.

You are getting good advice here in the answers and comments. You would do well to take advantage of it, but you seem to be resisting it. That is sub-optimal and self defeating.

I was in a similar situation when I was working on a Ph.D.: my advisor suggested I work in an area she knew nothing about. I should have realized that was a really bad idea. I wound up leaving rather than having to find a new topic and advisor.

How do you know what your research is about one month in?

@bob sorry to hear that. hope you all the best

@AzorAhai-him- I had to write a proposal, so far I am not changing anything - I know it will change over time. - he does not know what my proposal is. He did not read my CV and know nothing about what I've done so far. (where I work, where I got my master's degree..etc)

@AnonymousPhysicist Thank you for the link. I've read it. the advice in there is good. the thing is that it does not apply to me as I cannot find another advisor in the school. (to replace my advisor, or only to help with my research, besides my advisor).

"There is only one professor who is specialized in my area of research in the school, and she is not taking students." Have you spoken to that person? It sounds like she might be in a good position to offer you advice.

@Basha Thanks! Fortunately it turned out for the best. A Ph.D wasn't for me anyway (I know that now), and I'm happily working as a software developer in industry.

This may not be a big deal, but that's hard to tell. However there are other things to consider. Do you "click" with your advisor on a personal level so far? Does he seem friendly, smart, experienced, does he take enough time to communicate with you etc..? Going with an advisor that is very prolific in the exact area that draws you could well end in a worse PhD experience if that person is harder for you to get along with, bad at teaching or simply does not have enough time for you.

But not knowing what my research is about is just plainly freaking me out!

So it seems like there are two issues here. One is the classic "my advisor works in field X while I want to work in field Y" problem (you will find lots of discussion of this problem if you search this site). The other is that your advisor is hands-off to the point of you being completely on your own. Given both of these factors, your decision to seek a new advisor seems reasonable. And yes, if you are unwilling or unable to work with anyone locally, then it follows logically that you will have to transfer.

The thing is that the closest school is ranked higher than mine. (Mine in the top 50, the other school in the top 15)

You may need to consider schools other than the closest one. I assume you were not able to be admitted to a top-15 school when you applied last time. Unless you've done something impressive in the last year, your odds of getting admitted are probably lower than they were last year, not higher.

Should I go to the other school and talk to the admission office? To the dean perhaps? (For my major, It is not common for students to contact prospective supervisors.

You say you are in the US, so I am surprised by the question. Graduate admissions are usually done by the department, not by the admissions office; the admissions office is usually for undergraduate admissions. The dean is also not usually involved in such things.
The only way to "short circuit" the usual admissions process is to find a professor who wants to work with you, and have them help you from the inside. But if you don't have such a person in your network already, this is a long-shot; most professors will just say "please apply to the program and we can talk if you get in."
Bottom line: You should pursue all the options in your desired subfield, not just the closest one. But if your subfield is small and all of the programs are highly-ranked, you may need to consider other subfields, "like it or not."

I don't know how I ended up here. I just found myself here!

I suggest that you reflect on this. You did not "find yourself here"; rather, you applied for admission in this department and then agreed to attend. There is no real harm in making a mistake; we have all made many. But it's important to recognize what went wrong so that you can avoid having it happen again.
Update: OP has since clarified that their field is Law. I cannot speak to whether this answer makes sense for law, not my area.

That last paragraph is huge.  It sounds like the OP somehow accidentally fell into a PhD, which simply isn't how it works.  What was your plan on the way to this point?  Why did you first ask this person to be your advisor, and on what grounds did they accept?

"Just to clarify, and this is something I clarified above, it is not a common practice in my field that we -students- contact supervisors before getting into the program. We apply and then the school itself assigns students to supervisors. Actually, some departments ask explicitly that you DON'T contact any faculty member. I did not choose my supervisor. I was not given his name until I get into the program and started"

Also thank you for the info. I study in the U.S., but I am an international student, and I am really not sure who is involved in the process.

Yes, I saw that clarification in the original question, though it is interesting that the school assigns students to supervisors. Is it possible that you misunderstood something, and this person is just your "supervisor" until you find an actual research "advisor"? At any rate, this all seems very irregular, so I really suggest that you specify your general field (not your specific subfield). As it is, it's hard to tell whether you're just in some really weird corner of academia, or if something else is going on.

@Basha Like cag51 I really have no knowledge of what a PhD program in law is like. However, I can confidently say that in my own field if students were to choose their own research projects and then be assigned a supervisor randomly, everyone would be in the situation you describe. So, if that is the case, how do other students in your program handle it?

This is actually not the case here. You're supposed to apply. A committee would evaluate your application. The school will then choose a supervisor based on their background and ask them if they accept to take a student. This is how things are. In my program, some students are assigned to supervisors with the same background. There is one student that I know about that have faced the same situation. They, however, found another faculty member in the same program that could supervise them, so their problem is solved.

"Graduate admissions are usually done by the department, not by the admissions office; the admissions office is usually for undergraduate admissions. The dean is also not usually involved in such things." I'd suggest talking to whoever is in charge of the PhD program for the department, or the head of the department as a whole.

@nick012000 thank you very much. After the advice that I've been given here, I'll give it another month, and if things still shaky I would try to talk to the head of department.

Since you describe your university as top 50 and your field of study (based on your comment) is a mainstream one, I will assume that both the university and the PhD program you’re in are not new, but have been around for at least 10 years, and probably much longer.
Based on this assumption, it seems highly probable to me that the reason you are “freaking out” is because you have some misconception about your situation and about the significance of discovering that your supervisor does not work in your exact research area. My bet is that this is simply not the catastrophe you imagine it to be.
I don’t know what your misconception is exactly. But start by taking a deep breath. The key thing to remember is that this PhD program is an established, successful one. Whatever their procedures are for assigning advisors to students, they have been using them for a while and they have been working. If mistaken or suboptimal assignments occasionally get made, the department will have resources and people in place to hear out what you are unhappy about and help you correct the situation. Keep in mind that by admitting you into their PhD program, they are effectively betting a large amount of money on your success. So they have every incentive to not let that gamble be a losing one.
What I suggest you do is:

Take another deep breath.

Go online and look at your department’s website to see what advice and resources they offer to incoming graduate students. Is there a graduate student handbook/survival guide? Is there a list of staff and faculty advisers with their contact details? Is there an explanation of the process of getting started with your thesis research? Since you are from abroad, be aware of the possibility of language issues that might lead you to misunderstand some of the explanations. Use google translate or ask friends for help if there are things you’re unsure about. (By the way, based on your post your English is excellent so I don’t think this is very likely to be an issue, but thought I’d mention it just in case.)

From the website, find an adviser or relevant administrator (faculty or staff) you can talk to in person by making an appointment or calling them during office hours. I am serious that this needs to happen over an actual voice/video/face to face conversation; do not settle for trying to get advice over email unless there’s absolutely no other option.
When you have the appointment, explain your situation to them, calmly and in detail, and ask what your options are. Do not be shy about asking about switching to a different advisor or other creative ideas of this type, even if you don’t think they are likely to be allowed. And again, make sure there isn’t a language barrier that’s standing in the way of you understanding things accurately and correctly.

After you follow these steps, I believe you will already be much better informed and feeling much less despondent about your situation. The bottom line is: you have a misconception. You need to be sure that you have diagnosed the problem correctly before being able to plan a solution. Right now, I strongly suspect that you haven’t diagnosed the problem correctly. So that should be the first priority. After that, remember, your school is invested in your success and has resources to help. So use them, and I believe you’ll be all right where you are and not end up needing to switch schools. Good luck!

Thank you for your commet. I am actually afraid if I discuss it with someone in school, my advisor might know about it and I don't want to find myself in another problem. The thing with money, I have a scholarship from my employer, the school is not paying a penny. That what made me think they are just "milking money".

@Basha well, I don’t know what to say. I wish you the best of luck, but again I get a strong feeling that you have misconceptions about your situation and what’s a helpful way to approach it. In particular, I think your caginess and reluctance to share information, here and at your school, are going to make it hard for you to get good advice and reach good decisions.

There's no shame in switching advisors fwiw.

Note that OP got a scholarship or some kind of support and that the department may find little incentive to work hard to fulfil OP's needs, since it's not their money at stake (at least not until OP decides to leave).

@CaptainEmacs perhaps that’s relevant information, perhaps not. We know so little about the situation that I find it pointless to speculate about such things. I stand by my opinion that the root of OP’s problem involves some misconception, which, when cleared up, will likely make the situation seem a lot less catastrophic than it does now.

@DanRomik It's possible and I haven't said your response is not useful. However, the fact that it's a law department and the scholarship can change the situation quite drastically and what seems inconceivable to STEM academics may well be common practice in Law. I agree that at the present stage there is not enough information to say much.

@bob I don't think there is a shame. I am afraid that things might get awkward/ complicated with my current advisor if I tried, and find no alternatives.

@DanRomik & CaptinEmacs: I've settled in giving it another month and see how things go. I know that within a month from now, applying to other universities will not be a choice. (I already passed the deadline). I am thinking about talking to the head of department, hoping that my scholarship would be my "ticket" out of this school. I also got my master's degree from a t-14 school, I am hoping this would help if things went south.
It's super competitive, still have a high chance of rejection.

@Basha Ah, I understand.

@Basha good to know. Yes, talking to the department chair also sounds sensible. Good luck!

Because your own advisor admitted that he is not informed about your topic proposal. I suggest starting there.
Sit down with your advisor and discuss the situation. At the very least, the advisor should be interested in helping you to fix the situation:

Is your topic proposal relevant after admission? Sometimes a proposal is required to judge your critical thinking/writing/argumentation skills during the admission process and not to guide your life for the next few years.
How much expertise in your specific area is needed to supervise you?
Is it feasible for you to adjust your topic to have a better fit with the advisor?
Is the advisor willing to bring other more knowledgeable people to the advisory group?
Understand mutual expectations

Is such discussion if fruitful, great! If not, consider transferring somewhere else.

Looks like lots of good advice already. I will add that this does not sound like a deal-breaker to me.
In the US, Masters candidates learn the field they want to study before jumping into a PhD program. Most professors will tell you that they expect their PhD candidates to know more about their field of study than the professor themselves. At the beginning of your study, you may not know more than the professor. But the expectation is that very quickly, you will surpass the knowledge of your professor in your particular field of study.
Your advisor seems to be setting an honest, realistic, and proper expectation with you.
Lastly, in the US, PhD candidates have a committee comprising of multiple professors. Ask the other professor, the one who is an expert but is not taking any more students, to be on your PhD committee. So they are not your advisor but are still aware of your work. This way, you can still get advice from them. Also, because they are the expert in your field, they will help you make connections once you complete your PhD.