text:
Is it fair for me to drink caffeine during tests?
For some of my more difficult and early morning tests, I will buy coffee and bring it with me into the exam. My hope is that the caffeine will help me be fully alert, think more clearly, and write answers more quickly.
However, I know that drinking caffeine puts me in a slightly different state of mind physiologically than my classmates. Is it fair for me to drink caffeinated beverages at tests? If it isn't, is it merely something rude that would be nice for me to stop, or a form of mild cheating that I would be wise to admit to and discuss with my professors?

Caffeine is a socially accepted drug without excessively bad collateral effects.

"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems" (Rényi), and this quote can be generalized to many fields of science. So I think you are ok.

In my program not only does the school provide our cohort with coffee and soda but one of the students buys a pack of Red Bull and sets it on the desks in front of the professor, the head of our program popped his head in before a midterm and joked that we must have felt good about our preparations because it was only half gone.

My university forbids food and drink of any kind in classrooms, mostly (I suspect) to avoid having to clean up spills.  So it isn't cheating to bring coffee into an exam, but it would still be against the rules.

@JeffE Mine explicitly allows "colourless liquids" and forbids everything else. At some point, I really must exploit this by drinking vodka in seminars.

@DavidRicherby I know of a person that drank a bottle of vodka in the Quantum Field Theory exam. She got maximum grade, and sloshed.

I also think the only reason I passed the statistics exams was the Bailey in my coffee. Man I love Bailey.

This backfired on me once when I was an undergraduate. I drank a big cup of coffee right before the exam, and then I was so wired I could barely concentrate.

@fileunderwater true for scientists as well... http://www.neatorama.com/2012/10/02/Scientists-Drink-More-Coffee-Than-Anyone/

To be honest, I'm more concerned about your chances of succeeding in the real world if you feel guilty for something like drinking a cup of coffee.  It's a world of cut-throats out there and you're going to get eaten alive if you don't toughen up.

Seems like this question should be split into "is it rude to bring coffee to tests" and "is the use of coffee/caffeine an acceptable advantage during tests".

The people who are prescribed (or abuse) ADHD medication are the ones with the real advantage.

Starbucks has ensured that everyone has access to caffeine right? I don't see how it is conceivably cheating to use something everyone has access to, mind-altering or not...

One thing I learned in simracing: Not doing something because it's unfair by your standards will not stop the others doing it. I try to use any legal advantage I can get, whether it be good food, better sugars, enough sleep, or not drinking more than two beers before an important day. Would you also ask: Should I eat burgers, because good food would put me into an unfair state of mind against the others who only feed on junk?

Sidenote: Coffee only makes you better on the right dosing. Too much is counter productive, and getting used to coffeine can even, from my experience, negate the effect. It's not uncommon for me to say "I'll gonna have a good nite coffee and then go to bed".

Is there conclusive evidence showing that coffee is still advantageous even if the effects are reduced by habituation which results from regular drinking?

@recursion.ninja The fact that certain religions (Mormons, for example) are prohibited from using caffeine makes your statement untrue, as well as adding an interesting wrinkle to this question...

Even if it was phenmetrazine or pervitin I can't see how it could matter if you are not directly competing your peers. Or are you?

@DigitalChris Certain religions are prohibited from studying on certain days as well, but nobody would consider others studying on Friday night cheating or unethical. Observing religious prohibitions is a personal choice, so it's still correct to say that everyone has access.

Coming from the UK, the whole idea of eating/drinking in an exam is foreign to me.

@CaptainCodeman That's exactly what I thought when I read the question.

I have found several nights of good sleep prior to the exam to be the single best method for enhancing performance (in a sustainable way).

@Superbest: I've even seen it claimed that caffeine addiction means you perform less well when not dosed than you would if you never took caffeine at all. That is, once you start routinely taking caffeine you become dependent on it to achieve average performance. Haven't seen substantiating studies, but haven't looked for them since I don't regularly take caffeine so I'm not personally concerned for my own baseline performance :-)

I don't understand why it's not fair. It's not a competition. Grades count for you and you alone, really. Also, caffeine, like alcohol and other narcotics can have quite a detrimental effect. Too much and you're jittery and you can't focus...too amped up- know what i mean?

@TrishLing Grades are completely relative (in the US at least), especially standardized tests.

This question is silly, to say the least.lf you are serious, your educational system must be really oppresive to make you come up with this question.

I think the salient point in your question can be more explicitly stated as:

What determines which advantages are fair and which are unfair to have during an exam?

Going to the extreme for fair advantages: Is not being sick on the exam day cheating? Is not being hungry cheating? Is not staying up the night before cheating? Is attending every lecture and study session fair? Is studying for the exam fair? Is being more intelligent than your classmates fair? Is always marking the correct answer fair? Is lucking out and having exam question be on something you happen to be very experienced with (database question for a seasoned database programmer) fair?
All of these are obviously fine. Yet consider the other extreme:
Is smoking during the exam fair? Is taking Adderall fair? Is doing cocaine before the exam fair? Is hacking the instructor's computer to get answers fair? Is manipulating the TA to trick them into revealing answers to you fair? Is bringing a cheatsheet or phone with you fair? Is making someone else take the test with you fair?
These aren't qualitatively different from the previous group. Sure, some are distinguished by being illegal (hacking) but many are accepted ways of improving performance in all but exam contexts (having reference materials at hand, looking up things you don't know online, collaborating with peers).
I posit to resolve this as follows: Exams are not a meritocracy. The point isn't to enforce some sort of egalitarian principle or to "let the best man win". The exam is part of the course, and the aim of the course is to make students proficient with the course material. The exam exists as a target for the students to aim for as they are independently studying and preparing.
If you agree to this point, then the question of what is fair becomes trivial: The instructor allows as "fair" any behavior that they deem conducive to learning.
For example, studying for days on end may be unfair to students who don't have as much time to study, but encouraging students to study benefits learning, so instructors deem it fair and sanction it.
On the other hand, stealing exam questions beforehand is an extremely effective way to do "well" on the exam, but not only do you learn nothing this way, if you get caught and punished there may be severe consequences for your future career. Theft of questions is a mechanism by which the exam is enabled to act as a perverse incentive. The instructor, therefore, tries to remedy this by specifically banning this mechanism. That such banned mechanism are called "unfair" (as if to imply some egalitarian or justicial purpose) is, I think, an artifact of language.
Coming back to your question:

Is it fair for me to drink caffeine during tests?

Let's accept the premise that drinking coffee increases your performance (I am skeptical of this).
Is this conducive to the learning process? There is a tiny positive effect - your brain performing better during the exam means you will be more likely to experience those moments of really grasping a concept when you are forced to use it during the exam.
Does it facilitate a perverse incentive? Dubious.

If the caffeine helps mental performance that much, students will probably start drinking it during courses or when they study, which means their learning will be enhanced.
If they drink only during the exam, their score will be slightly inflated compared to other students. But the effect is tiny and self-damping: The more effective coffee proves to be, the more students will start drinking it, and everyone will end up on equal footing anyway.
The smell of coffee may slightly disadvantage other students, which has a very small positive effect on your grade if the exam is graded on a curve. However, the effect is tiny, and if any student feels otherwise, they can always complain and ask you to remove the offending beverage.

Taken together, it seems like there's a few positive and a few negative effects, but all are very small. The only thing being meaningfully incentivized is the business of the coffee shop - but this does not detract from the learning process.
On the other hand, some people enjoy drinking coffee, it makes them feel more comfortable in the exam, and if it lets them believe they have control over their performance and have "stacked the deck" in their own favor, the psychological motivation may contribute to a more positive attitude towards the course in general. Altogether, when you are trying to teach someone something, it probably works better if they are physically comfortable rather than not. So I don't think it should be considered unfair or banned, unless students are very clumsy and constantly spill the coffee, litter by leaving empty cups around, or otherwise go about it in an unacceptable manner.
As an addendum, with more "hardcore" performance enhancing drugs, this may not be the case. For example, instructors would most likely be against taking drugs like Adderall (although this is very difficult to enforce) because it would incentivize the abuse of these drugs. Adderall abuse has serious harmful consequences, unlike caffeine abuse which is not commonly thought to be harmful.

That would be totally acceptable. Remember, you are also in a totally different state if you went to the toilet right before the exam. If you drank a litre of water in the morning. If you ate something for breakfast that happens to contain lots of short-chained carbohydrates, providing lots of energy for your brain.
You have to draw the line somewere and coffee is definitely acceptable, if not expected.
Edit:
As several comments suggest, your other question about rudeness because of smelling beverages: that's different from course to course, and you will probably have to employ some degree of common sense there. People are usually not bothered by coffee smell as opposed to french fries or the sounds of eating potato crisps. If in doubt, just ask your TA or fellow students before going to the exam.

Exactly, you have to draw the line somewhere. Do universities normally have any "academic doping" regulations? Whilst coffee is considered acceptable, other drugs might not be if the advantage they provide is significant enough. You could even argue that caffeine shouldn't be allowed to minimize advantage over non-drinkers.

You say that it would be totally acceptable to drink coffee in an exam by analogy with going to the toilet, drinking water and eating breakfast before the exam. I don't see how that follows. There are many things that are acceptable before the exam (listening to loud music, reading the textbook, chatting with friends, ...) that are not at all acceptable in the exam.

I understand your arguments but the question was not about what is allowed during an exam but what is ethically/socially acceptable esp. regarding fairness/rudeness. You are right, but in this case, it doesn't even matter (or change your state of mind) whether you drink your cup of coffee before or during the exam.

@StrangeLoop The problem is that a lot of people taking say ADD medication for academic purposes can actually go to a doctor to get a diagnosis and prescription. How do you then say that people taking legally prescribed medication should abstain from using it? Even if their motives for getting the diagnosis are suspect. And illegally obtained medication is more serious and should not be left to  an academic policy.

@kleineg Just for clarity, I wasn't necessarily advocating that there should be any specific regulation with regard to certain substances currently available. I realize that there's no realistic way to stop people from taking their ADD medications for exams, especially also since they need them. My main intended point was that there will come a point when we will have to think about nootropics more seriously.

@DavidRicherby Making that distinction doesn't really help. "Is it fair to take a stimulant drug right before the exam?" is still not obvious.

@Superbest The consumption of coffee is a perfectly normal, accepted part of western society to the extent that asking "Is it cheating to drink coffee before an exam?" is a question at the same level as "Is it cheating to eat bread before an exam?" The only meaningful question is based on the distinction between "during an exam" and "before an exam."

@DavidRicherby it's not completely implausible that a student might be prescribed medication that must be taken at a certain time of day (especially stimulants--because of their power psychoactive effects the timing of administration is important) that just happens to fall during the exam.  If that were the case the student should probably just let the professor know beforehand & I doubt it would cause any problems.  EDIT: as in the student didn't choose to take it during the exam, it was prescribed for say 3 PM, and he happens to have a test at 2:30.

@DavidRicherby I think you could make a case that someone taking their medication sooner or later than prescribed is cheating for the same reason someone taking twice the prescribed dose would be cheating: you're abusing your medication to gain an advantage.  Prescriptions do come with limits (like selling them to people), it's just really hard to prevent someone from taking 2 pills instead of 1.  EDIT: realized I just wrote this long piece without explaining its direct relevance to your comment :P  I just wanted to outline a circumstance in which a student actually needs it at test time.

After all, who doesn't enjoy the smell of coffee? Even if you don't like coffee itself.

You might find that your university policy prohibits any beverages except water during exams. Coffee has a strong aroma that can be distracting, especially to the less-awake students who might then crave coffee.
Even if coffee had no aroma, it would still be distracting. A cup of tea or coffee is usually pretty identifiable by sight. If someone walks into my office with a mug of green tea, I usually want a mug of tea myself long before I can smell it. "That guy 20m away is drinking some unidentified hot beverage. Now I want coffee!"
Sure, the consumption of coffee beforehand should be fair and allowed in any country where it's a legal and commonly consumed drug - chances are many classmates drink it too. You still have to have learned the material in order for the coffee to help you remember it. It's just not fair to be distracting to others during a test.

Why the downvote(s)? I can't see where my answer is somehow incorrect or controversial...

Damn you now I want tea and I'm out of milk

Clearly, somebody disagreed with you. (It wasn't me.) This is a subjective topic, not a "correct"/"incorrect" topic.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit Yes, that is apparent.  However, it's both polite and constructive to comment on why you disagree.

@Moriarty Polite, constructive but not obligatory. Don't take it personally that somebody disagreed with you. Maybe they didn't have a constructive explanation of why they disagreed. Maybe they already explained their disagreement by posting an answer putting forward their own point of view. Maybe they just clicked the wrong arrow or misunderstood what you wrote and can't change their vote because it was more than a few minutes ago.

@DavidRicherby I'm not offended at all. This is the internet! Everyone is free to disagree with me. I'm asking why because I prefer constructive criticism to silent criticism.

+1 for your university may have a policy forbidding liquids other than water in exams.
I know mine does, (as do the tertiary entrance exams as well). Clear plastic drink bottles, no labels, water inside. I suspect inpart that has to do with the possibility someone might try and smuggle in notes inside a opaque liquid. (perhaps written on the inside of the thermos)

Working in computer science and looking at the consume of caffeinated beverages in the department I'm wondering: Is it possible to work without? Seriously, you are legally allowed to buy this stuff and as long as it is not forbidden by any rule of your university it is totally fine to do so (edit: As long as you fit 'social norms'). Some people will eat dextrose/glucose or do other things they think will help them. Everybody has his/her own ritual I guess.
Taking other drugs to be able to learn better is a whole different story but here I don't see any problem as long as your university allows it. So it is neither rude nor any form of cheating.

In a sense, he has a good point - caffeine provides measurable cognitive benefits. In summary, it is quite an effective nootropic drug. So, a person drinking coffee during an exam will have a measurable advantage over an otherwise equal student not drinking coffee. This is more of a discussion for the cogsci.SE site, however.

I get that but as Jan has written as answer there are so many factors which result in the state of your mind, not just caffeine. So either you have to control all of that, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense, or you are just fine with everybody being able to use legal drugs to get better results.

Yes, there are a myriad of factors involved in your cognitive performance on an exam, that is of course important to note. To play devil's advocate a bit (I do not actually support banning coffee during exams!): Why should you not control those factors that are easily controllable? Not allowing people to bring coffee into the exam room is a pretty simple way of levelling the playing field. A more extreme example would be someone who arrives with a brain stimulation device, which has been shown to give quite impressive cognitive benefits.They're not practically portable yet, but they're legal

There are probably something important to be considered here: the laws should always somewhat reflect what society deems to be allowed, but lag behind the current "real" consensus. So only using legality as basis for whether coffee is allowed is a bit questionable. Now the coffee has such a long cultural tradition that only very people would disagree on that it should be allowed (given that no coffee smells can distract the other students), it is probably OK. The brain stimulation device is questionable, as it is likely not to be contained in the current societal consensus on what it fair.

I agree that drinking caffeine is fine, though not necessarily in the actual exam as proposed in the question. However, "as long as it is not forbidden by any rule of your university it is totally fine to do so" is a very bad rule of thumb. For example, the university probably doesn't have a rule saying you have to shower on the morning of an exam but it would not be "totally fine" to turn up to an exam filthy and stinking.

@DavidRicherby you are right. Let me add: "As long as you fit 'social norms'". I don't want to say "don't disturb anybody" here, because that's way to easy to do with some people.

Of course it's possible to work without it.  You seem to have an addiction to the substance, but many people (such as myself) rarely use it.

@CaptainCodeman: I tried to be sarcastic, seems like it didn't work out as planed. I'm absolutely aware of the fact that you can work without it. I just wanted to argue that the use or just the consumption of caffeine without purpose can be quite common depending on your workplace/field.

@StrangeLoop: Those "measurable cognitive benefits" are illusory; the only real benefit caffeine provides to coffee drinkers is compensating for the negative effects of caffeine withdrawl.  It's better, long-term, to just never start.  (And I'm a professional computer programmer.  Yes, it's possible.)

@MasonWheeler Fair enough.

@MasonWheeler that link is between a login wall.  From what I've read (definitely not making a strong claim here without a source available--feel free to correct me) I think that's true only after someone is a dedicated coffee drinker?  I don't think a student who drank coffee a few times a year during midterms and finals would be in withdrawal--got to have had it before to be dependent.  EDIT: grammar

@Prime: From the article: "By controlling for caffeine use in study participants, Johns Hopkins researchers found that caffeine-related [cognitive] performance improvement is nonexistent without caffeine withdrawal. In essence, coming off caffeine reduces your cognitive performance and has a negative impact on your mood. The only way to get back to normal is to drink caffeine, and when you do drink it, you feel like it’s taking you to new heights. In reality, the caffeine is just taking your performance back to normal for a short period." (emphasis added)

@flo OK, fair enough, sorry I didn't catch the sarcasm.

In my classes, students bring coffee to my exams all the time. When I have to give early morning exams, I often bring a jug of coffee and paper cups, and offer cups of coffee to the students for free, as a way to help their scores.
There are deep philosophical questions about whether it's even possible to "cheat" using drugs. It comes down to whether one views "cheating" as defined by the rules of the institution, or as an ethical violation that goes beyond the written rules.
Most actual cheating policies ban sharing or receiving information during the exam, but make no mention of performance-enhancing drugs (e.g. Adderall). Some universities do have policies about misusing prescription drugs, e.g. the policy at Duke University. But the policies at my university make no mention of performance-enhancing drugs. Although possessing prescription drugs without a prescription may be somewhat illegal, it would not be a violation of any academic "cheating" rules at my school.
I doubt any school has rules against caffeine, however. Note that the Duke statement only refers to prescription drugs -- that is surely intentional. In the U.S., apart from a few religious groups, drinking coffee is perfectly acceptable as a way to improve concentration.
Your school is probably more likely to worry about the mess it would make if you spill your coffee than about the benefit you receive by drinking it. So, unless someone asks you to stop, you shouldn't worry about it.

That's a great solution to the "distraction" problem (except for the rare person who hates coffee but loves tea). A very nice gesture (when the class is small enough for it to be practical).

I wish I had teachers like that. Bringing coffee to exams will boost your status among students like crazy.

One of my students admitted to me that he took a harmless and side-effect free sugar pill before a stressful exam in order to benefit from the placebo effect, which placed him in a different state of mind to his cohort, unfairly enhancing his cognitive capabilities. Needless to say, he was summarily dismissed.

For those who didn't notice, this answer is intended as sarcasm.

One may argue that sugar can have a positive cognitive impact. Food for the brain.

+1 because the placebo effect probably helped him more than caffeine ever will.

I am a caffeine abstainer.  I don't drink coffee because I can't stand it.  The caffeine in the coffee might give you an advantage over me, but it would be the same advantage in the workplace (where I also don't drink coffee).  So I think it is fair.
The day I took a standardized test that helped determine my academic career, the weather was really hot.  Everyone showed up to the test center wearing summer clothing.  I was the only one to bring a jacket in my bag.  The test center cranked up the A/C and I put my jacket on.  Was my comfort cheating?

"Was my comfort cheating?" - not quite a fair analogy, in the sense that on a standardized test you probably aren't only competing against the people in the room with you but against many other people taking the same test at different times. So it's easy to say that your comfort was not an unfair advantage unless it is part of the standardized test procedure that it should be taken whilst uncomfortable :-) The other students might have a case that they faced an unfair and avoidable disadvantage, though, as if e.g. the exam proctors chose to spend the exam throwing baseballs at their heads.

+1 for "in the work place, I will/will not have coffee." Though on the other hand, in the workplace I can always refer to my notes, and bring in notes is traditionally considered cheating.

At the university I went there where plastic cups available at the entrance and if you wanted coffee or tea you could take a cup and put it on your desk if you wanted coffee and upside down on your desk if you wanted tea. Then when the test started a coffee lady would walk by and fill your cup if you had one. This leads me to think that it is acceptable (if not commonplace) to have coffee in the exam.

This would only be unethical if you'd be gaining an advantage that is unavailable to other students. For example, if coffee would be prohibited, but you'd use it despite of that, or if it were too expensive for others to obtain. But as long as caffeine is socially acceptable, readily available for everybody and allowed at the exams, it's a fair choice for every body to use it or not.

My short answer is Yes. You can drink as much coffee as you want.
I've studied in 4 universities and had many exams in my academic life. I've systematically experimented different ways to boost my performance in exams.  I've experimented with sugar-rich snacks, coffee, prayers, meditation, and a few more. I know my experiments would not stand scientific scrutiny and you should take them with a grain of salt but they gave me an insight into what actually matters.
The difference coffee made in my exams was insignificant. I can assert the same thing about effects of chocolate, sugary drinks, meditation, and prayer. The only thing that seemed to be directly correlated to my performance was amount of practice before exam. Whenever I locked myself in the library and studied the course material hard, I did well in the exams regardless of anything else. I also did poorly in easy exams when I didn't prepare.
So drink coffee with no guilt because you are not manipulating your performance.

EDIT:
Just openly bring your coffee mug and you'll see on the faces of the staff and students if it's a good idea or not. Simple as that.
*It's not unfair because (1) anyone can do it and (2) it's not a competition.
*It's not cheating if it's allowed, and the effects are surely minimal anyway.

Why would fairness enter the equation at all? You will be graded according to your performance, not relative to others. It's not a competition, it's an individual appraisal. Besides, anyone is free to drink coffee if they want to.
In any case, I don't think coffee or any other drug taken during the exam would have much of an effect.

If fairness doesn't enter the equation at all, why not just play loud music outside all the other candidates' rooms the night before the exam? After all, you're only graded according to your own performance; nobody else matters.

That illustrates pretty well what I'm talking about. Disturbing the other exam takers doesn't help you, it's not unfair, it's just obnoxious and rude.

When there are thousands of ways to be proficient at any given subject, hundreds of ways to learn and execute the skills required to be successful at any given subject, and a million ways to fail...  Is it fair to measure a student's proficiency with only a narrow sliver of a window into said student's ability provided by a paper test in the first place?
I say absolutely not; And limiting the student's scope of success to what one person (or few people) think is the 'correct' application of a concept is setting education back hundreds of years, and is entirely unfair to the students and society at large.
That being said, do what you have to do to get out of that trap so you can move on to the real world where you're going to be applying those skills and concepts as a matter of survival-- where you're free to drink as much coffee as you want, and use as many calculators and references as you need to get the job done.  Don't ignore the lessons! Just get through the tests without worrying about fairness- the world isn't a fair place anyway, and you're the only one responsible for being good at what you do; Not the education system; So who cares if it's fair that you drink coffee?  As long as you pass your tests and enter the professional world as a reliable quality producer of goods and services.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
How can I tell if I'm being too picky as a referee?
I am a mathematician, frequently asked to referee papers. (As my career progresses, I now find myself frequently asked to referee good papers.)
I have found that I've gotten pickier and pickier as a referee. I just now finished a referee report (for an excellent paper, submitted to an excellent journal) with 53 bullet points on it: mistakes I found, requests for clarification, other suggestions.
On another occasion I believe I submitted six "revise and resubmit" reports for the same paper, before finally recommending acceptance.
In all these cases I am spending a lot of time reading the papers (which is worthwhile; they're interesting papers!), and I'm almost as meticulous as if it were my name on the paper.
How can I tell if I am going overboard with this? I have never heard any negative comments by anyone – including by journal editors, whom I asked for feedback on this matter after sending my reports. Indeed, editors have acted extremely happy that I've read these papers in such close detail. Nevertheless, I wonder if I am investing too much time in this, and/or annoying the authors.

In the 53 points, are you distinguishing between minor and major issues? Things which it would be nice to fix vs things that are critical to fix?

Following @Dawn's comment, "revise and resubmit" would normally mean "the paper is unacceptable to publish unless these things are fixed".  Was it really unacceptable, not just by your standards, but by the prevailing standards of the journal?  Without those changes, would it have been a markedly worse paper than those that typically appear in that journal?

@Dawn, NateEldredge: I'd say about a quarter of the issues are typos or other very easily corrected tiny mistakes; a few moderately serious (and probably correctible) mistakes; a few language/notation suggestions; a few bullet points saying this "The author might consider expanding this interesting point"; then a lot of comments along the lines of "I got confused at this point in the proof, please elaborate"; "What is this notation?"; "The author's claim looks to be morally true, but is not precisely correct here"; etc.

I'd also say that my comments are mostly orthogonal to the quality of the paper and of the journal. If the issues weren't fixed, the paper would still definitely be worth publishing, it would just have more mistakes and ambiguities in it.

So maybe it's partly a matter of the journal workflow.  Once it is down to minor typos and subjective issues like language suggestions and "consider expanding this", I'd give a "minor revisions" recommendation, where it is left up to the author to make the changes (or not) at their discretion.

Just for clarification in the case of "revise and submit" going back 6 times, were you discovering new areas for improvement in unchanged areas in the later iterations or were comments on later iterations limited to changes?

Six revise and resubmit for the same paper? Sorry, you're doing it wrong.

@Myles: Apart from the first report, it was basically comments on later iterations. But if, for example, I couldn't figure out the start of a proof (and/or if there were mistakes), I would ask the authors to clarify, and only read those particular proofs in detail after revisions. So there was some back-and-forth there.

Something I should also clarify: maybe my report shouldn't be accurately described as "revise and resubmit". It was more along the  lines of "This is a great paper, you should definitely publish it, here is a list of questions and suggestions." My first two reports were both long, the third one was substantially shorter, and the last three were a back-and-forth concerning a single proof.

Please note that some grant agencies might take a report with a lot of correction or with "great, and this might also be a good idea to additionally consider: .." as something negative, especially if beaurocrats also decide.

In my humble opinion, it looks like you are the ideal reviewer actually! You give a lot of advice to improve the paper, and this directly benefits the authors and the journal. And apparently you give very precise advice, which is much more useful and actionable than general or vague remarks.
My main concern as a reviewer is to be fair in my final recommendation. As long as your meticulousness doesn't lead you to reject potentially good papers, you are doing a good job as a reviewer. However the question of whether you are spending too much time on it depends on your priorities, it's important to weigh the benefits and costs for yourself before you accept. It's perfectly acceptable to refuse a review from time to time in order to maintain the level of quality for the ones you accept.

It sounds like you are doing fine. It is in everyone's best interest to have high quality work and presentation. The authors don't need to take every suggestion you make, but are wise to consider what you say in each case.
But if you are overboard, you will hear from the editor. As long as you keep getting papers to review, don't worry about being too hard. Feedback is good for everyone.

"you will hear from the editor" I'm not sure I believe you.  While I have received feedback on my reviews from editors, I have also observed that the feedback from different editors at the same publisher was exactly identical.  I am not convinced that editors are as careful as I would like them to be.

If you manage to finish a report within a few months, then a careful detailed report is great (and it will make the author happy to see that at least one person really read the article). Having to choose between a superficial report within a month and an extensive list of all typographic and stylistic issues 2 years after submission, I would still prefer the superficial one.
And: Some things are a matter of personal taste. It would be nice not to request an author to rewrite a paper using different notation or completely change the structure or presentation, just because you (and maybe 60% of the people in the field) would prefer it that way (as long as it is still reasonable and not completely uncommon to do it the author's way).

I would still prefer the superficial one. — I wouldn’t!

Virtually every author is happy if others are reading their papers in detail. Neither is the editor going to object - highly detailed reviews are great from their perspective too. So you won't be going overboard on that front.
If anyone is unhappy you are being "too picky", it'll be on your end. Maybe you spend so much time reading papers that your PhD students / your own projects are being neglected, for example. Therefore you'll know the answer to this question better than anyone else. As long as you don't need the time you spend reviewing papers elsewhere, it's all good.

How can I tell if I am going overboard with this? I have never heard any negative comments by anyone -- including by journal editors, whom I asked for feedback on this matter after sending my reports.

I would consider the following indicators of being too picky:

You make extensive remarks on language that the copy editor can address, i.e., subject knowledge is not required to spot and correct them. Exceptions are persistent mistakes such as a complete lack of articles or some examples to illustrate that the quality of English of the paper is not tolerable.
You persist on opinion-based matters (other than the relevance of the work), such as notational paradigms, structure of the manuscript, or level of verbosity. By opinion-based I mean that somebody else might consider your suggestion detrimental. By persist, I mean that you keep picking on such an aspect, even though the authors clearly have an opposing preference (usually expressed in a reply to the reviewers). While you should mention most such aspects the first time you are seeing the respective material, the review-process should not become a back and forth about such this.
You effectively end up doing the authors’ job and write the manuscript for them.

Apart from this, I do not think that a review can be too detailed. At the end of the day, you are giving recommendations to the editor and authors and it is their job to responsibly make use of them. However, it may be wise to take a few precautions to prevent irresponsible use:

I have never heard any negative comments by anyone -- including by journal editors, whom I asked for feedback on this matter after sending my reports.

I would not read too much into that fact. In most fields if not all fields, reviewers have become a scarce commodity and editors will avoid disgruntling them at almost any cost. If you want to make sure that your recommendations and review are not misinterpreted in terms of severity, or the categories offered for the overall recommendation are not nuanced enough, write a small note to the editor that elaborates your overall judgement and in particular how severe you consider the flaws you commented on. This also avoids that an editor makes a false blind decision due to not reading your entire review.
It may also make sense to consider that the authors may be overly obedient to your recommendations. If some of your suggestions are just this, make this very clear. For example, if you think that the work presented in the manuscript may be relevant for some application but are not sure about this (which is fine, since it’s the authors’ job to find out), make it very clear that you do not think that the authors should write this but just that they should consider this.

On another occasion I believe I submitted six "revise and resubmit" reports for the same paper, before finally recommending acceptance.

It’s hard to judge this without knowing why this happened. For example:

In the first round you requested some additional proof (or other substantial addition of material) because the paper was incomplete. The authors added this, but the new material has a gap of roughly the same severity as the original gap. This processes then repeated until all gaps were filled. Assuming correct assessments from your side, this is probably not your fault but the authors’, since they failed to properly write a paper or to do rigorous research.
If the six revisions were only about how to best phrase some sentence, you have been overdoing it.

There are 2 separate issues:

The time you invest into finding things you think could be improved.
What you threshold for withholding recommendation.

For the first:
More work on your part to identify areas for improvement, or that will make the fix for the author more clear, will invariably be welcome. Anyone going for a prestigious publication will have already spent significant time going over that sort of thing. An outsider engaging in that process constructively is help. Its work they would otherwise be doing, likely less efficiently as an outside perspective is useful.
The second is less clear:
Balancing quality of output vs time to publication is clearly a non-trivial compromise. Either extremes have obvious issues. I feel ill positioned to advise you but there are some things to be careful of:
There is (just?) fear in some communities that upsetting reviewers will hurt their careers. Hence being polite even in the face of obstinate behaviour is common. Hence I think there is a real danger that some behaviour (not necessarily yours) would cause ill will, or at least not be productive, with no obvious warning signs. This is even more true if there is suspicion that withholding approval is a political move (but this is pretty field dependent).
This is partly out of your control. However being clear about your expectations and having them distinguished from thoughts for improvements will improve the situation.
Is it worth it? Should you do less?:
Hard to say. I think it's important, and is seems so do you, but my judgement doesn't matter.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Changing the title of a research paper before the submission of the camera-ready version
My research paper has been accepted for the IEEE ICCSE conference. I am planning to change the title of the research paper before the submission of the camera-ready version. This would be a slight modification which will not affect the context of my research. Would it be possible to do so? Is it okay if I request to change the title of my paper?

You need to inform the chairs, beyond changing the paper title in the PDF. Otherwise, the conference program, bibliographic record, and so on might keep the old title. It happened to me for a workshop. Here's an example which somehow ended up the same way (maybe for the same reasons) from a top-tier CS conference, 23 years ago: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=99583.99587.

Generally, you can do this, but you need to get an explicit permission from the programme chair(s). I would also suggest thoroughly explaining the change, as such a change request might indicate that you did a lousy job preparing the paper before the submission itself.

I'd be very surprised if they denied permission for any reasonable title change, but it's definitely crucial to let them know.  (If you just change the title on the camera-ready version without any other notice, it will cause confusion.)

I don't have experience with conferences in this regard, but, I have done once with one of my journal paper.
After second revision (minor), I felt that the title was too long. So, I shortened the title that does not change the intention of the paper. For this, while submitting the cover letter (to the Editor/Editor in Chief), I declared that I have intentionally changed the title that does not necessarily change the goal of the manuscript. The paper was accepted and was subsequently published.
As others point out, even though it is a conference paper, you should explicitly state or inform the program chair about this.

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


text:
What title to put on a professional business card, for a person with a PhD
Is there a correct or preferred format for indicating 'Dr' or 'PhD' (or both) on a professional business card.
Background: I am employed in the industry and I have just earned my PhD (in social science). My company wants to update my business card.
The following are two options:

Dr Name, PhD, University Name
Name, PhD, University Name

I am told that it may be a sign of arrogance but I am also told that if you have earned it, you deserve it.

What country are you located in and what type of company is this?

Its Australia and an advocacy company.

I read it more of a sign of insecurity rather than arrogance when one seems to feel the need to shove your degree in people's faces. As you've pointed out, there are many feelings about this. I wouldn't do it but many do.

"Dr Name, PhD" is redundant, so this usage is often discouraged.  If you are going to indicate the degree, I'd recommend "Name, PhD" rather than "Dr Name" since it's more informative (at the very least it will keep anyone from thinking you are a medical doctor).  In the U.S. it's not common to indicate the university, but I think I've seen it more often in other countries.
I'd suggest thinking carefully before indicating your degree on a business card.  Some people without PhDs may respond bitterly, like you are bragging about your accomplishments or implying that your expertise is more valuable than theirs.  At the same time, some people with PhDs will look down on it as well, in a status hierarchy:

Some insecure people without PhDs feel resentful and don't want to be distinguished from PhD holders.
Some insecure people with PhDs try hard not to be confused with group 1, thereby irritating those people all the more.
Some better-established PhD holders aren't worried about being confused with group 1, but now they don't want to be confused with group 2, so they pointedly denounce emphasizing your degree as being tacky and in poor taste.

As a rule of thumb, I would omit the degree from your business card unless it's important for your credibility (i.e., the skills from your PhD are professionally important and people would otherwise assume you don't have them).
The one situation in which you should absolutely not indicate a degree is if it's irrelevant.  For example, if you're an accountant with a PhD in literature, then your business card should not read "Name, PhD."

This is very dependent on culture. For instance, in Germany the "Dr." is pretty much considered part of your name once you earned it, and higher-ups in industry are said to respond almost irresponsibly well to it. Furthermore, I wonder whether -- if you put your degree on the card -- you should give the field you obtained your degree in (no matter whether PhD or Masters); the distinction may be relevant in interdisciplinary contexts of if your degree is not the obvious fit for your field.

Nice answer. There's even an econ paper modeling the three-point scenario you describe by Harbaugh and To.

If you feel the need to wave around your degree, I might think that you are insecure but I'm not particularly worried about other people confusing me as like you. I'm not going to "pointedly denounce emphasizing your degree"  but if you ask a question in an online forum about how to style your name, I'll give you my advice. :)

My time in industry is longer than in academia. I would like to provide you with my  opinion.
I would suggest

Name, PhD in Discipline name, University name
Job title

I think university name is optional. The discipline name is necessary because people want to know what you know. PhD in physics is very different from PhD in social science.
Please be aware of the possible negative effects of adding the PhD title.
There are quite a bit anti-academia attitude in industry. Some people dislike academics. They believe the academians know nothing but theory. They rather do business with non-academians. For me, I deeply respect academics. I believe a company can offer me good quality products if they have PhDs as some of their employees. So, I am more willing to do business with them. However, I think I am minority. Many industry people do not think that way.
If your employer is a consulting company, your title can be helpful. The PhD title can convince your clients you can offer them high value services. If your employeer is a constructing company, you might want to think twice before you update your business card.

@scaaahu Thanks a lot. I was based in the School of Arts and my dissertation is in the Social Sciences, so is PhD (Social Science) appropriate? Or do I need to mention the specific research area as we do specialise at this level?

@JaveerBaker I think PhD in Social Science is enough. If anybody wants to know more, they can ask. Then it's up to you and the timing to talk about it in more details. Some may not be interested in your title, they will just ignore what area in social science.

What about Bachelor resp. Master degrees if either is your highest one?

@Raphael I never saw anyone put master/bachelor title on their business card in the US or my current location(Asia). I don't know about Europe. But, that's just me.

There are quite a bit anti-academia attitude in industry. Supporting evidence?

In your case, I would suggest "Yes, put Javeer Baker, Ph.D" on your card. You could optionally put "in social science" on it if you'd like.
I cannot speak about the culture in Australia, but in the United States and Canada, it is appropriate to put your title (Ph.D) on your business card if the industry generally is supportive of or respects academics, or in which high degrees are not common. I might guess Australia's culture is similar.
Industries that would want to be proud to have a Ph.D on staff especially would be non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, research think-tanks, and consulting. As you said that your employer was an advocacy group, I believe that putting your degree on your business card is beneficial.
Industries in which you would NOT put your degree on your business card would probably be software high-tech (because no one cares) or in academia (not because no one cares, but basically any assistant professor and up basically has a Ph.D and therefore it's not impressive), or, as mentioned above, a construction management company or similar.
(As an aside, a whole bunch of people at a conference I was at rolled their eyes when they saw one of the authors wrote "name, Ph.D" on a paper.)

Just a remark: I believe I've heard Sergey Brin once mentioning that Google  was so successful because it hired many PhD's.

In your particular case, working for a advocacy company and being asked to update your business card, you can overlook the snarky comments.  I believe that only medical doctors use the Dr honorific on their business card.  So John Smith, Ph.D. seems sufficient.  There is no reason to to add university nor discipline.  It is a nice ice breaker in a conversation when people ask "what is your PhD in?" and you can position your expertise into the context of the meeting.
As for the Dr John Smith, yes by all means that is how you should be addressed on letters and in other contexts, or even simply as Dr Smith.
You have worked hard for your PhD, so you have earned the recognition that goes with it. As for the people with insecurities, it is how you conduct yourself that makes the difference between coming across as a knowledgeable consultant or a pretentious person.

In the U.S., even medical doctors put the degree on professional cards to let everyone know they're "real doctors."

@BobBrown, thanks for the extra detail.  On another forum I was razed for putting the word engineer in scare quotes.  The trolls wouldn't accept that unqualified persons using the engineering designation would not want to be treated for medical conditions by persons without suitable medical training and qualifications. So then why should critical infrastructure then be built by unqualified persons without suitable oversight.

The style chosen is at the discretion of the one conferred with the doctorate. These are styles are common in the UK - they can include all qualifications, including professional certifications:

Dr. Name, PhD, MSc, BSc
Dr. Name, MD, MBChB, BSc DRCOG, MRCGP

The doctorate position and its responsibilities are accompanied with certain rights and privileges including the title and style.  You can even have your passport include the Dr.  It is a legal right.  If you have just earned a doctorate, wear it proudly and congratulations, Dr.

I didn't know one could include "Dr." in the passport in the UK, thought it was only the German exactness :)

In the UK, post-nominals for academic degree are usually in order of level, lowest first, I.e BSc, MSc, PhD.

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


text:
Efficient use of the class time when all lectures are already on Youtube
I am teaching an obligatory course to undergraduates. There are about 160 registered students, divided into four classes of forty. Each class is three academic hours.
Last year, my lectures have been videotaped and put on Youtube (with my consent). The students probably liked it a lot since over 80% of them stopped coming to the class and just watched the lectures from the convenience of their homes.
This year, I have to teach the same course again, and it seems to me a waste of time to say the same things again when they are already videotaped. So I thought of making it obligatory for all the students to watch the videos of last year before class (or just learn the material from the textbook, if they prefer). Then, I could use the class-time more efficiently, e.g.:

Answer specific questions of students about the material;
Give personal feedback to students regarding their homework submissions;
etc.

The problem is that the 20% students who do prefer to learn in class than at home might object to this, since this puts a lot of extra-load on them – they have to watch a video rather than just sitting in class.
So my question is: how can I efficiently use the class-time, while still being fair to all kinds of students?

I find one question from one student about the material can take the class in a different, but relevant, direction. That cannot happen with a video.

@SolarMike I do not claim that repeating the lecture is completely useless - it potentially helps about 20% of the students. I just think it can be used more efficiently.

@ErelSegal-Halevi sorry, I don't see where I put or implied that the "lecture is completely useless" or that the video is completely useless. I pointed out a functionality that I note with my students.

I find that whenever I re-teach a course, I usually do it in a different way. This is not completely intentional, but not completely un-intentional either. Maybe I am not old enough to have had the chance to repeat eveything in my repertoire, if at all my repertoire is not big enough. I honestly feel, I always have a thing or two (actually dozens of them) to improve in my lectures. A shot video of my lecture will not satisfy me. I cannot honestly peddle them to students.

You use the drop in physical attendance as a measurement of how many students learn better online, which is dubious. A student could go online even if they learn worse (for instance if your lecture if Friday 8am and Thursday is party night). Conversely a student might feel honor-bound to attend the physical lecture even if they would learn just as well or better online (that part is probably culture-dependent).

In the US, a class that counts for 3 credit hours normally meets for about 3 clock hours per week. It is often one hour at a time over the course of the week, though it might be otherwise. The typical student in such a course is expected to spend an additional six hours per week on the course, for nine hours total. I'll assume similar expectations for Israel, though I don't know.
You have an opportunity here to "flip" the classroom, though with a few caveats. To flip it, the students would spend their time as follows. About 3 hours per week watching the videos and taking notes. About 3 hours working independently in studying separately from the professor, and about 3 hours in a face to face situations.
A good use of the last segment, in a field like CS, is to have the students work together in pairs and small teams on exercises related to the lectures in the most recent video(s). If you use too much of that face to face time with questions then there will be little time for active work, so a better plan is to have a way, such as a mailing list by which students can ask their questions as they arise while watching the videos or afterwards. To make this as efficient as possible, the students are encouraged to answer each other's questions online and the professor need only enter the conversation when there are misconceptions expressed.
But, much of what would be "homework" is done with the professor (and TAs) present to offer advice to the teams. Teamwork (and pairing) is most effective here since the small groups can often answer their own questions as they arise so that the prof need not answer every such question or deal with every difficulty. The goal is that very few groups are truly "stuck" at any moment, which is normally not the case for students working singly.
So, an hour of watching videos, an hour in "class" working problems and the remaining hour is for other exercises or readings. This balance can give the required reinforcement and feedback that most students need in order to learn. The mailing list ties it all together and lets the students make progress at nearly any time of the day or night without overly burdening the professor.
Also note that with a mailing list, any question asked and answered is seen by every student. This alone is an advantage, especially when students "don't know what to ask" or are too shy to bring up what they see as their own failings. Other social media might work, but I found a simple mail server to be a good tool.
The main caveat is that a 50 minute video is a bit long for concentrated study. Better if they can be broken up into 10 minute segments. Even a recommended pause after 10 minutes or so for reflection is a better solution than a long video. Then, the student watches for a few minutes, perhaps formulates questions for the list or for later study, and then repeats. All of this prior to the face-time that will provide reinforcement of the ideas.
If the students work in groups in the face-time periods, you may need to define the groups or at least guarantee that they mix it up. This helps avoid slackers. If you need to "mark" or "grade" participation, then you also want to consider peer evaluation within the groups. But the "extra" hour (not watching videos and not face-time) can also be used for graded work if you need that.
Another caveat is that you need some assurance that none of your students will be much disadvantaged with the system. People with sight or hearing difficulties might have a different response than those with more normal facilities, depending on what accommodations can be made.

Since some students will not want to watch the videos, and they are not obligated to, you should teach the class as though the videos didn't exist.

Yes - I'd be pretty annoyed if I signed up for a class and the professor told me to watch a video (unless of course that was clear before registration). I retain so little from videos.

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


text:
Balancing between finishing past projects and working on current ones
Personally, I never feel done with projects, as there are always a few open projects, in which I'm involved in. (And typically 1-2 which "I should have finished year ago or so".)
First, what are good strategies of balancing between finishing past project and working on current ones?
On the one hand, concentrating only on current ones means that there will be a lot of "almost baked" project, in a form of partial results, never published drafts or papers stuck in the revision process. (Assigning second priority to something means that it is never going to be taken seriously.)
On the other hand, focusing only past projects would:

look as if I were slacking off (also, as some past projects are from previous afflictions),
have me stuck in working on projects, which are going to be "90%" for the eternity.

Second, being put in situation with constant (internal) pressure and no calm sense of finishing things (as even after polishing results, polishing a draft, going through a few rounds of revisions... there are still n-1 open projects), is there a way to feel accomplishment and not blame oneself when resting?

Hi Piotr! You might want to either accept of the answers, or leave a comment (or edit your question) to explain what is missing from them (or why you otherwise find them unsatisfactory).

Hi @F'x! I like both answers. However, I tend to accept an answer if it's "it solves my problem, I don't expect further answers", which is rarely the case for such general advice questions.

@F'x We can discuss it on meta, but it's not that I don't know about accepting, but I consider accepting a post counterproductive when it's not "issue solved" and should not be encouraged. And I have some strong, grounded views on it. And for a mostly soft-question site >33% is damn high (on SO I have 75%).

absolutely no pressure here! you use the “accept” button as you see fit…

This is a very broad questions, so I’ll try to chirp in with some of the “tricks” I use to get things done.

Find ways to keep track. It can be very easy to feel that you have so many things going that you feel overwhelmed by remembering them or else. There are a number of hardware or software tools to do that. I have a list of ongoing stuff that I keep in the last pages of my notebook, which works pretty well.

If something needs to be done, which takes little time, just do it right now. More importantly, the critical amount of time depends on the life of the project: the more advanced the project is, the more you need to finish. This prioritizes finishing older projects.
For example, if I have a current project with a task that requires half a day of work, I'll try to find a time to do it later. If I have a one day task for a project that's almost done (such as revising a manuscript after reviewer comments), I'll just treat it as high priority to do ASAP.

When working on a project with others, be clear to assign someone to monitoring progress (and reminding everyone of their contributions). On some projects, you need to take the back seat, and just let someone more concerned about the outcome drive the project.

If some project isn't seeing any progress, try to break it up into smaller work units. Like: I'll write a detailed outline, then circulate it to colleagues or co-authors, then use feedback to write the paper (instead of trying to write the paper in one big piece).

Finally, some advice I have received as a young parent, and that is very applicable to academic life: academic life is a long-term game, you're in it for 40+ years. You being very productive right now, then extenuated for 6 months isn't a net positive. You are a better researcher when you are rested and (relatively) stress-free, so avoiding exhaustion and stress is actually your #1 priority!

Lots of great advice in this answer!  One thing I'd add is to look for little bits of current projects (close to completion) that you can fit into the cracks of your day.  For example, when I'm writing a paper, I can often draft the next section even when I'm pretty tired.  This type of thinking is "easier" for me than doing the research; same for revisions.  So after a day of teaching, I usually don't prove any big new theorems, but I can frequently still move my current projects along.  The key is that "deep thinking" and "development" don't come from the same pot of energy.

Here are a few tips that seem to work for me:

You can apply the Google 20% rule and allow yourself 20% of your time to work on projects that have no clear end point, which would include new ideas that you've just had or projects of the sort that you've just had.
New projects shouldn't become current projects unless they are close to finished or you make room in the 80% for them by finishing other projects.
That said, you need to evaluate the projects that you haven't completed and determine whether it is really worth completing them, apart from the fact that you've invested a lot of time in them. At some point you have to cut and move on.
Maybe you can write up the projects that are incomplete and see what you have in the end, and determine whether it goes into the 80%, the 20%, the bottom drawer, or the trash can.
Pick a few conference deadlines (or create a deadline for a journal paper) and work towards that to finish the work.

Sure, I use Google principle all the time (or maybe even much more). And starting things is usually fun and fruitful. However, the tricky part is when e.g. to which extent should be finishing/revising a paper from 1-2 year old collaboration or working on current stuff, with current people. As I found that selecting only 1 thing would be very bad, but trying to balance makes me constantly thinking that I should be working on the second thing (and give little psychological reward on finishing a project).


text:
How much do patents impact an academic career?
Patents are not normally considered as publications in scholarly journals, as they are not subject to peer-review. They are actually new ideas, but patenting does not guarantee the impact and importance (whether good or bad idea). However, academics tend to patent inventions and discoveries for the sake of possible commercial benefits.
I wonder if they have any considerable impact on academic career? e.g., promotion, getting academic jobs, and in a different context, impact on proposals for getting grants and research funds.

At my university (KU Leuven) patents are treated as being of similar value to a journal publication and also count towards PhDs for example.

The answer will clearly vary by institution, and in particular by field (Your average English prof wouldn't be expected to hold any patents but a materials scientist might) but yes, it certainly can.  Patents and publications are measures of productivity and it would be silly not to note them.  It should be pointed out, however, that patents correlate to jobs closer to industry, so a particularly high rate might be indicative of someone not in academia.

FWIW my university's promotion and tenure guidelines were revised recently (April 2013) to explicitly include consideration of patents and commercialization activities:

"Promotion and tenure require excellent performance and the promise of continued excellence in 1) teaching, 2) service, and 3) research, creative work, and scholarship.  The University values an inclusive view of scholarship in the recognition that knowledge is acquired and advanced through discovery, integration, application, and teaching.  Given this perspective, promotion and tenure reviews, as detailed in the criteria of individual departments and colleges, will recognize original research contributions in peer-reviewed publications as well as integrative and applied forms of scholarship that involve cross-cutting collaborations with business and community partners, including translational research, commercialization activities, and patents."

I think we may see more of this sort of thing as the funding landscape changes and the share of state funding for universities decreases further.

authors: Xi'an ні війні


text:
How do I specify I do not want to perform a specific type of research on my CV?
A couple of years back I did some research at a company in a field (Computational chemistry) that I am no longer interested in pursuing (To be blunt: I discovered that I dislike computational chemistry, and lack a certain numerical intuition needed to interpret the results). As I have this and a number of computer science classes on my CV several jobs I have applied for have added computational chemistry to my duties, which leaves me in the unpleasant position of explaining that I'd rather not do that type of research. (See edit below for an explanation of the process)
I'd rather not take that experience off my CV, as it explains why my undergraduate degree is taking so long (I was working for a semester instead of taking classes), and my supervisor did offer me a good reference letter, since I was a good worker, despite the fact I didn't get great results. Also, to be frank, I'm an undergrad and would like to list it to stand out from the crowd a bit: Relevant work experience is much rarer then good marks.
Is there a way I can include that position on my CV, but specify that I'd rather not peruse that field of research? Perhaps as a footnote or a comment intside that description of the job that 'This is a field of research I am no longer interested in perusing'?
EDIT: An explanation of how applying for summer jobs tends to work in my experience:
I'm an undergraduate chemistry major applying to be a research assistant over the summer. The general process for this is you find a professor doing the type of research you want, and email them your coverletter and CV. If they like you then they either hire you, or apply for a grant to get funding to hire you. Formal or informal interviews can take place at any time during this process, depending on how the professor likes to operate. Formal job descriptions are usually only placed on the grant after the student applies, it isn't listed on the profs website beforehand. Therefore I've applied to several synthetic chemistry groups then been either told I'll be expected to do some modelling as part of my job, or asked if I would be willing to do such research: The second option isn't so bad, but the first is rather awarded to explain, doubly so if I'm not told of this until after the grant is already awarded.

@CharlesMorisset I wasn't aware that CVs were ever used for industry, I thought they were academia specific. Part II: No, I apply for the position and when they are crafting the job description they add computational chemistry.

Typically, the way you would state that sort of preference is by noticeably not including it in the list of interests. Given your experience with the technique, not including it on a cover letter, or in your "Objectives" statement on your CV, should be enough to prompt someone to ask about it during the interview process. If it does not come up during discussion, you will definitely want to proactively mention it at some point during your interview.
That being said, the best way is to not apply to labs which do that sort of work, and focus your search on areas that do interest you.

I was trying to do that: However there are a lot of labs that don't do it as a primary aim, but use it in compliment to their main work, often without mentioning it on their website.

@canageek - That is very true, and it's primarily because of that fact that you'll want to make sure that your interests are conveyed.

@Canageek - Also, note that the needs of the lab may dictate that you do that sort of work despite your lack of interest. This is particularly true in your case, as you have experience, which is often a sought-after commodity.

It doesn't sound like you want to make that explicit on your CV. You could certainly include something in your cover letter though that mentions that you'd prefer not to do work in that area.

The problem with that is I'd rather not include such details for groups I don't now do computational work, as it sounds negative, which I was always taught is something you never do in cover letters, etc. The problem is two synthetic groups that don't mention comp. chem. on their websites have gone 'You have experience in this area, so I added that to my funding application to hire you'

Also what do you mean it doesn't sound like I want to make it explicit on my CV? I do, I just want to say "I went to company X, and did this work. It isn't a field of research I wish to peruse anymore'

I don't think you should put "I don't want to do that anymore" on your CV and you want to keep the position on there for the experience. If you don't want to mention it in the cover letter either then you'll have to let them know in some other way.


text:
How is feedback process done after submitting an article to arXiv?
Another arXiv related question...
In several posts I have seen people talking about getting feedback after submitting article to arXiv
I have never submitted anything to arXiv before, so I have no clue how this is done. Is this just an informal procedure whereby other researchers in your field email you about your article?
Or is there a formal feedback process submitted through arXiv? Is this for available for public viewing or discussion?
How exactly is this done? Thanks!

There is no official protocol or formal procedure. Here is how I handle it.
I skim the arxiv submission in my fields of interest every day (headlines and abstracts). Every few days I find some things that I read in greater detail and if it happens that I find something that I'd like to discuss with the authors, I write a joint email to all of them. Could be a question for clarification, a hint for further reading or something like "look here, I've done something related". Once in while I take the time to write a blog post for some article and then it sometimes (rarely) happens that one of the authors comments on my blog.


text:
Breadth vs. depth of reading in preparation for postgraduate study
I am considering returning to university to begin postgraduate study, but before that I plan to spend a year or two in industry to earn some money and also gain perspective on the idea. However, I'd like to continue reading about the area I plan to study while on that break.
My question is: Would I be better served, as far as preparing for postgraduate studies in an informal way:

Staying up-to-date with relevant research in the area I plan to specialise in, thereby having a relatively good idea of how things are at the moment, etc., or
Reading more widely, covering for example most of the important/foundational texts for the whole area of study (or at least more of it than I otherwise would), and so having a better understanding of the issues and key idea in most areas at the expense of in-depth knowledge of the specialisaiton area

Of course, I will likely be doing a bit of both, but I was wondering if either is more worth aiming for than the other.
EDIT: Regarding similarity to this question: I read that before posting and they seem to be asking more about the depth in which they should read given articles, while I am asking more for whether the articles/etc that I choose to read should be broad or deep in their subject matter. This question is different.

PS: I've saved this for a comment because I wanted the question to be more general, but to give some perspective the areas I am considering studying are Logic and Philosophy of Science, within the area of Philosophy. As such, reading a foundational text on, say, ethics would have little direct use, but I would be trading knowledge of bleeding-edge study in logic specifically for an understanding of most areas of philosophy in general.

@EnergyNumbers I disagree, and mentioned this in a comment on Fasermaler's answer. I have updated the question to reflect this.

I fear answers to this question must be subjective and Am I reading enough of the scientific literature? Should I read for breadth or depth? seems to cover the general topic of breadth vs. depth pretty well. Plus you answered your own question in that you should try to do both.
As a returnee myself however I can't resist to share my experience. I also tried to prepare informally for a return to university, both deeply and broadly. I found that actually diving in deeply was very challenging since I had been out of academics and working in the software industry for 10-15 years. Consequently my math was rusty, my familiarity with notation and other formalisms was all but gone and I had a pretty huge disconnect between this new research and what little I recalled from my previous stint. If you haven't been out of the loop for as long as I was, things hopefully aren't this dour, but you can imagine this wasn't a particularly inspirational experience.
Thankfully I found catching up in broader terms made up for this. It was easier to pick up things closer to my general interest and which didn't require all that prior knowledge, but it also provided the context and motivation to understand the deeper, bleeding-edge stuff. Perhaps most interesting is that the really broad stuff, even way outside my field (physics to make math prep more fun, history and philosophy for context) have given me a perspective that isn't of direct use per se, but which adds immensely to the enjoyment of my study and personal development.
So to answer the question directly, do both starting broadly and dive in when you really want to know more deeply about a particular topic. It works wonders for motivation and they'll throw you into the deep end when you get back anyway.

Thanks for the reply - Just a quick comment on the other question, I read that before and they seem to be asking more about the depth in which they should read given articles, while I am asking more for whether the articles/etc that I choose to read should be broad or deep in their subject matter.

You're welcome, I hope it proves of some use to you. Regarding the other question you're right for the high ranked answers. I found this answer http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/13087/31566 rather nice though: reading for depth is a job requirement, but reading for breadth is what will make you stand out.


text:
Should I mention reimbursements for financial expenditures when first contacting tentative speakers for a workshop?
I am thinking of organizing a workshop in my field and am currently in the process of looking for potential speakers. Some of these I'll be contacting for the first time ever by email. The speakers I am thinking of targeting are a mixture of experienced academics and relatively inexperienced/first-timers, such as postdocs.
Clearly we will cover travel and accommodation expenses for the speakers. Should I mention this up front in the first email, or can it be perceived as rude to do so? Is it usually taken for granted that invited speakers don't pay for travel and accommodation?

Are your potential speakers well known popular persons of the field, or are they possibly invited as speakers the first time (post docs you got aware of because of their publications etc.)? For the experienced persons it could be a clear thing that travel, accommodation and workshop fees are covered. For "newbies" this could be an unknown fact. Being invited as a speaker a first time can also feel like a nobilitation to them, expecting them to travel on their own costs.

@AndréKleinschmidt The speakers are a mixture of both. Thanks for the advice though I think you make a good point.

Typically, the (few) invitations I receive mention whether and to what extent they are able to fund my trip directly in the invitation. A reasonably smooth way to approach this a short "If you agree, please contact  to help you refund your expenses." towards the end of the mail. This way, you don't need to specifically say that you'll pay for it, but it is still clear that expenses will be covered.

If you intend to cover expenses, I would suggest saying so up front.
Some invited talks cover expenses and some do not, so it's important information to include.
You've presumably picked these speakers to invite because you really want them there.  Stating in the invitation letter that you will cover expenses will let them clearly know how much you value their presence.  In particular:

Senior scientists, who often get a lot more invitations than they can accept, will know to take you seriously because you are actually offering to pay their expenses, and they are much more likely to say yes.
Young scientists, who often have had few such experiences, will likely feel flattered and important and be very likely to say yes.

Don't make a big deal out of it (that could make you look inexperienced and desperate); just note towards the bottom of the invitation that you will cover all reasonable travel expenses. That is signal enough.


text:
Research assistant wishes to remain anonymous, what to write in the acknowledgement?
So this is pretty much it. My co-author, who is also the main author, has hired an assistant through Elance (an online work outsourcing platform) for doing statistical analysis and also to collect and annotate some relevant literature about connected topic X. I was aware of this and was OK with it, knowing that his or her work is not significant enough to claim authorship but will be acknowledged properly. Now it turned out that, for reasons not entirely clear to me, the RA does not want their name to be disclosed in the acknowledgement section. Even funnier, we do not even know their real name or email address, just the nickname and the profile they use on Elance.
We have the following options:

Do not acknowledge the contribution at all (at first, out of question; but see below why it should be considered)
acknowledge the contribution without naming the contributor. (Like "The authors would like to thank <Main Author>'s research assistant for their help in preparing this manuscript...") As far as I know this would be nonstandard.
acknowledge the contribution without naming the contributor but indicating that remaining anonymous was his explicit request.
acknowledge the contribution and identify them by their Elance nickname
(Like "The authors would like to thank to "FyI1978" from Elance for their help in preparing this manuscript...") This would make us seem unprofessional or laughable; if I have the right impression.
redo the statistics and clean the manuscript from any elements that might bear the mark of the RA's contribution (so that we would not have to acknowledge them at all).

What is your advice, how should we proceed?

If #4 is what the RA wants, I think it's the morally correct to do so even if it sounds janky. Ask them.

There are many good reasons for your freelancer to want anonymity. Perhaps the person is moonlighting and their day job has a non-compete clause. Also, I recall reading on a ASA email list that acknowledgments (vs. co-authorship) only gives liability without reward and the email poster advised avoiding it. Last, you've paid the person so they have already received their compensation.

2, 3, and 4 are the most honest solutions, I would ask them which they prefer. They might consider their Elance nickname as too much information as well (or conversely might want their nickname mentioned).

@RichardErickson: I think it actually is a problem to have results and analyses in a paper, where the person/company who have produced them is not mentioned by name. Namely, because they are responsible for the validity of their work or product. Mentioning does not necessarily have to be through co-authorship or a formal acknowledgement, but if work has been outsourced to a company, it should at least be mentioned in the Material & Methods-section (or equivalent).

@Gerhard: I agree your concerns are valid as well. My perspective was from the perspective of the statistician doing the work, not the authors' or generally readership. Pharmaceutical  companies have been known to ghost write favorable studies. On the slip slide, Gossett did all of his work under the pen name "Student". The ideal solution would be to discuss this when hiring the statistician, not in a post hoc setting. In this case, Massimo Ortolano's answer appears to be the best solution.

Have you asked potential publishers whether any of these options is OK? I have seen papers where anonymous and pseudonymous people are named in the acknowledgements section (for having reviewed the paper) and even cited as primary sources in the references section or footnotes  (when the paper is about people on online social networks). But not naming the person who did your data analysis might not be acceptable.

There are several reasons for which that person might want to remain anonymous (e.g. s/he has been a victim of stalking).
I'd then write something like:

The authors would like to thank an anonymous contributor from Elance for their help in statistical analysis and...

Edit: I amended the sentence above as suggested by Jonathon Wisnoski in a comment ('his help' -> 'their help') to reflect the fact that the gender of the contributor seems unknown to the OP.

Yes, great for not throwing suspicion on the contributor. If the paper gets indexed it may increase the online footprint after her name, and there are tons of legal and justifiable reasons for wanting to keep one's online footprint to a mininum.

Presumably: their help
The poster seems unsure of the gender.

@JonathonWisnoski: Agreed. As a non-native speaker I haven't yet got used to this usage of their and them as gender-neutral singular pronouns.

I think there is one more aspect to consider: acknowledging who worked on your research is also a way to make any conflicts of interest explicit. As statistical analysis may affect the overall message of the paper, having someone anonymous on your team may raise suspicion, especially when there is something to gain from a biased result (e.g. global warming, pharmaceutics, ...). I don't think this is the case here, but in general this might be an issue. As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship#Ghost_authorship

@MassimoOrtolano There is no agreement that this is acceptable. Many people would insist that this usage remains simply wrong. In this particular instance, I'd just omit the pronoun altogether. Obviously it is his/her/their help and 'for help...' reads fine.

@MassimoOrtolano many native speakers don't imediately think of "singular they" despite its long history(english.stackexchange, see the linked questions if you're interested).

Your suggestion #2 is the best, I think. I've got a paper on my desk just now that acknowledges me (and a few colleagues) in this way - we're referred to as the staff of X group. It doesn't particularly imply that you're doing it to keep them anonymous, and you don't have to make a point of saying so - it just happens that for whatever reason you've not given the name(s).
If the journal objects, you can discuss it with them further.

I'm not sure that the two situations are really comparable. Acknowledging a group without listing its members still reflects well on those members: you can say, "Hey, I was a member of the famous X group, acknowledged in all those papers!" But acknowledging a single person without giving any indication of who they are seems weird, as if you're withholding that information for some reason. Better, I think, to explicitly say that they were an anonymous contributor: then people might wonder why they didn't want their name in the paper, rather than wondering why the authors didn't divulge it.

@DavidRicherby In this case, the group is "-- library/archives", but I take your point :-). This looks a lot more normal when it's referring to more than one person.

I see nothing wrong with your suggestion #4, if Fyl1978 agrees. As a reviewer or editor, I would think this is interesting and unusual, but certainly not unprofessional -- you thank someone who deserves your thanks, and they chose to not use their real name.
Heck, people put all sorts of thanks into acknowledgments. I've thanked jet lag, one of my friends has thanked a beer company for providing inspiration. Thanking someone who doesn't want their name published doesn't strike me as something particularly out of the ordinary. As I said, certainly not as something unprofessional.

I also like suggestion #4, but thanking Fyl1978 is not exactly anonymous, #4 is fine it the person just doesn't want to share their real name, but is not ok if they want to be anonymous (and of course, by anonymous I don't mean untracable).

Right, that's why I said "..., if Fyl1978 agrees".

Write nothing.
Acknowledgements aren't obligatory. Just thank the person in person (aka, via email).

That's just poor style in my book. It's not obligatory to thank those who have contributed, but it's certainly good style.

The first 4 options are all okay, option 5 is (in general) problematic from a procedural point of view, because you are then not going to declare that you have re-done the statistical analysis. The problem is then that there is typically some freedom in the methods used, to avoid bias in making any choice that could skew the results, you are supposed to declare (or it is a hidden assumption) that certain choices in the analysis were made a priori. Of course, in this case it is not relevant if you are going to forget about the first results and use whatever comes out of the second analysis. But it's still more of a problem compared to the first 4 options as far as the content of the article is concerned.
And option 4 isn't all that laughable, see the second footnote on page 12 of this article.