text:
Rejection of a paper under review for 5 months but without an explanatory referee's report
I made a submission to a math journal. I was tracking my paper: its status was "under review" for more than 5 months. It was rejected without any report from reviewers and I just received a comment from an associate editor saying that the subject is more suitable for some other journals. I am confused. Why did the editor not desk-reject earlier and only make a decision after 5 months. Where is referee report?
I would like to add a comment: one of articles in my reference list has a similar subject to my paper and was published in that journal. But they said that it is suitable for some other journals!!!

It is possible that the editor sent it for a quick opinion to several experts, and they told the editor it is not good enough. This is a practice that becomes more and more common in math journals, especially selective ones. In that case, there is no referee report.

"A subject is suited for some other journal" is a polite euphemism for "we could not find anyone to review your paper".
Given that your paper was with editor for 5 months, it is likely that the subject was not too alien for this journal, so the editor tried to find a reviewer, but failed.
Many academic journals find it more difficult to attract reviewers now, as academics worldwide are dealing with growing pressures from teaching, research and administration sides of the job, leaving very little for external service, which is often unpaid and under-appreciated in tenure/promotion decisions.

It is not "polite."

I had a paper rejected in a similar situation after 9 month and the editor honestly said that they couldn't find a referee.

"A subject is suited for some other journal" is a polite euphemism for "we could not find anyone to review your paper". -- this should probably say "... after five months is a polite euphemism ...". That rejection reason after, say, two weeks is probably a genuine desk reject.

Unfortunately it can well happen that reviewers don't respond to the invitation to review (not sure whether that would still trigger the status to go to "under review", but depending on the system it may), or, worse, they agree to review and then don't do it. At a certain point in time an Associate Editor or Editor has to make their mind up what to do next. They could invite new reviewers but that incurs the chance that even more time is lost as there is no guarantee that the next person(s) who come to mind deliver a report. What happens at this point will probably depend on what their own (maybe superficial) impression of the paper is. If they were skeptical in the first place but wanted to give the paper a chance, they may at this point decide to cut everyone's losses and reject the paper even though it's of course not a satisfactory situation. Same may happen if they exhausted their list of potentially suitable reviewers without success and don't feel confident enough to accept the paper based on their own impression. Keep in mind even more time could be lost if they wait for longer!
In principle you could ask if there is a reviewer report that should have been passed on to you but wasn't. Mistakes like this can happen. However I would only do that if what the AE or Editor write implies that this is the case. If they don't refer to any report, chances are there is none.


text:
Publishing a questionnaire that was used with authorial permission
We have used a questionnaire which was designed and used by another research team. We have permission from the researcher in charge of the team to use their questionnaire. Now we want to submit our paper and we intend to put questions in the appendix section of our paper.
I do not know whether it is necessary to make a remark regarding the permission of using that or not? If so, is it enough to mention the reference for that? Moreover, because some journals have similarity check, so I think that we get similarity if we repeat questions in the appendix of out paper. How can this issue be addressed?

Similarity != plagiarism. Why wouldn't the journal/editor expect similarity in the appendix of a paper that represents questionnaire items credited to another publication? It would be a bit disturbing if they weren't similar, wouldn't it?

Ethical norms differ by field, but I would think that you should both explicitly credit (with a citation if possible) the questionnaire and also thank the designer in the acknowledgements for permission to use it.  The first is a professional obligation to the field to make clear the source of the ideas; the second is a professional obligation to the designer to thank them for allowing you to use it.

Permission to use an instrument is not the same as permission to publish it in its entirety in your appendix ...

@AlexanderWoo, that should be an answer. Make it so?

My answer here is related to only one issue: copyright. Let's assume that the questionnaire you used was an original creative work of the authors, and that the originality and creativity involved in developing the questionnaire were sufficient to bring the questionnaire within the scope of copyright law.
I accept that you obtained the permission of the authors to use the questionnaire in your study. In effect, for copyright purposes, the authors granted you a "license" to use the questionnaire. But ... how broad was the license? Did the license include the right to publish the questionnaire yourself, and did the license include the right to sub-license ... in other words, to allow a journal publisher to publish the questionnaire. If you are in any doubt, I suggest that you go back to the authors of the questionnaire and clarify exactly what permissions have been granted to you.
Many journals do in fact publish articles based on copyrighted questionnaires that are inaccessible to most of the journal readers. For example, many readers of psychology journals will be unable to get their hands on a copy of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, or any of hundreds of other psychological test instruments. It's a problem for readers, but not necessarily an insurmountable problem for authors.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to improve myself to be at specific area for statistical studies?
My background (bachelor + part of my master degree) was in mathematics. I then completed my PhD in developing statistical models. My study did not focus on a  a specific area (for example, finance, sport, health, etc) — instead, I am a generalist model developer. Because I did not focus on a specific area, I have found it hard to find a job at a university as they require a specific field of study. Now, I am thinking to improve myself in a specific area such as finance. However, I really do not know how to start or even stay in my way (developing statistical models) is better for me? any advice or help, please?

I don't understand your comment that "they require a specific field of study". That doesn't seem true to me. Maybe it is just a tough job market. Where is this happening? Maybe Australia as your profile indicates. Is it special there in some way?

@Buffy Hi and thank you for your comment. I mean that the university offers some jobs for biological, health, spatial, finance and so on. For me, I did not have a specific area. My models help the researcher in a different field. Do you advise me to stay as a model developer or try to write in a specific area?

I don't have a good understanding of academia in Australia. Model building seems like a good thing to me. Is it enough just to find some collaborators in an area of application and work with them for a while? A question, not a statement.

@Buffy It is a good idea to find someone to work with. I tried this, however, as I am not employed in any university, the role is that I cannot use their data and hence I need to work on general data (open source) and for some filed this is not a good option for journals.

Is it possible to get employed as a researcher on someone's grant? If so, you could work out co-authorship at the start so as to build a CV. Or a postdoc?

@Buffy. It is really a good idea. I hope I can someone to work with. Do you think research fellow be a good point to start my journey?

Like I say, I don't know about academia there. Ask someone local, like your doctoral advisor. But getting some publications will certainly build reputation.

Sorry that this has gone so long without better advice. Have you found a path? It occurs to me that some universities have departments of statistics. I don't know about Australia. I don't know if you can relocate.

I think the normal path would be to work as a postdoc in some applied field unless you want to stay totally theoretical.

Have you found a resolution or are you still struggling with this?

It seems to me that you have all the tools needed to either stay is your area or develop models in any of the sub-areas mentioned above. You just need to learn the "state of the art" in each of them (or finance, as you've specified). My advice for you is to build a portfolio with some personal projects, as this counts a lot more than just having a diploma on the specific area. Access some databases and create some financial models by your own and host your work on GitHub or something like this, then you can bring this up on any upcoming interview and show the company/university you know what you're doing.

Although you alude to looking for a job at a university, it is not clear to me what kind of job you are looking for --- e.g., an academic research position, teaching position, non-academic statistical modelling role?
If you are trying to get an academic position then there is a heavy emphasis on research (or at least research potential for some entry-level positions) and so the best thing you can do is to do research projects and use these to publish papers in scholarly journals.  If you are trying to get a non-academic statistical modelling role then probably the best thing you can do is to learn (and possibly become accredited in) one or more common statistical modelling languages (e.g., R, Python, SAS, etc.).  For the latter I highly recommend DataCamp.

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


text:
Correspondence piece in Nature
I recently had an opportunity to publish a "correspondence piece" in Nature journal. The piece is still under development. I just wanted to ask, if publishing a piece in Nature journal is prestigious; especially in my hunt for a new postdoctorate position?
Thanks for your help in advance.

Is a "correspondence piece" peer reviewed? My sense from googling is that it is more like an informal letter to the editor. I would say a peer reviewed publication in Nature (of any length) is certainly prestigious and something to be proud of, but of course not a guarantee of postdoc offers. I would say a non-peer reviewed comment would probably be looked at in a similar way to if you had been interviewed for a news article or TV segment -- it shows you are engaged with the community, but is unlikely to be a deciding factor in hiring you.

What is the source of this "opportunity"? Were you invited? By the journal editors?

Thanks for answering. We are actually writing a piece in response to another article published in NATURE. So, it is a kind of technical short comment which will most probably be reviewed by the editor only.

Yes, it is prestigious, indicating your standing in your field of research. Would not hurt to empathize this in your postdoc application (once it is accepted).

@Elizabotto Could you clarify whether it is a 'correspondence' or a 'matters arising'? Since you say it is a technical comment on an article it sounds more like the latter.

@Anyon its correspondence regarding a piece already published in Nature.

@Elizabotto I don't think that's possible - the description of Nature's Correspondence section linked above specifically says "The Correspondence section does not publish technical comments on peer-reviewed research papers. Please submit these instead to Matters Arising." This may seem like a pedantic point, but they are very different types of documents (200 word mostly opinion/policy pieces vs longer peer-reviewed scientific works), and how they'd be viewed in evaluating a CV would be very different.

@StephenMcMahon it is something like the following correspondence piece that we are submitting in a couple of days https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03292-5

@Elizabotto Ah, so is this a comment on something in the 'News & Opinion' front matter of Nature (like the one you link), not a comment on one of their peer-reviewed research articles? I don't believe Nature's front matter carries the same standing as its peer-reviewed research, so the CV impact of publishing a correspondence piece relating to that would likewise not be so great.

Your question needs much more detail about the background of the situation for a proper answer.

edited for clarity
It depends a bit on WHY you are asking, since you mention the hunt for a postdoc. Do you want to describe it/mention it somewhere as a piece in the prestigious journal Nature? Or as a prestigious contribution? I would stay away from using the adjective 'prestigious' myself.
In the same way that all individual papers should be evaluated based on content and merit, I would also look at this piece in the same light.
What is it about? Is it related to the work you did for your PhD? Did you take the initiative or come up with the idea for this technical comment? Did you write most of it and is a figure with your data included (as I think is often the case in a technical comment type letter to the editor)?
In that case, you may want to mention it in the motivation letter as suggested by Moishe because it does mention contextual thinking and critical contributions to your field of research. But then mention WHY it deserves mention and stay away from calling your own stuff or the journal prestigious. Let the reader make up their mind about that.
If it is not directly related to the bulk of your PhD or the field your searching your postdoc in or you did not conceptually contribute much then I would just list it on my CV as any publication. Apart from the fact that it isn't peer reviewed, so I have a special section for that (non peer reviewed articles, but you can also call the section 'correspondence and opinion pieces' or something as it expands over the years.
I disagree with Andrew that it is the same as a news article of TV segment. That would go under publicity or media attention, this is scientific writing for a scientific audience.

I don't think this is very fair: the question is clearly if others would regard this publication as prestigious. Which I think they would (depending on field), although less prestigious than an actual publication in Nature.

@pgunnink: I can see why you think I didn't directly address the question. I've edited my response to address WHY rather than WHAT they are asking.
My first point was that the interpretation of 'prestigious' should be left up to the reader and I just wouldn't use the adjective myself when mentioning the work. Even if it would be considered prestigious by others.
My second point was whether the piece itself would deserve mentioning or highlighting in a letter of motivation and/or CV - and that, as I tried to explain, IMHO depends on the actual topic/content and the contribution of the OP.

That is fair enough, thanks!


text:
Is there any custom to thank the editor of a journal?
I am a PhD student in mathematics. Recently I received back a request for revision of an article I had submitted to a journal. The referee made several good suggestions; the chief editor also provided some suggestions.
When I resubmit the paper, it is natural I will thank to the referee. But should I thank the editor as well?

Minor language nitpick: most likely you did not receive "a revision of [your] article" but rather a message where you are asked to do a revision of your article.

@JochenGlueck, the chief editor mentioned in the first sentence that it is a (major) revision. They will decide about acceptance after the revision. But referee and the chief editor suggested several good points that will improve the paper. I understand their suggestions are good

Hmm, I'm under the impression that we're talking past each other. My comment is purely linguistic: It does not make sense to say that you "received a revision" because the word "revision" describes either the act of revising your article or the revised article itself. The editor did not send you a revision, they informed you about the decision that the journal requires a revision from you.

@JochenGlueck, ok, I understand.. thanks

There is no reason why you should not thank anyone who has assisted you. Acknowledgements of this kind are often written in the third person, running on something like the following lines:

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for helpful remarks that significantly improved this paper.

... amend the italicised words as necessary!
Examples appear here, here, here and here. In some of them, the editor is not only thanked, but named. The last of the four examples is almost identical to the words I have suggested above.

Thanks. It seems only one referee report was attached. The chief editor send an email. At first, he suggested on few good points about content and general aspects of the paper. Then he did paste the referee report below. Now I am not sure whether the suggestions given was from him or other editor. Since he sent the email, i suppose it is his suggestion. So the question is- should I write chief editor or just editor?

If you're asking here for a suggestion about wording (and I'm not sure whether you are), I'd err on the side of generosity. No one will be offended. Mention one (or two) reviewers as you see fit, and say "editors" (plural) even if you're unsure exactly who it (or they) might have been. The response from both your readers and from the people working at the journal, will be a brief bright thought in their day ... "Oh, that was nice!"

Yes. I understand it. I should use the word editor or editors.

In normal circumstances, I would not thank the editor nor the reviewers in the body of the article itself (or any publicly-visible place - footnote, acknowledgements, etc.). I would, obviously, thank all around within the submission system, as is polite and customary to do (check your field’s cultural norms). It is entirely expected that any published article contains contributions from the editor(s) and reviewers.
In extraordinary circumstances, use context-specific judgement (and discuss with your coauthors if you have any). I have met such circumstances once in my career so far.
I was the junior author on a material science paper submitted to PNAS for which one of the reviews significantly generalized the theoretical result we presented (dropping certain convenient hypotheses and proving that the main results still held). The review was six pages long and included two figures. That is far from normal - the other review "merely" asked a few clarifications, pointed some errors, etc. (the standard stuff).
We ended up thanking "one referee for valuable suggestions relating to" that part of the paper. We did not thank the other referee (with the benefit of hindsight I would say their review was among the top 20% I ever received; never once did any of my senior coauthors suggest to thank them).
To this day, I think that acknowledgement was insufficient. I think we should have proposed co-authorship to the reviewer, and if refused, made the acknowledgement much clearer about the scope of the contribution.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It is interesting


text:
Career impact of not earning your PhD degree (despite trying until the end)
I am less than 2 months away from the end of my PhD (Europe). My publication record is super bad so far, submitted my first paper 7 months ago and now we are retracting it and will submit it again as the handling editor was unable to find suitable reviewers as of today (after the manuscript had been accepted for peer review by him...). We are considering to write another paper, which will be very difficult to get accepted, so that's only gonna be a chapter but not a publication in the end... Earlier on, my PhD committee made it clear that I have to have only 1 accepted paper and two or three other chapters in my thesis. So the bar is low, yet I'm still unable to finish now. Actually, 1.5 years ago my supervisor did doubt whether we can publish the manuscript we submitted earlier this year as it does not include validation on real data (just a sort of simulation). So that doesn't exactly make me confident about the whole thing, having my degree depending on a single potentional paper that even my supervisor had doubts about.
My supervisor doesn't want to give me an extension, so the deal now is that I'm trying to finish it without an extended contract after I have found a job. In the meantime, I started job search but unfortunately I'm more interested in positions where a PhD degree is required (even though I'm not looking for a job in the academia, I wanted to work in the industry after I finish anyway).
I don't know what to do now as I feel my self-esteem is completely damaged and that I will probably be considered a failure wherever I apply, even though a lot of things went wrong during my PhD that were out of my control. I don't even believe that I would be capable of doing the jobs I'm interested in.
Shall I still try to finish, even if it technically seems impossible? I guess a crap but finished PhD is still better than a not completed one... But I'm very much afraid that it won't be possible... and then all these years were just wasted and I basically have to figure another career/job that I'm able to do.

What country is this? You might be able to extend your timeline without it being covered by PhD funding (like your supervisor suggests) and have a defense after landing a stopgap job in the industry to sort out financial issues for the time being. You are not married to that job and can quit it after half an year or an year without great repercussions, you know.

Is a published (or in process) paper an absolute requirement of completion? In many fields/locations it isn't

Let's say you fail to get your PhD. Is there any scenario under which, in 2+ years from now, you are going to look back and cry over the extra 2 months you wasted? Unless you're dealing with some kind of immediate family or financial emergency, or unless someone is offering you millions of dollars to quit without a PhD, I reckon the answer is an easy "No". In which case the answer should be obvious: put all your effort into it for the next 2 months, and let life take its course. Worst case you wasted 2 more months... whatever.

So my concern is, shall I try to look for a completely different career path now and don't even count on this PhD or not? Because for that, 1 year (or more) spent on waiting for something slightly impossible to happen is actually a waste of time.

Extension means how much extra time you get to finish at all, or how much time of extra financing he is willing to offer? Also, no matter if you persist or not you can pick a job to pay bills for a year while still trying to finish and switch to something more desirable after you manage to complete. It isn't like you need to decide which of career paths to pursue just now.

hey @antev - sorry for the late comment, but many of the European systems which have these requirements also allow a form of thesis without papers, typically called a monograph. It may require a special exemption from the dean, and is generally treated as sub-par, but at least you can graduate then. Look closely into the doctoral regulations.

Thanks @juod! I'll look into it

This is my original answer, but please also see the update below where I changed my advice based on some clarifications in the comments.
I think you should try to finish the PhD. You are so close, and really it's the major reward you get for the years of toil on your projects. If you drop out now, you will not have a tangible record to show for all your troubles. And a PhD is a nice prize that shows you have valuable experience.
There is not much you can do about whether or not these papers get published at this point. Given your timeline, it is what it is. Don't assume the rules your committee gave you are set in stone. No one wants to see you fail, least of all your advisor. Write up the work you have done, and be honest about the submission status of the various papers. I think it is more likely than not that this will be fine, in the end. As pointed out by @user347489 in the comments, a reasonable committee may simply look past a publication requirement, because you are planning to leave academia and enter a field where your publication record does not really matter; make sure your committee is aware of your plans. But in the event that it is a major sticking point, let them decide this, rather than you deciding it for them. Get your committee and your advisor to tell you what steps you need to take to complete the PhD; they are the ones who are responsible for this decision. For now, assume everything will work out, and concentrate on your part of this: getting your work written up into a thesis.
There may be some part of you that is angry that you have come so far, and are facing obstacles so close to the finish line. In my opinion, this feeling would be very normal and could actually be put to good use -- try to experience some of that anger and use it to motivate you to do the work, and talk to the necessary people, so you can finish with the degree. Don't give up on yourself now.
Job searches take a long time. You need to balance this against finishing your degree. Try to plan your time realistically, and don't expect more from yourself than any human can deliver. When you do get time to focus on your search, read the job descriptions for ads in the field or fields you want to get a job in. Start by making a resume that demonstrates how your skills match what the companies are looking for in a way they can relate to, by using words in their job descriptions. Try to talk to people who do those jobs -- perhaps there are people in your PhD program who have gone on to some of these jobs you can talk to, or people in your broader network, or see if there are job fairs for your field in your local area.
Please keep in mind that impostor syndrome is incredibly common in academia, and while I don't know you, I think it quite unlikely that you got into a PhD program and have made it through almost to the very end by being a "failure," and much more likely that you are a talented and hard-working individual who is burnt out by the PhD process (and, I'm not sure if you've heard, but there's a pandemic that has been going recently). On the topic of burning out... make sure you take time to practice some self-care. Go on walks or runs or bike rides. Make sure you eat well and get enough sleep. If you can, take a vacation.
Finally, I strongly encourage you to seek out a mental health professional, if you have not already. They can help you talk through many of these issues much more effectively than strangers on an internet forum.

Update
Based on discussion with @antev in the comments, it appears I misunderstood the situation. I was assuming that your PhD could be finished without about 2 more months of work, and that the requirement for a publication could be waived. Apparently, this is not true. Really, the situation is that you need to wait an indefinite amount of time to hear back from the referees. If the paper isn't accepted, then you have to do more work to get a paper published, in order to be able to defend.
First, I just want to express I find it completely ridiculous that an advisor would commit to a student for four years and then pull the rug out from under them at the end, by refusing to support them while they finish the degree, either by extending financial support while wrapping up the last stages of this paper, or by loosening the requirement to have a paper (or "going to bat" for you by arguing your case if this is an institute or department policy).
With that off of my chest, I think you basically have 3 or maybe 4 options.
Option 1 Find a job that you like that does not require a PhD. If you find one, then no need to finish the PhD.
Option 2 Find a job you like that does require a PhD, but is willing to hire you while you finish the last steps of your degree. I have heard of situations like this before. But, I have only heard of it when the candidate was "ABD", meaning all requirements were met except for the dissertation. In your case, the situation is murkier because you have a hard requirement for publishing a paper, and you can't guarantee if or when it will be published. So I don't know how likely it is you will be able to find a job like this -- not to say you shouldn't try.
Option 3 Find a part-time job to pay the bills while you finish your PhD. Once you have your PhD, or at least have the published paper part of your degree finished, I think it will be easier to find jobs that require a PhD.
Option 4 As suggested in the comments, apply for a leave of absence. I don't know much about how this would work -- you would need to look into the details at your location.
Obviously there are some major pros and cons to each option, that will come down to personal factors. Option 1 is probably the "cleanest" option, but you have to be sure you really like the job and aren't selling yourself short. If you want a job requiring a PhD, to me option 2 seems better if you can find one, and option 3 seems like a last-resort back up plan. Depending on your institution's policies, Option 4 (a leave of absence) could also be worth considering, but I don't have any idea what that would look like in practice.
I also am going to reverse what I said initially. With this set of options, I think it makes more sense to focus on your job search now, and try to nail down what jobs you want and what options you have.

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

Option 5: find a company that does not require a PhD but is willing to help/let you finish it. You would then have the PhD (which is whatever happens better than not to have it) - maybe to be used later (or not, but at least you leave that door open). (I would have added that to your answer directly, but do not want to modify it that extensively)

First, I am really sorry for you as you are in a really stressful and difficult situation.
2 months is incredibly short to get a paper published.
But I know people that get their PhD with a paper under review, you may ask your PhD committee is that is okay.
If it is not, I really encourage you to discuss with your supervisor how much time he thinks publishing your paper may take and see with him if he can keep you for this long.
Third, I don't know your country but in France there is academic position (ATER) where you do teaching which are often attributed to people finishing their PhD but who ran out of credits. The pay is quite low, but it can help. You may want to check if something like that exists in your country.
Wishing you best luck.

Thank you! I'm afraid my supervisor has no idea how long things can take, I've asked about that already. I'll try to see if I can discuss things with my committee in more detail.

I think it really depends on the University, but I finished my PhD without a single paper. My paper was written 1.5 years before my defense, but my supervisor could never stop with his improvement ideas. When I realized that there is no way to finish my PhD I pushed it to defense like that, without a paper. In the end, everyone is interested in students defending their theses. The university needs a good record also. Try to check with your PhD program coordinator if you have one, or with the ombudsman (that should be there in any Uni), what are your options.
Also, stop thinking that you are a fail. No result is also a result. Unfortunately, modern academia does not support it, and it is uncommon to share your fails, but you should be really lucky that your research project ends up with some result. I had to quit one PhD position after 2 years of research and start something else because all projects that I started did not bring any result, but then I was lucky to start a fruitful project, but with bad supervision again :) It is pure luck, especially in biology.
With machine learning, it is also not so hard as you think. I am now working as a data scientist and believe me, in many companies the entry-level is pretty low. We just do not know what we can do as PhDs.
So no worries, just fight till the end. Good luck!

Thanks a lot for the good wishes! I know, I know, luck plays a big role in this... (which often makes me wonder about the actual purpose of doing a PhD but that's another story). Unfortunately, here I cannot have much word about the circumstances and requirements of my defense, if the committee says that it should be according to their terms/requirements than that is the end of the story (I haven't heard of anyone whom they let to finish without at least 1 publication). I'll try to hope for the best, thanks for sharing your experience!

I think that, unfortunately, a lot of thoughts are focusing on the medieval idea of a piece of paper giving enormous advantage with respect to not having it.
The work you need to finish your PhD is probably enormous, you may have the chance to find an employer that is in favour of you ending your PhDs in the first months of employment (possible benefit for the company: setting up a good connection with your advisor/department ... if the company has interest and is smart enough to understand this).
However, most likely, you will have 6 months (probably more) of hell, where you cannot focus on the new things you need to learn at your new job, nor you can fully focus on your PhD completion. If you are now under stress, that woud only increase exponentially in that period.
My advice is to drop the PhD, who cares about people or the social pressure of "you should finish it", if you have learned something in your academic journey, good for you, if you did not, it's a pity but at least you had a salary and even if you did not notice, you contributed to the research apparatus moving forward.
Plus, if you got your PhD under extreme working condition (or unethical, like in Germany where most of the PhDs having fundings issues use their unemployment time to wrap up the thesis) you are contributing to the next PhDs undergoing the same path of pain (you know, whatever you achieve to reach a result become a possible business-as-usual for the next generation of people aiming at the same result).
Stop it, for your well-being and for who is coming after you.


text:
Paper replication coding task for computer science Ph.D students
I want to ask about the specific task given by an advisor to their students, consisting of a paper replication coding task. The task involves writing a lot of code as to implement the paper's algorithm.
The task is given to a final year student while no support or help is provided to them, so that the student should work alone on doing that.
How common is it is academia to see such things as Ph.D. students writing a lot of code on complex algorithm all the time during their PhD period with no help (nor brainstorming meetings..)?

What is the purpose of such a task for a final year PhD student?

I'm not in CS, but I would assume that ability to write code independently is a fairly common expectation for CS PhD students, even if some areas of CS don't rely much on code.

I agree that the skill is valuable and expected. But in their final year, a PhD student is expected to start finishing up their own original research and write a thesis. Giving them a task at this stage to test if they can write code independently seems far too late and potentially distracting.

@dubious I think we're missing a lot of background here, but OP's objection seems to be focused on the no help/no support aspects rather than being busy with a thesis. It could be that the algorithm is important for contextualizing results in OP's thesis. It would be best if OP could clarify, though.

@dubious I never said it was to test their abilities to code.

so in the final year of Ph.D. it is rare to get such tasks as writing code? When should students start writing their dissertations anyway?

It was not clear what you were saying. Hence the question :). Can you please elaborate more on the task and what it is for.

the task of replicating a paper is rather for professors and post-docs is what I thought, or at least for more experienced staff, rather than for PhD students

@MartinMoore What would make you think that?

What part of the world are you in? From my perspective (US), your question seems so bizarre that I have to wonder if you really are a CS PhD student. But, things do work differently in different places.

To be clear: Do you not have any dissertation started? Do you have a timeline for when that should start and end?

In most fields in Computer Science, the capability of implementing an algorithm is expected from students with a Ph.D. In those fields, the majority of theses will have a comparison between different methods, some proposed by the thesis and some based on the state of the art. To compare, one has to measure and this implies that methods will have to be implemented.
Unfortunately, until quite recently, many people in CS published their results without publishing their code. This is finally changing, as much larger data sets and auxiliary files can be made accessible. But even if implementations are available, they need to be comparable, which usually means re-engineering large parts of the code.
A Ph.D. especially in Computer Science is a bit of an apprenticeship. You usually will have to develop a capacity to code and to code well if you are working in Systems or on the tool-development side of Machine Learning inter alia. If a student is in their final year and still cannot code, then something went really wrong. The students should have been set to this task early on. But even in their final year, a student is expected to contribute to the research of the group, and this could mean implementing an algorithm given in a paper. There might not be a choice if the algorithm or data structure is new and pertinent to the thesis topic.
I do not see the reason to have brain-storming session. The paper might be a bit obscure (sometimes by design in order to not leak intellectual property), but should have enough information for a skilled engineer to regenerate the implementation. Also, research implementations are not "industrial-strength" and often can break under rare circumstances (because assumptions were made and not checked).
I assume that I might give you different advice if you were to give us a more complete description of your situation. But in many fields in CS, it is common to spend most of your time implementing and then measuring. For crying out loud: Just go and do a google search on Phase Change Memory and B-trees. I would guess that most of the papers represent the core of a Ph.D. thesis. Look at the graphs in the evaluation session and you will see comparisons with other ways of implementing B-trees. Each way represents a lot of coding work. Professors in a good research group are busy developing and pitching ideas to funding agencies and usually do not have the time to implement other people's algorithms. They also have to teach and run meetings with their graduate students.
So, it is common for Ph.D. students in C.S. to implement code and implement other people's algorithms as well as their own.

Papers should have enough information to replicate.  They often do not.

I must be walking on the moon reading such speech. I mean: "The paper might be a bit obscure, but should have enough information for a skilled engineer to regenerate the implementation" OR "Professors in a good research group are busy developing and pitching ideas to funding agencies and usually do not have the time to implement other people's algorithms" ? looking for funding isn't enough as a task for a professor submitting with their students a paper. Papers need clarification in a research group before student can do them, otherwise student is not working in a group


text:
My research supervisors want to patent an idea I made and I get a minority part of the invention
I entirely came up with a novel idea. I did all of the research indepently. Both my supervisors want to patent the idea now. It seems that I'm getting a smaller stake in the patent according to the filing papers (they didn't talk to me about this). I own 25%, they own 37.5% each.
I can't help to feel like I'm being swindled. The university is paying for patent costs. But, I came up with the idea entirely on my own. Also, this isn't related to my main research project. I just worked on it on the side - so they didn't have much contributions towards the overall idea [actually one of them had literally ZERO contribution to the original idea and just happened to be my supervisor at the time].
Should I say something or is this common?

Most patents actually don't end up producing much money. If yours is one of these, you probably don't need to do anything.

This one might generate a lot of money as the intent is to sell it.

I just don't know if this is common or not.

You probably signed an intellectual property agreement when you started working with these supervisors. That should explain what happens in this case.

If there is significant money at stake, you should consult a lawyer. When applying for patents as an employee, I was told that it was essential to get the inventor list accurate - listing a non-inventor or failing to list an inventor could endanger the validity of a patent.

I believe that under U.S. law, everybody whose name is on a patent is supposed to have made some contribution to the idea. If one of your supervisors didn't, this might invalidate the patent. In this case, the university's lawyers would certainly want to take his name off of it. You should check with the university's intellectual property office to see whether it's university policy that supervisors are allowed to take advantage of their underlings in this way. I suspect that it's not, and the intellectual property office might advise you on what to do.

@mhwombat: In my experience, intellectual property agreements are  almost always signed with the university, and not with an employee's supervisors. The university may be completely unaware that the OP is being taken advantage of, and may not approve of it.

Any tips? They want it signed by Monday. I don't want to ruin our relationship. I just really feel like I'm being exploited. This was an idea I came up with on the side and told them about it: and they had a "HOLY SMOKES" reaction. I'm being pressured to sign, but I don't want to ruin relationships..

Care to mention in which Country this is happening? I understand that in North America it's very unlikely that any ownership will go to you, if you're a university affiliate.

@Cape Code: Some American universities split patent revenues 50/50 (or some other percentage) with the inventors.

You should read your university's intellectual property policy.  If this matter is important to you, you should also consult a lawyer.
I think you are probably confusing the concepts of credit and ownership.  The inventors get credit for creating the invention, but the owners have the right to exploit the patent.  Most likely the university owns all of the patent and the inventors who are employees or students own none if it.  The university may assign a portion of any profits to the inventors as an incentive.  This would be entirely at the university's discretion, and would typically be described in a published policy.

Your last paragraph does not apply everywhere. My undergrad institution in Western Europe had a policy where inventors owned a third of the patents they produced.

This is an ownership thing.

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


text:
How can I fix Google Scholar inaccuracies
Until I told it not to, Google Scholar automatically added articles to my profile by scholars with the same name. I deleted those articles, but they still showed up on my university Google Scholar's page.
I have now deleted my Scholar account and had the university delete my Google account, but my university Scholar profile still pops up and it still seems to be "grabbing" works by scholars with the same name from other fields.
How do I just delete my Google Scholar existence entirely and start from scratch.  It's been over a year since I first deleted my account.

What do you mean by "university Google Scholar page"? AFAIK Google Scholar pages are only available for individuals.

My college has a search results page listing all of its Google Scholars.  Moreover, my GS account used the institutional web address.  This appears to have created a GS account in addition to the one I created. I deleted the one I created and asked my school administrator to delete the other. Sadly Google Scholar still generates a list of articles under my name and institution. This list inaccurately claims articles from other scholars with the same name.

The question is asked in a bit of a chaotic way. Do I understand correctly?
Your university is pulling data from Google Scholar automatically onto your university page.
But you deleted your Google Scholar profile.
Yet the university website still lists your papers via google scholar?
That sounds like it's not being pulled from your google scholar profile that you had modified to only include your own publications but from google scholar directly.
I don't quite understand why your university is not using a better system. Surely, you cannot be the only one with similar issues?
Can you just have your own website where you curate your own pub-list?
To answer your last question, again a clarification question: so your google scholar account(s) were deleted but also not deleted? As in: when you google your name, there still is your google scholar page rather than just the pubs that are indexed on there?
Or do you just mean when you google your name in google scholar, your publications still pop up mixed with the other John Smiths?
It it's the former, that is odd  and should not happen. If it's the latter, nothing can be done. That's just indexing and it will be there as long as the publication venue you went with is indexed by google scholar.

@semmyk-research & Story, Thank you for your help.  The problem is that other scholars with my name cannot claim articles that they wrote because my GS account has already (without asking me) claimed them. I deleted the inaccurate listings of works from other scholars, but they still appear.  On my request, my school administrator deleted my college Google account.  I also deleted my personal account.  Yet this page still shows up. I would not care, but it "claims" articles written by colleagues with the same name in other fields. This is not fair to them.

Perhaps, your colleagues should go into their GS profile to add or edit the/their research entry/entries. ... That assumes the issues is from GS and not institutional RMIS/CRIS.

Until I told it not to, Google Scholar automatically added articles to my profile by scholars with the same name.

This is where you should have left it rather than the drastic action of deleting your Google Scholar account

I deleted those articles, but they still showed up on my university Google Scholar's page.

Your university is probably pulling from (academic) sources and not just GS. Lots of universities uses RMIS (some refer to it as CRIS) to aggregate their staff and associates research outputs
I would suggest you include your orcid in your publications as this will identify you more uniquely (not completely foolproof).
Your orcid and GS profile might go a long way with your research presence. You have options though. You can even self curate into a personal website/page; hopefully, you don't get tied down into administrative overload.


text:
Why is the Grievance Studies affair considered to be research requiring IRB approval?
I'm reading about the Grievance Studies affair and there's one thing I don't understand. Portland State University (PSU) initiated a a research misconduct inquiry against Boghossian for conducting a research on human subjects without IRB approval. I assume that PSU considered the hoax as a research project, the human subjects being reviewers which received the papers.
It's not clear to me why such an approval would be needed in this case. What exactly makes such a project subject to IRB approval:

actions classified as "research", as in "contribution to generalizable knowledge"?
project funded by the university or the government? (as far as I know,  not the case)
being paid by the university while the project is under way?
publications or plans to publish? (again, as far as I know, no official research papers were published)
affiliation with the university?
something else?

As an extreme example, if a university professor tells their colleagues a joke and counts how many people laugh, and later writes a post about it in social media, do they risk similar sanctions if the university doesn't like their post?

They were "studying" people (the reviewers) without their knowledge or permission. Therefore IRB issues. I'll note that it would be possible to do such research in a proper way, though a bit difficult.

@Buffy I understand that. The question is, at which point the IRB must be involved in such "studies". Obviously a university professor is allowed to write in a personal blog that 60% of his colleagues laugh at Trump jokes.

Yes, you can write such a post. But if you set up a study that involves human subjects, ask the board for approval before you move forward. Don't try to finesse it. Just ask. Likely you will be approved. Or minor modifications might be suggested/required.

@Buffy I guess the essence of my questions is where is a border between "just a post" and a study. I assumed it's only a study when you publish it in a scientific journal, but apparently this is not the right criterion.

But I think the answer is to let the IRB make that determination, provided you are defining a research study, rather than trying to do it yourself. Casual questions aren't the same sort of thing. But if you reveal attitudes of your colleagues (laughing at improper jokes, say) that they'd rather not be publicly associated with, then you might get sanctioned - by them. Fistfights in the hallway, anyone?

@Buffy I suppose (though I may be wrong) that Boghossian and friends didn't expect that their hoax will be considered a study and were taken by surprise, rather than knowingly provoked the university by ignoring the IRB. Of course I can see how reviewers are unhappy about the hoax and It's expected that they'd fight back.

I think you are correct, but I also think they were wrong in that expectation. They were sloppy at best. Like teen-agers saying "Wouldn't it be cool if we ..... (something terrible)". Researchers should think out their actions.

@DmitryGrigoryev I added which PSU this is for those of us unfamiliar with the case.

@DmitryGrigoryev Your hypothetical "extreme example" depends entirely on who's embarrassed by the joke -- which everyone knows is the answer to your question.

This article in NYMag answers pretty clearly most of your questions. I won't quote it all, you can read it on your own. Here are relevant excerpts.

For the purposes of Peter Boghossian’s case, three facts about IRBs matter a great deal: “study” is defined rather broadly in the federal guidelines; possible risks to humans — even ones that non-IRB nerds may view as negligible — are taken very seriously; and IRBs tend to look especially closely at studies involving deception. [...]
First, the definition of “study”: As PSU explained to Boghossian in a document it sent him December 17, the university determined that his work met the definition of “study” as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services in language that reads — this isn’t included in the letter itself — “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” [...]
Crucially, it does not matter that the hoaxsters didn’t attempt to publish their final results in a peer-reviewed journal. “Publishing in a magazine that’s not peer reviewed doesn’t matter if they’re reporting on their research,” said Celia Fisher, director of the Fordham University Center for Ethics Education. All that matters is that Boghossian is an employee at PSU, and that he conducted what the university deemed to be human-subjects research based on a plain reading of how that term is normally defined for this purpose.
[...] First of all, “if they believed that this was not human-subjects research, the process would have been to submit to the IRB an application that says I believe this research that I’m doing is exempt,” said Fisher. “And the IRB makes the determination if it’s not human-subject.” It’s not their call, in other words — it’s still the IRB’s. [...]
In the case of the grievance-studies hoax, the potential for harm came in the form of reputational damage and humiliation to journal editors and reviewers. And one decision the hoaxsters made — allowing accepted papers to actually be published rather than notifying the journals so they could be yanked before they were out in the world — neatly captures the sorts of ethical discussions often spurred by IRBs. [...]
Finally, as a so-called audit study [...] Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose’s scheme was more likely than a non-deception study to raise IRB eyebrows. “All audit studies require deception, and many social scientists who would like to see only a limited role for IRBs still consider IRB review appropriate when deception is required,” said Schrag. Deception is simply seen as an ethically fraught tactic, so even IRB critics aren’t necessarily in favor of them backing off entirely in situations where deception is involved. [...]
Pluckrose at one point mentions the impossibility of getting informed consent from journal reviewers — the implication being that to do so would be to blow the cover of the experiment. Again, though, that’s the point of an IRB: to gain permission to deceive, or to come up with some sort of work-around. The choice isn’t necessarily between obtaining informed consent in a manner that would blow the experiment and not running the experiment at all — plenty of IRBs have approved plenty of audit studies. [...]

The article was not particularly difficult to find (it was linked in one of the Wikipedia articles), and the way you phrased your questions casts some doubt about your good faith (it sounds like you have already attained a conclusion and only wanted validation, especially your last hypothetical question), but still, I think this deserved a good-faith answer. Now as for your hypothetical:

As an extreme example, if a university professor tells their colleagues a joke and counts how many people laugh, and later writes a post about it in social media, do they risk similar sanctions if the university doesn't like their post?

This is a systematic (albeit small scale) investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge and the professor reported on it. It involves human subjects. If the professor doesn't inform the participants that their reactions are recorded and will be posted online, it also involves deception. I will let you reach your own conclusions as to whether it would require IRB approval. It sounds like you understood extremely well what especially was problematic with Boghossian's study, as you were able to construct a completely different hypothetical scenario that still presents the same three red flags.
You may find all this overblown or too cautious. But it isn't up to you (or a researcher carrying out an experiment with ethical ramifications) to decide. A researcher has a conflict of interest: it is in their interest that the study is carried out and completed. It is the role of the IRB to offer an external evaluation of this, to remove the conflict of interest. If the experiment is truly worth the risks, it will be approved.

Actually, I constructed my hypothetical scenario as a counter-example as I expected that IRB approval would not be required in this case, and expected the answer to address the crucial difference between the two cases which I seemed to have missed.

So in essence, my understanding of your answer is that when a university employee publishes something that looks like research, then it is held to the same ethical standards as real peer-reviewed publications.

@DmitryGrigoryev Or, alternatively, university employees can't get around IRB regulations by disguising research as not-research.

Downvoted for the rudeness of questioning OP’s perceived effort and intention in asking the question. I’ll undo if you edit to correct those issues (it’s a nice answer otherwise).

"It sounds like you understood extremely well what especially was problematic with Boghossian's study, as you were able to construct a completely different hypothetical scenario that still presents the same three red flags." And could you possibly still go into it for those who don't understand it extremly well?

Tangential question; how easy would it to be to look for cases of the IRB censuring an unlicensed study that happened to toe the (perceived at the time) party line on a sensitive issue?

@HAEM It is better to ask tangential questions as questions.

I love how this answers perfectly highlights just how ridiculous IRBs have become, especially the paragraph on how even a "research" on jokes is somehow not exempt from IRB overlords.

In general, there's large variation in what IRBs consider necessary between university to university. As a rule of thumb, if there's any contact with humans at all, a research project should at least have contact with the IRB committee. This can of course lead to problems since some locations have committees which are way too lenient and others which are way too strict (see for example this somewhat famous essay about an IRB in a hospital environment). But whether one agrees or not with how IRBs are run in general, the idea that what constitutes a study should be broadly construed is a popular one among both the IRBs themselves and the university administration. In this particular case, while not a study in the classical sense, there was a clear attempt to gain information which would be relevant in an academic context. Part of what I suspect happened here is that overly strict IRBs are seen as a problem in the more, for lack of a better term, "traditional" parts of academia, which are the same ones more inclined to run this sort of hoax.
Now, to the actual question, why investigate? Well, if someone had made a complaint about needing an IRB approval which it didn't have, and it isn't obviously ridiculous (e.g. claiming they needed consent from numbers to test their primality), a university is going to run an investigation, at minimum to cover their asses. And since some universities have policies which explicitly include studies in a broad sense(and the federal guidlines support that), and since in this case there's an actual argument of harm that isn't unreasonable (harm to the journal editors in terms of embarrassment or career issues), running such an investigation makes sense to a university administration.
The other thing to note here is essentially pragmatic: if someone does something controversial, the probability that someone is going to try to use some bureaucratic or administrative aspect to get back at them is very high. That's a fact of life, and occurs regardless of the politics in question. To use one example that's on what is normally considered the left, look at the Ward Churchill case. It is likely that similar levels of plagiarism or misreporting as that situation occur with others, but if their work isn't as controversial, no one starts pushing the gears of administration to look at them.

Apparently the university wasn't exactly happy this this to begin with, so they'd indeed react on such a complaint if they got one.

IOW, "we don't retaliate" is arrant nonsense.

@RonJohn I suspect that the vast majority of people in academia don't. But it only takes a tiny number engaging in active retaliation to have the same functional result.


text:
Can I use my first and middle names on research publications instead of my first and last names?
Can i use my first and middle name as name in research publications instead of first and last name?
Because my full name is long and most people used to call me with first and middle name.

Yes; if fact, you could use almost any name you like (!) although there would be few things to be careful about. They are largely covered the answer to this question.
One thing particularly worth considering is that if you are likely to publish more in the future, then you might want to register an ORCiD which will help you to link your future publications, no matter what name you use.
There are some amusing stories about alternative names, as you might see if your read this story on Wikipedia about the famous Polymath project, where some papers where published under the "Polymath" pseudonym, and others were not (because the journals refused!).
In addition to the answer on Stackexchange that I have already mentioned, you might like to search the Academia Stack Exchange with the terms

legal name

where there are a variety of answers to similar, but not identical, questions.


text:
Changing Ph.D. supervisor or changing (applying for a new) PhD project
I have moved abroad to do a PhD in Europe (in a STEM field). Currently, I am in my second year, and I have realised that my supervisor has little to no knowledge about the fields (simulations and mainly physics) that I am working in. Whenever I ask him questions about these two things, he often replies with (if not every time): to be discussed at the meeting/ask others. Of course, he is not active in the meetings, where other team members instead reply and lead the discussion, where many times I feel that if he says anything, he is there to ask (introductory) questions to understand what I am doing, question my results and not replying with advice/papers. I interpret his replies as saying "I can't help you" or "I'm not interested in helping you." He has not managed to suggest a single relevant paper within either of my fields, although it would have been helpful given that I was quite new to both of those fields when starting my PhD and was expecting to receive help from my supervisor.
Given the unfortunate state of my PhD, I was at least hoping he would provide help from his expertise area (data/instruments) when comparing my simulations to the data. However, the reply I get is, you guessed it: "to be discussed on the meeting/ask others". This has led me to think about what he is any good for in my PhD. This has led to confusion, a lot of struggle, isolation, working alone, and not-so-quick progress. What I have managed to do in my first year is to approach and talk to experts in my field(s) at a few conferences, get them interested in my results, and successfully actually receive help from them by email, which has been useful.
On a personal plane my supervisor was not good in introducing me to the lab, the people were not interested in speaking English with me during the breaks, and he didn't try with others to speak English and thus include me in the discussions. He even continued speaking his mother tongue with others (I am the only non-native speaker in the lab), which led me to feel even more isolated and not well. This led me to search for a company to spend the breaks outside the lab, resulting in spending breaks in other buildings/labs that were warm and more welcoming. In my opinion, he didn't do a great job here either.
Recently he has also not shown interest in spending money for me to go to relevant conferences, saying they are not relevant/funding is limited, which is not true, and causes additional frustration and tension. I have tried to present my current situation to the student representatives and staff of the doctoral school but little support and empathy have been shown to me. I get the reply that I should either quit if I don't like my PhD or try to find people who can help me with my subject outside the lab. I am wondering here how to approach tasks such as finding willing professors when I have just started my Ph.D.? I have tried to reach out to a few behind my supervisor's back, but really no success.
I feel that all this burden is put on me, while my supervisor who I assumed to be an expert in the field(s) and should supervise me, is not affected at all.
In the end, I feel that I don't get enough support which results in not-so-quick progress and I am not sure if I will be able to graduate and am even less likely to continue in academia. I am thus reconsidering applying for another Ph.D. project, as there are currently several openings in the same city, and I know a few supervisors.
Do you mind providing any insights?

This is indeed a complex situation, and I sympathize with you. However, you will need to be a little more precise about what exactly it is that you would like answered. The way it is written now, you are not really asking an objectively answerable question.

@IvoryTower Thank you for taking your time to read my post. I would like to ask if it is reasonable to do any of the suggestions which are in the title: changing PhD supervisor, staying in the project/reapplying for another PhD project. Feel free to also suggest other alternatives if you happen to have any.

It is hard for me to understand why you hesitate. Do you see a path to success where you are now?

Unless you are (a) self sufficient enough in your study to do the dissertation on your own and (b) enjoying a good enough relationship with your advisor that they will approve of your work at the end, then RUN. Just about everything you say suggests that the path to success is very hard and narrow if it exists at all.
Some people can make it work under adverse conditions, some even prefer it, but not everyone can navigate such a path.
You seem to have options with other professors in your location. I hope you are exploring them. Lots of people change universities along the way.

Note, however, that this is an uninformed opinion since I know only what you have said here. Get local advice if you can, maybe from one of those other supervisors you say you know.

Thank you for taking your time to read my post and reply to it.
I might be self sufficient enough in my study to do the dissertation more or less on my own (I get also some help from professors that I have approached during conferences), but I am quite confident that I will not get a favorable recommendation letter from him, which I am afraid will make it difficult for me to land a post-doc position in my field. I find it just a daunting task to do this on my own, since the doctoral school gave me the cold shoulder.

By writing RUN I assume that you mean to quit the PhD and apply elsewhere, not merely changing supervisor (or both)?

The supervisor might be enough, but you need to judge that.


text:
Should I inquire about an update 12 days after appealing rejection of a paper
It is 12 days since the editor-in-chief told me our appeal against a publication rejection is "currently being processed". I have received no further information. Should I  inquire for an update?

Might it be good news if it takes longer?

I guess wait a little longer?

What does the "appeals" process entail? If it includes getting another review, I would assume the processing time will be months, not days.

wait 4 weeks until contacting them.

You could, but 12 days is not an especially long time, and anything is possible:

The editor-in-chief is waiting for a response from the associate editor who made the decision for your manuscript, and they are on holiday.
The associate editor is waiting for a response from the reviewer, and they are on holiday.
They are waiting for a second opinion from another editorial board member, and they are on holiday.

So I suppose it depends on what kind of update you're looking for. It's unlikely they'll have a final decision on your appeal, but they might be able to tell you what they're waiting for.

Thanks.The EIC gives a  response that allows us to resubmit  our paper.

I suggest that you view the 12 days in the context of whatever the typical time frame is for reviews and subsequent publication in the journal to which you submitted the paper. If the journal usually takes 3 months to review, then I'd consider 12 days to be a very short time in which to be asking anything about your appeal.
Many journals give an indication of (i) their overall acceptance rate of submissions, (ii) typical review times, and (iii) the typical length of time between an acceptance for publication, and actual publication. All those things might give you more context in which to consider the elapse of 12 days.
An additional thing to consider is what kind of rejection it was. It's not something you mention in your post, but was the paper sent our for review and rejected on the basis of reviewers comments, or was it rejected by the editor on first-pass (perhaps because it was not a good fit for the journal).
I might add, that without knowing anything about the particular journal, 12 days sounds to me like an incredibly short time frame in which to expect a response. Just because you are appealing, rather than making a new submission, does not mean that your appeal will go to the top of the work-pile. And most journals have long backlogs.

Thanks.The EIC gives a response that allows us to resubmit our paper.


text:
Research team didn't take internship announcement well
I'm a first-year MS student working as a part-time student researcher in a lab. Earlier this year, I received and accepted an internship offer as it was my top choice and my goal is to work in the industry. However, when I told my research manager about this during a meeting, it was not taken well at all ... nor was it taken well by the research director later on.
My role isn't a contract position and there are no written conditions that you have to be in this role for a set time. The expectations of me being here in the summer were never stated during the hiring process until now when I mentioned the internships.
I guess despite the prestige of the internship, how I gave them a heads-up about the summer role instead of waiting, and how I've taken on so many tasks/overworked myself as an assistant (and will be working harder to get more things done before I leave in the summer), I'm just surprised people are really unhappy with me. I know my team is in the process of hiring summer interns and the only issue I see is them having to spend time training them with equipment, and maybe they thought an internship meant I wouldn't be back in the fall; but I didn't expect this to go horribly even though I said I'd only be gone for three months.
This never happened with my undergraduate research position, so is this common or am I in the wrong? Just trying to get a clearer perspective on things.

If you told them of the specific internship you were accepted into, my bet is one of the sour responses is because they were rejected for that internship or previously rejected. Did you announce the internships in a manner that could be construed as bragging or like you were better than them (even if you didn't do it intentionally)?

You didn't do anything wrong. Some people are petty, and everyone has a chance to feel upset when their expectations are violated, whether it's reasonable or not.
Hopefully they won't take it too hard in the long run, but if you want to work in industry anyways their recommendations won't be as important as the relationships you build during your internship. Congratulations and good luck!

You have the right to choose what you do and don't want to do with your social, professional and academic life. It's as simple as that. If you want to take a job, you can; if you don't then don't. If the hours from that conflict with some of your research, review any contracts you may have in place if need be, but ultimately: make your own decisions to put yourself in a place you'd like to be.
The reality is a lot of crucial decisions aren't easy and you can't keep everyone happy all of the time, but you should work towards making yourself happy and that's something you can control much more easily than someone else's happiness. Sure it might have inconvenienced your research team because they wanted to work with you more, but they should be happy with what your choices are and if they want to be unsupportive that's up to them.

And keeping everyone happy isn't your duty anyway. Keep #1 happy, that's you.


text:
Can my major advisor leave if I have co-advisor
My major advisor has asked another professor to be my co-advisor behind my back.
What does that mean ? I have told the other professor that if the arrangement will be beneficial for him, I am ok.
My question is whether, if I have a co-advisor, my major advisor can leave me without me having a say in it ?
I am terrified and my advisor has been  avoiding meeting me in the past two weeks.
We had no problems and we all talk about is research but He avoids me whenever he gets the chance and I don't know why.
if I agree on having co-major advisor, can the major advisor give me up without consulting me?
I am in the US
Edit the one the he suggested has been working with us for 2 years so why now ?

Your advisor can leave period. If they are going to leave, and are making sure you will have an advisor, that is a good thing.

so he will give me up as his student without telling me ?

I can’t say if they are leaving or not. Or what kind of a person they are. Take a deep breath, and calm down first. You have limited information that could mean various things…

Sounds like you need to have a conversation with the adviser.

Slavery has been abolished, so you cannot prevent your advisor from quitting his or her job and thereby stop being your advisor. The vast majority of faculty takes the job of advising a Ph.D. student or an M.S. student very seriously and will try their best to not abandon them. If they were to do so without grave reason (e.g. being suddenly diagnosed with late stage cancer, having to care for a parent in a different country whose status has suddenly worsened) there would be repercussions on their career. Even if an advisor is suddenly offered a dream job somewhere else, they are expected to make arrangements for their students.
Involving someone else as a co-advisor is not a usual means of abandoning a student, but is usually motivated in trying to provide "better care" for the student.
At this point, you have not spoken to your advisor and you do not know what is happening. If your advisor is leaving the university, then appointing a co-advisor means that the advisor is NOT abandoning you, because he could just tell you that you have a new advisor, or tell you that both of you will look for a new advisor.  Your advisor can also simply be thinking that the thesis / project / or what ever it is that he is advising you on needs some additional expertise. It could also be that your advisor is interested in getting more involved and bringing in someone else is forming an ad hoc research group. There are just too many possibilities.
To quote John Custer from the comments, you DO need to take a big breath and wait until you know whether something is happening and whether this something is not to your liking. Again, academia frowns on professors abandoning their students without grave cause.

but the one the he suggested has been working with us for 2 years so why now ?

There are plenty of reasons for someone to leave. Perhaps, a better job elsewhere? Or moving together with their partner? Or just tired of this place due to demanding workload and low pay? Or have health issues? Or won a lottery and quit working for good to enjoy pinatas on a beach?

he did not say he will leave his job. I am afraid that he is abandoning me as his student

@KhaledD Why don't you ask him? We really don't know.

Your advisor can leave even if you don't have a co-advisor, just the same as they could:

die
have a serious accident
retire, or
get dementia

without your permission!
You being terrified is not a reason for your advisor not to live their life.
Moreover, your concerns that your advisor is avoiding you might actually be a misinterpretation of your advisor being busy and pre-occupied while they deal with whatever other life-event(s) are involved in them leaving.
On the very positive side, it sounds, in fact, as if your advisor is doing what most good advisors would do, and is taking steps to ensure that after they leave, you will have somebody suitable to take over.
Even in the worst circumstances (and it certainly doesn't sound like this is your situation), most institutions do not want to lose their graduate students ... and most will go to considerable lengths to ensure that you can remain at the institution and be appropriately supervised.


text:
How do I correctly abbreviate compounded first name for academic publications?
My first name (legally) consists of two names separated by a space, but I only go by the first in everyday use. I'm from Scandinavia and having a first name that is a compound of two names is not that uncommon.  I also have a middle name that I rarely use.
Let's say my name is "John Andrew Smith Fitzgerald" in which "John Andrew" is my first name, "Smith" my middle name, and "Fitzgerald" my last name.
What would be the appropriate way to cite the author's name in an academic publication?

John Andrew S. Fitzgerald
John Fitzgerald (omitting second first name and middle name).
John S. Fitzgerald (with second first name omitted)

Personally, I would prefer to use the last format.
Does it actually matter or is consistency key?
I apologize if this has already been answered. Most replies that I found pertained to the use of middle and last name, not a compounded first name.

The last format is not uncommon.with the first option I could see some problems that people/systems could get confused what your first ans last name is.

I think the first one makes it clear "John Andrew" is your first name, because it would be unusual to abbreviate only the second middle name.

Also, what do other people with your name in Scandinavia do?

The most important thing is consistency. Choose now, and write the exact same name on all future publications.
A few things to consider:

This is the name that everyone, except the people that know you personally, will use. So make sure you are not going to regret it.
It is better to choose a name that identifies you as well as possible. If your first and last names are very common, it may be beneficial to add the second part of your given name, or your middle name, so that people are sure who wrote the paper just by looking at the name. If your name is already uncommon, this is a less pressing concern.
Many people, especially in North America as I have found, are completely unfamiliar with the idea of compound names. Somehow, even generally open-minded people are reluctant (I do not use this word light, if I wanted to write "surprised" or "unfamiliar" that's what I would have written!) to accept that a name might not fit their traditional "GivenName MiddleName Surname" mental framework and will try to fit your name into their expectations, not the other way around, even after you have explained it to them. It is really frustrating and invalidating, but be prepared.
Computer systems are also a beast to be prepared to fight. The big international ones are almost always written with North American expectations in mind.
If you decide to use both parts of your given name, I strongly recommend joining the two with a dash, even if that is not culturally appropriate for you and/or does not match your ID card. This makes things a lot easier as it is clearer that these two parts are linked and cannot be taken apart. My surname is from a language where dashes do not even exist, and until I decided to use a dash I had to face incomprehension, even from people to whom I had carefully explained what's what.

For your particular case, if you are willing to be called "FirstName M[iddleNameInitial]. LastName", that sounds perfectly fine. Dropping the second part of your compound given name is fine if you are okay being called with just the first part, in emails or daily conversations. There is no requirements, legal or otherwise, that your legal name must match the name on your publications.

Related to some of the points you’re making: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/


text:
How should I insist to be the first author?
First, some context. I'm a MSc student and I'm going to defend my thesis soon. The current plan is to submit the results of the thesis in two conferences: a less relevant result, which I'll call A, and a more relevant one, which I'll call B. So far so good, but here's the (typical) problem: who gets to be the first author? Me or my advisor?
Other answers to similar problems recommend a dialogue approach. I've already tried this, where I've written an email manifesting my interest in being the first author and why. The answer was that I could the the first author on result A, but he'd likely be the one in result B. Honestly, based on what I've read, I think my contributions for the work are weighty enough to justify my stance, and I'll try to persuade my adviser to change his point of view. Thus, my question is not whether or not I should talk to him (I already know I will) but how to make him change is view of the situation.
Below are some reasons why I think I should be considered the first author. Feel free to comment them or even disagree. If at the end of this there is strong evidence on why I should be just a co-author, I'll have no problem in changing my mind. Also, this pertains the result B, since there is not any contention about result A.

The paper will be an "enhanced" version of my thesis. What I mean is that the work will be basically the same, but with some extra simulations for which I didn't have time to complete by the thesis deadline.

As a consequence of 1., the text was written by me. However, my adviser has read it and provided feedback. The writing on the paper might have more contributions on his part, but most of the writing will still be me.

His argument is that the idea and the preparatory work came from his side. To be clear, he provided the topic (for which I applied and was accepted) and already had some literature review done. Also, some other previous theses were meant to provide results for this one (e.g. building of a database, or the study of a certain phenomenon). In the end, I used the database and cited some general results. However, most studies were in a non-applicable range for my work, so I had to devise an alternative (the result A that I mentioned above).

I can see where his argument comes from. That being said, it is also true that I significantly expanded his initial literature review and provided most of the work. He provided the initial setup and possibles issues, and gave me some tips and guidelines throughout the work (meetings normally twice a month, and sometimes emails in between), but never a definite solution. From there, I'd consider his feedback, research some more and try to provide closure to open questions. Some of these were pointed by him, some by me during the work. All the simulation work and required inputs (except the database mentioned in 3.) was either done by me or adapted from other sources (third party).

Of course he had a part to play here. I probably wouldn't be finishing my thesis on this specific topic if it weren't for him. That being said, I feel like that's what an adviser should do. His guidance was important, and I'm not trying to neglect that, but is it really enough to warrant him the first author spot?

Another important aspect to mention is that currently, we're on amiable terms and I'd like to keep it that way (as much as possible). Partly because it is always good to foster connections, but also because I haven't defended my thesis yet and he'll be on the jury. If this publication makes it through, this might be an important step in starting my career, so I want to fight some more.
Also, neither of us is having an imposing speech. What I mean by that is that nothing is set in stone, and there's still room for changes. At least, that was the idea I got from his speech patterns.
Disclaimer: Some journals do order authors by name. If this was the case, I wouldn't even be asking this question. However, the conference/journal we're targeting clearly distinguishes between first and second author.

Is this the hill you want to die on?

What field is this in? The meaning of author order is also field depedent. In the fields I'm familiar with, being the last author is in fact also relevant.

@user151413 The field is aerospace engineering.

Insist may be the wrong approach. Given your #3 and #4 above, he may have a valid claim on it. You can ask, of course, and you can appeal to his "better nature" that it will boost your future prospects. That might be a win.
But if you balance off his good will and support against first authorship of a single paper it may turn to your profit to yield if he insists. Your first work, especially at the masters level, will, hopefully not be your best. It is a plus in your column no matter where you land in the authorship order. And if you trade it for a better and more enthusiastic letter of recommendation for your next steps it may be worth some sacrifice.
But there is a bit more to it here, since this is a conference paper and hopefully the conference will give you a chance to expand your circle of contacts. But that, too, might depend on having his good will.
Think strategically and for the long term. Don't compromise long term benefit for a short term "win".

+1 for "Your first work, especially at the masters level, will, hopefully not be your best." [unless you are Shannon, and even then it is just the second best ;-)]


text:
Is it ethical for me to hire research assistant as a part-time PhD to help with secondary data collection?
I'm just wondering to what extent I can hire someone to collect data for me. This would be secondary data, collecting patient records from clinics. I have no clue how to organize data or use databases, so the research assistant would also be helping me do that. I would, of course, be reading the patient records and interpreting them into specific variables (such as did this patient have a heart problem: Y/N).

My full-time job is at the university working for a project under a PI who is not my PhD supervisor.
The project funding has run out that we cannot pay for our team's salary.
I applied for some funding as the PI on the project and got some extra funding.
I could use the funding coming in from the new project to cover our team's salary and also utilize the team's research assistant to collect the data for the new project and for my PhD thesis at the same time.

The project only needs data to caluculate the prevalence of heart problems whilst my intention for my thesis is to find out risk factors for these heart problems. I would only ask to further collect a years worth of history for each patient with a heart problem.
I think this arrangement I could kill two birds with one stone but I am worried about the implications such as how much of the work should be all mine for my PhD thesis. Also, I wouldn't have to pay out of pocket to hire someone to do this for me as I'm only getting paid 81k per year.

What does the PI say about it? Where did the funding come from and does your project fit with the grant?

I have not yet talked to my PI about it. The funding comes from an external body and I specifically wrote the proposal in line with my thesis except their outcomes are a little different.

In terms of academic honesty, there is in principle nothing unethical about using data that was collected by someone else, subject to all involved parties agreeing to this of course. Collecting sufficiently large clinical datasets is a long and complicated process, and there are entire departments specifically created to manage such databases and provide data to researchers. Papers solely analysing and re-analysing such publicly available data are very common in epidemiology, bioinformatics, statistical genetics etc., so that definitely will not be an obstacle to publish.
However, your supervisor and thesis committee may have different expectations about the work that you will do and skills that you will obtain during your PhD. Some issues that might come up are:

Are you outsourcing something that you are expected to learn during your PhD? Is the "database use and organization" something very menial, or too computational to be relevant for your field? Otherwise maybe you can do a part the process by yourself, and thus show that you have acquired enough knowledge of it?
Usually there are some regulations on how much time & effort you should put into full time studies. If you do not do the data collection, will you be spending the same amount of time on some other academic work, beneficial to the project/lab?
Is there sufficient scientific advance/intellectual contribution/novelty remaining in your thesis, when viewed separately from the data collection? This one is the most difficult to judge. In the eyes of thesis examiners, doing some "menial" work often pushes the candidate towards bench biology, and this takes away some scrutiny from other parts of the work (even though it shouldn't). For example, you might be expected to have a deeper understanding of your statistical models, have some sensitivity analyses, maybe comparison between different models or such.

As long as all the involved parties agree on these expectations, I don't see anything unethical about this path.
Now, whether you are legally allowed to use the new grant for this purpose is an entirely different question, and will be determined by the fund's conditions and your institution's hiring policies.

That sounds like a great idea. I will try to do some myself as well.
I am spending the time extracting data from the patient history which will require me reading and interpreting these.
I think there is enough scientific advancement. I'm not great with IT and I find it difficult to input data. As long as I do the statistical analyses it should be fine but again I'm not all too familiar with the data analysis part so I will be asking the RA to contribute ideas towards that. I will also not be at the clinics so the RA will have to figure out how to extract the data themselves.

I would be more liberal than juod. From my perspective, in quasi-biomedical research, this is not a big deal at all. Still check, but frankly I wouldn't even have thought of this as a problem in terms of meeting the requirements for a thesis

In addition to Juod's answer, you should check your research ethics approval and see what it says.  In some cases, every researcher must be individually approved by the ethics committee to handle the data.  If it's not allowed under your current approval, you can probably apply and get permission for addition of the extra person.


text:
How to get a single issue of a print journal
My friend recently published in a big journal, and his article was also chosen to feature in the print version. However, he doesn't have a print subscription so he was not able to get a copy of the issue that featured his research. Is there any way I can surprise him by getting a copy of that specific print issue without paying for the yearly subscription?

Ask the journal.

Or ask someone who subscribes to give you a copy.

I agree with @JRN ... Many print journals do sell individual issues on their web site.  But it is likely not cheap!

It is likely that your friend already has reprints of the article; probably several, though they won't be the complete issue that the article appeared in. That is (or was, at least) standard practice. Having the issue itself probably has limited value for them.
Or, ask them for one of the reprints and have it hardbound with a nice cover as a gift back to them. If that isn't possible, a print of a PDF from the web can be bound.
I'd suggest you also consider something different, such as a bottle of some culturally appropriate beverage or something like a fancy pen or pencil inscribed with the date of issue of the article. That is both useful and a nice remembrance.

Maybe reprints are still common in some fields, but in mine they haven't been part of standard practice for a while now, though at least some publishers still offer them at a cost. C.f. Have most journals recently stopped providing off-prints to authors?, a question that was posted 10 years ago.

@Anyon, I am so (so) old. One can also have a pdf copy from the web bound as a remembrance. I retired before that linked article was posted and didn't join here until after. Live and (sometimes) learn.

Ask the publisher, this falls squarely in their domain. Try to reach the publisher's staff that handle the journal - most journals will have an email address on their webpage and/or ways to contact them, e.g. here's a form for the World Scientific journal Journal of Uncertain Systems.
Only caveat is that this is not likely to be cheap.
(PS: It's possible a library which subscribes to the journal will be willing to give you their print copy after a while. You could try asking them too.)


text:
Why does my submission to a journal remain in review but without an associate editor being assigned?
My submission to a journal remains in "review" status but no associate editor has been assigned? However, EIA and an editorial assistant have been assigned. Do I need to send an email to the journal to ask?

Sorry, every journal is different, and we can’t possibly cover every combination of situation X for journal Y. See the above for the general answer.

It helps if you don't write your question in a form that is full of abbreviations. ... I've edited the question but I'm partly guessing at what the abbreviations mean (I had to look them up)


text:
What do I need to be aware of when checking citations before handing in a thesis?
I typically use the following workflow when citing papers:

search paper name on Google Scholar chrome plugin
click cite -> BibTeX -> copy BibTeX into references in Overleaf (LaTeX)

I once had a conversation with a PhD student (whom I don't know personally or have any contact with) who said I need to be careful with references elicited in such a way. I can't recall anymore, however, what his full point was.
Now I am wondering how I should check source for source that I've cited in order to make sure that everything is 100% correct.
Is there a well established/recommended process in doing that?

Your described workflow doesn't say anything about how you engage with the content of the papers. The thing that you need to be careful of (and that the PhD student could have warned you of) is to represent the content of cited papers accurately.

I assume that you have a copy of every paper that you intend to cite since you wouldn't be citing a paper unless you had read it. With that in mind, the easiest way to check the citations is simply to compare the downloaded citation information with the information that you can typically find on the first page of each article. That, at least, is what I always do!

Whenever you are consuming somebody else's BibTeX, it's useful to check for some specific issues that commonly occur with BibTeX. Mangling capitalization is common in human names and paper titles - which you would see in the final output even if the .bib file looks OK. Sometimes the parts of names are given incorrectly, or are written in a way that looks normal in the .bib but will be horribly wrong once all the compilation steps have taken their turn.
You should also do a "global pass" to make sure bibliography entries from different sources are consistent. Journal and conference proceeding titles may appear differently depending on the source: "SIGCOMM '22", "SIGCOMM 2022", "Proc. ACM SIGCOMM 2022" and "Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2022 Conference" are all the same event, but if you have obtained .bib entries from several sources then they could all appear in your bibliography, inconsistently. Similarly, sources may differ as to whether they give the publication month, or the issue number, or both, for a monthly journal. Books might have a city of publication, or not, even for the same publisher, and the publisher's name might not appear consistently (consider "OUP" vs. "Oxford University Press").
These problems can be noticed by looking at your final formatted bibliography carefully, and comparing against the actual authoritative sources, i.e. the publications themselves, for how the various names, titles and metadata ought to appear.

Accents and umlauts and other special characters, too, especially in author names.