text:
What would be a fair and deterring disciplinary sanction for a student who committed plagiarism?
As a program director for a Masters degree in a business school, I am curious to know about higher education policies regarding disciplinary sanctions for plagiarism. This is for both official rules and in actual cases.
I am most interested in the cases where the characterization of plagiarism is not a black and white situation (as is often the case), but the stakes are not minor. To imagine an abstract case: plagiarism committed on a part of a final dissertation. How can disciplinary sanctions scale, before going all out with suspending or expelling the student, while remaining deterring?

A possibly significant issue is "sending a message" to other students about the consequences of plagiarism. Even if there is no public announcement about the given student's behavior and consequences, there will be information leaked by the student themself, etc. For example, if a single plagiarism offense incurs no punishment... a certain number of kids will accept that as a game-theoretic opportunity.

A master thesis is a fairly large project. If the student needs to start it over because it gets rejected, that is relatively severe. As in the projected graduation date is postponed by a semester at least. Sounds like a deterrent to me.

"I am most interested in the cases where the characterization of plagiarism is not a black and white situation (as is often the case), but the stakes are not minor." Sorry, but that's gibberish.

@Karl Cases where you can say “more plagiarism” and “less plagiarism”, or “worse plagiarism” and “better plagiarism”, or “more certain” and “less certain” – and cases where what happens is a big deal.

@Karl: Plagiarism has a scale; if nothing else the amount of plagiarized text can be a scale.

If you wait until the very end of the program when a student submits a thesis to check for plagiarism, then you've set up a situation where a student can cheat through the program and then gets caught at the very end.
An alternative approach would be:

Teach students about plagiarism and other academic honesty issues early in the program.  Give them fair warning that plagiarism can result in their being expelled from the program.

Include assessments of students writing throughout the program and check this writing for plagiarism.  If you catch a student committing plagiarism on one of these assignments, give them a strong warning and perhaps penalize their grade.

Require students to submit draft versions of their theses for evaluation and feedback from the supervisor. Check for plagiarism starting with the first draft.

Some central office should keep track of incidents of cheating so that penalties can be increased for repeat offenders.  This is particularly important because otherwise a student might cheat in classes with different instructors and receive warnings from each of them.

The basic idea here is that the consequences for misbehavior should be explained in advance and punishments should escalate with each new offense.  If a student has been warned and suffered a grade penalty on the first offense, then failed a course and had to retake it on a second offense, then it should come as no surprise that they are expelled from the program for a third offense.
Since the potential consequences are quite severe, it's also important to offer students a reasonable opportunity to appeal their punishment for cheating.  There might be a committee charged with considering student appeals.
My institution and many others in the US have systems like the one that I've described above.  In my experience, many students who receive a strong warning on a first offense take that warning to heart and have no further problems.  Other students become chronic offenders and suffer the full consequences.

While I agree completely with this, it won't work in the current situation. As far as I know there are no time machines yet (Not even Elon Musk suggests we are only a few months away - a year at most). And if all of this had been done in the current case, I'd have suggested sanctions.

It's not clear to me whether the OP was asking about policies that could be implemented in the future or how to deal with a current situation with no effective policies in place.

Agreed, a bit unclear. I assumed the opposite, of course.

Long term this is a good approach, so +1.

There is a a related question at CSEducators with a good answer

It may well be that the Master thesis is the FIRST time the student is required produce a substantial amount of text under their own steam.. Up to that point it has been mostly exams. Possibly a small number of practice essays, where the emphasis is in learning basic academic writing skills, and all the material was provided by the supervisor, so plagiarism was not really a relevant concern. At least that's how it goes in the math program I'm a part of.

"Teach students about plagiarism and other academic honesty issues early in the program. Give them fair warning that plagiarism can result in their being expelled from the program." +1 for this! People coming from other programs might be accustomed that plagiarism in the small projects they've done before, is not a big issue. People might come  from countries where plagiarism is almost normalized, it's all fun and games, and even if caught, the punishment is not much more than a slap on the wrist. They have to get explicitly told of the grave consequences.

I think it's possibly more difficult to come up with ways of checking for plagiarism - though the requirements to submit essays all the way through the course are good ones.

+1, though: " If you catch a student committing plagiarism on one of these assignments, give them a strong warning and perhaps penalize their grade." - no. If they are caught, definitely hit them in the grade. You taught them about the seriousness of plagiarism in step 1. If they are caught in step 2 and let off with a slap on the wrist, they will deduce that plagiarism is no big deal after all. And they will tell all their friends. So: make consequences clear in step 1 and stick to them. Of course, these could be different between assignments and a final thesis.

characterization of plagiarism is not a black and white situation (as is often the case)

In the systems I am familiar with, you do not scale discipline based on the quality of the evidence.  If there is proof (beyond reasonable doubt, for example), you discipline.  If there is not proof, you do not discipline.
Typical discipline for plagiarism is any of:

Lowest possible grade for the assignment.
Failing grade for the course.
Expulsion.

Most important is to apply the discipline consistently.

I believe by black and white he meant amount or degree  of plagiarism, an uncredited sentence, vs turning in War and Peace as a writing assignment, not proof that plaghappened.

@jmoreno Consequences should be the same for both.

Three to five possible unintentionally words vs 1,225 pages and you think the consequences should be the same...I’d say “shaking my head”, but don’t want to be accused of plagiarism.

@jmoreno That's not what I said.  Three words of proven plagiarism should have the same consequences as 1000 pages of proven plagiarism.

@AnonymousPhysicist They really shouldn't... forgetting to put quote marks and a citation around around a short quote is technically plagiarism but can quite easily be an honest mistake. There should obviously be different consequences between intentional and accidental plagiarism.

Not seeing the details and relying only on your description, let me suggest that if it isn't a "black and white" case then the correct action is an educational one, not a disciplinary one. The paper should be corrected and the result evaluated after discussing the issue with the student.
But a clear case of plagiarism, when the "stakes are not minor" would be to reject the paper altogether and let the consequences flow from that depending on other policies. It might result in expulsion or it might require the student to start over, but that is a separate issue.
Another recent question here is similar. What should be done about "suspected but not proved" cheating. My answer was to ignore it. Without proof, a disciplinary action is unjust. (Note: ignore the potential "infraction". The paper itself in your situation  probably can't stand without correction.)
For someone who is not a student (i.e. a professor or researcher) the penalties for plagiarism can be quite severe, because professionals should know the rules and have been expected to practice them in all situations. Student's, however are not yet professionals, so their misdeeds need to be treated in an educational context. That doesn't mean ignored, but you need proof of intent to "bring down the hammer".
Students can't be expected to "just know" these things, nor to have practiced them enough to avoid sloppiness.
If you handle it correctly, as an opportunity to educate, you might just save someone from ruination, now or later. The paper almost certainly needs a change if it isn't rejected, of course.

In compliance with whatever your university's policies are.
Most universities should have a formal policy governing academic integrity and plagiarism, as well as how to handle academic integrity complaints. This could involve formal tribunals, specific processes that the professors should follow, a student honor code, or other such administrative details. These are typically designed to preserve the university's integrity as an educational institution (and thus the value of their degrees), while also protecting the university from lawsuits from aggrieved students who feel that they were punished and denied their degrees or expelled without due process.
As such, I would ensure that any rules and processes you put in place for your program are in compliance with your university's formal rules and processes. If your university doesn't have any formal rules and processes, I would recommend having a discussion with other high-ranking staff at your university such as the dean and other program directors about creating them.

In addition to what others have described, it is worth analyzing the cause of plagiarism. Some examples.

Plagiarism as a mistake, e.g. missing reference
Inadvertent plagiarism due to different traditions/cultures
Plagiarism due to laziness/stupidity, e.g. copy-pasting a relevant passage from the coursebook instead of rephrasing and referencing it.
Purposeful plagiarism, e.g. asking another student to write a section in their dissertation

The first two could be solved by reminding/educating students about what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. And, perhaps, reducing their grade or asking them to write a short essay to analyze how they have used others work.
The latter requires a more severe action, kicking them out or suspending them until the next year to submit their dissertation.


text:
Why don't first world universities commonly have biomedical engineering at B.S level
Our teacher in an image processing class at my local University said that there is no biomedical B.S degree  in top University of first world countries ( based of his last resident in USA and his experiences at there).
Also i think he was trying to mention separation for B.S student to some fields like Biomedical engineering is not common in these universities ( USA' universities).
I searched on Google and found formal biomedical department at some universities like this :

Completion of the curriculum leads to a Bachelor of Science in
Biological Engineering and prepares students for careers in diverse
fields ranging from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to
materials, devices, ecology, and public health.

So I asked here,  is  this degree common in these universities spatially as  B.S graduation
level, or this filed of studies graduate as  B.S electrical engineer without any mention to B.S of biomedical engineering?
Update:
Based of  @Charles_E_Grant comment I I think he was saying this field is not common in the USA University, because of letting the student of B.S level find themselves ways and chosing their field on the upper level like M.S or PhD which could be Biomedical engineering. So asked to know is that true.
Thanks.

Sorry, your question is difficult to understand, particularly the title. Can you edit it to clarify exactly what your question is?

Since a Google search would reveal a number of such programs in the US, the question needs clarification at the very least.

Your teacher is simply incorrect, or there has been a misunderstanding. Here is a list of over a dozen undergrad  bio-medical engineering programs in the US. Those are just the programs that also offer a Ph.D. program. Perhaps your teacher meant that biomedical engineering is not typically offered at 4-year undergraduate only colleges. Biomedical engineering programs typically operate in cooperation with both an engineering school and a medical school, which is going to limit it to larger universities.

I confused  @Charles_E_Grant I think he was saying this field is not common in the USA University, because of letting the student of B.S level find themselves ways and chosing their field on the upper level like M.S or PhD which could be Biomedical engineering. So asked to know is that true

@moden since I provided you a list of over a dozen universities that offer undergraduate degree specifically in biomedical engineering, so I'd say their starting premise is simply wrong, regardless of what they attributed it too. Note that the list was not exhaustive, it was simply one opinion on the highest ranked programs. To be sure, it's less common than a business degree, but then any engineering degree is less common than a business degree.

Many (if not most) four year colleges in the US don't offer any engineering degree program.

This isn't my field, but I can give a few reasons why a program might be rare.
Some programs are very expensive to run, requiring specialized laboratories and faculty. This may be the case for biomedical engineering. It is difficult to run such programs for undergraduates because when any student drops out of the program for any reason, it is impossible to replace them. Medical school in the US has this issue. Thus, universities want to run such expensive programs having some assurance that the students are already somewhat prepared at entry and have an initial strong commitment to finishing the program. A few top universities with a lot of access to grant funding (say, MIT) might want to risk it.
But a second reason that some programs are rare is that there are alternative paths into a desirable field and a more general background at entry might be a good thing. Again, medicine in the US is normally (but not exclusively) a graduate level program. Future medical doctors start out in some other field, perhaps biology or chemistry. And some fields, such as psychiatry require so much broad knowledge in addition to the specialization that the specialization can start rather late when students have already seen quite a lot of the needed background.

This question has a problem: I don't think that these degree programs are actually rare. I think the questioner (or more correctly, the person they cite) are simply not well informed.

I agree with @WolfgangBangerth that the question is based on a false premise. Moreover, the part about med school is very US specific and has little relation with BSc in biomedical engineering, which are relatively commonly offered in Europe (and I guess in the US from comments to the question).

@fqq, certainly the US and EU/UK systems are very different. Especially at the undergraduate level. But the OP didn't give a location, and the reference given is to a US institution. And, as I said, it isn't my field so the answer is about expensive-to-deliver programs more than specifically biomedical engineering.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is my degree if I am still a bachelor student?
I am registering to submit an article and I am asked to give my current degree, the problem is that I don't have a bachelor degree yet. So, what is the usual term and acronym to use for the current degree if you are still a degree student?

Leave blank, if possible. Otherwise write something like n/a.

In the US system, I would advise to leave it blank. But in some European education systems (and in particular with the impetus of the Bologna process), the high-school diploma is considered a formal degree. In France, it is called baccalauréat, in the UK it's the A levels, in Spain (you seem to be Spanish) it's the bachillerato.
So, if you are in a European system, I would advise you to write bachillerato/*baccalauréat*/A-levels, otherwise leave blank.

In Finland: ylioppilas/student/graduate, depending on which language you want to write it in.

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

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


text:
New reviewers for revise & resubmit papers
I know that journals approach the second round review for a revise-and-resubmit paper differently. Sometimes, new reviewers are assigned. I find this kind of case very unfair to an author. We all know that reviewers can be very subjective, and they may or may not agree with the initial reports. I wonder if it is even ethical for journal editors to invite an author to revise and resubmit according to some comments, at the same time knowing that new reviewers will be assigned and they may not agree with the previous comments.
Or should the second round review be based on the previous comments and the revisions, at least heavily so? Otherwise, it would be more like just another round of review.
What do journal editors usually do in this kind of case?

Presumably it's sometimes unavoidable - the same reviewers might not always be available within a reasonable time frame.  But it could still be fair if the original reviewer comments are available to the 2nd round reviewers and if the editor/meta-reviewer maintains overall control.

Is R&R = Rock & Roll?

@user2705196 chuckle ar 'rock & roll'. I guess OP is referring to revise and resubmit (major revision). Yep, you're right. OP should carry us along, though.

A reviewer may not agree to review a paper again for many reasons.  For example, a reviewer may have bit off more than he/she can chew in the first round (i.e., paper is way outside his/her expertise), and decided not to review a paper again in the second round.  As a result, an editor may be forced to find a new reviewer.  Another reason is conflict of interest, which was made aware after the first round of review.

I think you could also argue the opposite -- that it's fairer to authors to get fresh eyes who review the paper on its current merits, rather than (perhaps) being influenced by what they thought last time.

Sorry, but you are thinking of it as a "game" that needs to be "played" on a "level field". Scholarship isn't like that. The goal isn't fairness to authors but the extension of knowledge. And sometimes that is hard to achieve.
If you want to publish a BIG result in some field, then you need to expect that it may (will?) need to be vetted by many (many) people so that obscure errors don't invalidate the result. Even then, it sometimes happens.
There have been a few papers, one at least in the past couple of years, that were held up until there were hundreds (IIRC) of reviewers and a mountain of comments.
Editors should work to assure high quality work. If there is doubt of any kind after a set of reviews then getting new eyes on the problem may be the only way to assure that what is published has real value and helps form the foundation of moving forward.
In mundane cases this probably doesn't need to occur most likely.

By R&R, you're referring to revise and resubmit right.

We all know that reviewers can be very subjective, and they may or may not agree with the initial reports.

Reviewers ought not be subjective. Unfortunately, it happens. Sometimes, some are just 'pedantic' regarding methodology and/or methods. Nonetheless, reviewers are not compelled to agree with the initial reports.

I wonder if it is even ethical for journal editors to invite an author to revise and resubmit according to some comments ...

Handling Editors are free to invite new or additional reviewers even during R&R. I've had manuscripts sent my way for review, and I can see that the manuscript is at the second or third review stage. For such, I have the liberty of seeing and deferring to comments from earlier rounds. However, I normally review as if I'm the reviewer of the first instance. When I'm done, I then check earlier comments.
In summary, there's nothing unethical about inviting new reviewers for R&R. Having said that, I know that most handling editors will invite earlier reviewers except where the reviewer had clearly indicated non-willingness to review subsequent resubmission of the manuscript.

Or should the second round review be based on the previous comments and the revisions, at least heavily so? Otherwise, it would be more like just another round of review.

As I indicated, the second (or even third) round need not be based on previous comments. The norm, though, at least in the three disciplines I'm into, is not to keep shifting the goalpost. A reviewer should read through the manuscript thoroughly and comment appropriately. It is out of place for a reviewer to keep raising new 'issues' at each R&R rounds. Where there was an oversight initially, nothing preclude the reviewer from apologising and raising them. Just not the norm.
In any case, the interest should be advancing/contributing to the body of knowledge and ensuring quality articles.

What do journal editors usually do in this kind of case?

Simply put, in my own experience, the unavailability or inability or unwillingness of previous reviewers.

As editor, in most cases I'd invite the previous reviewers. Sometimes a previous reviewer is no longer available. In this case I may invite a new reviewer if the case is complex enough that I want a further opinion. In some exceptional cases I may invite a new reviewer anyway. It can happen that I was unhappy with an earlier reviewer for some reason and want to replace them (this may play out in favour of the author because the reason may be that the earlier reviewer was overly negative). It also can happen that the way the authors respond to the earlier reviews raise some new issues and I want to bring in some new expertise because of that. Generally I agree with @Buffy that the ultimate aim is quality, and if a new reviewer with new comments can increase quality, this is ultimately a good thing, although I can see the point of the TO that as author one reacts to the initial reviews, and it can be a bit annoying if new issues are raised.
So I'd say it's rather exceptional but occasionally there are reasons to do this.


text:
Can an international student manage his cost of living in Australia if his 4 years PhD tuition fee is waived off by the university?
I received an offer of admission from one of the Australian Universities in Perth. My supervisor recommended my application for tuition fee waive off scholarship and university has accepted that. I have to manage my cost of living and travel expenditure. I am not sure that I will be able to manage my cost of living and travel expenses by doing part-time work. So I will be highly obliged if you can provide necessary information so that I can take a decision. Thanks...

What does tuition fee waive off scholarship mean?

PhD tuition fee is waived sounds like you're getting a discount.

You should not pursue a PhD if you cannot get a stipend.  Check housing costs, they can be very high in Australia.

@AnonymousPhysicist indeed and I don't know for Australia, but ppl on a student visa might not be allowed to work

Probably "waive off" is a confounding of "waive" and "wave off"...

Actually on recommendation of my supervisor,  school is going to cover my 4 years PhD tuition fee. That is why; I mentioned tuition fee waive off scholarship. I will not be getting stipend for my cost of living in Australia.

I disagree with Anonymous Physicist. I didn't have any stipend and finished my PhD successfully.

It is next to impossible.
I cannot say about Perth, but in Sydney you need at least 15,000 AUD per year to cover your living expenses, assuming you share a room. The minimal salary in Australia is roughly 30,000 AUD per year, and as a low-skilled worker you cannot get a salary much higher than this. This means you will have to work at least a half of your time. Then it is unclear how you will be able to focus on your PhD project and become a good scientist.
In Perth, it is likely to be even worse. Perth is more expensive than the other Australian big cities, although salaries may be higher there as well.
Getting a job in Australia is not easy. I've read that according to unemployment statistics, those people who get unemployment benefits spend about half a year on average to find a new job. If you are a foreigner, and if your language skills are far from ideal, you are at a considerable disadvantage in the job market.
On top of that, there may be restrictions on the number of hours you are allowed to work as a student.
However, if your aim is not to become a scientist, but to migrate to Australia, and if you are prepared to face three years of very hard life, it might work for you, but you've got to know what you are doing. If you live in Australia for three years as a PhD student, you may be able to find a legal way to remain in Australia after your PhD program (e.g., by getting a job). Your Australian PhD degree will be a plus. Remember, however, that you cannot become an Australian permanent resident and later get Australian citizenship simply by legally staying in Australia for a certain number of years. I know people who lived in Australia for almost a decade on temporary working visas and were unable to get the status of permanent resident. The common ways of getting that status are to marry a permanent resident or get a long-term working contract whose end date is more that 3 years after the starting date. You have to be a really valuable worker to find an employer who agrees to sign such a long contract with you.
If you want to pursue an academic career, my advice is to find any place in the world where you can get a PhD stipend that will allow you to fully focus on science. If you have a good academic record, this should not be a problem. Many professors have funds on their grants and need good PhD students.

Thank you so much for your valuable advice. If this is the case, then I may need to drop the idea. But my supervisor was telling me that I may get teaching assistant-ship which can help me to bear my living expenses. But as you have narrated the fact that part-time work or teaching assistant-ship may affect my PhD work and even I am not sure that will I be able to get at least AUD 20000 in a year or not? thanks

@Tanmay If your goal is to get into academia, TA work during your PhD would be very helpful because it’d let you refine your teaching skills at the same time as you’re refining your skills as a researcher through your PhD, and teaching and research are the two primary skills of an academic.

@Tanmay You should do the math. Ask the supervisor how certain it is that you will get a teacher assistant job and how much money it will bring you as well as how many hours per week you can work as a teacher assistant. Do research on the Internet about cost of living in Perth. Perth is the most expensive Australian big city. I've heard that prices are really crazy there. You need to have accurate figures for housing and food costs in Perth. For Sydney, 15,000 AUD per year is the absolute minimum. And you have to be prepared to share an accommodation (a room or a small studio).

@Tanmay If you elect to accept the PhD project offer in Perth, you will have to make savings before coming to Australia. An air ticket to Australia costs ~1,000 AUD (depending on where you live now), and you will also need to cover your hotel costs for the initial period during which you will be looking for a long-term accommodation. And I do not know how easy or difficult it will be for you to find a part-time job in Perth. It depends on your English level and many other factors. You will have to use your savings before you get a job.

@Tanmay It is quite possible to successfully complete a PhD project while working half-time. The problem, however, will be that you won't have many publications and won't have learned many things that you can learn by full-time research job. It is only when your mind is fully occupied by science that you can become a great scientist. If your mind is occupied by your part-time job and counting every dollar, your research work will be rather "mechanistic," i.e., you will do only the minimum required to complete your PhD project. You simply won't develop skills that make a great scientist

Thank you so much for guidance and providing valuable information. Basically, I am an academician and last eight years, I have been working as a lecturer and I have few publications too. I thought that if I pursue my PhD from good foreign university then it will boost my teaching and research career. That is why; I applied for PhD and got this offer. As school is waiving off my tuition fee, so I have to manage my cost of living, insurance and flight expenses. But I am not sure that teaching assistant-ship or part time work will help me to bear all expenses or not.

@Tanmay Concerning working as a teacher assistant, you have to ask your supervisor about details. I do not know the situation in your prospective university in Perth. I do not know whether your job as a teacher assistant is guaranteed and how much you will be paid for that job. It may well be that you come only to discover that all teacher assistant positions are already occupied. I also do not know how easy or difficult it is for a foreigner to find a part-time job like cleaner, seller, construction worker, etc. I do not know what restrictions will be there on your student visa.

@Sandra As I have to resign from my current post, so after reaching Australia, my only support will teaching assistant-ship or part-time job. that is why; I was seeking for your valuable advice. few of my students are there in Perth. They were saying that around AUD14000-16000 is required for cost of living in one year and I am not sure that will I be able to earn that or not. My supervisor told me that as long as I will not be in Perth, he can't say about the number of hours of TA. My students are doing part time job like cleaner. But pursuing PhD is totally different from purisuing Master.

@Tanmay As you already have a few years of experience, you can easily complete your PhD in Perth while working half-time as a cleaner to cover your living expenses. The legally minimum salary in Australia is a bit higher than 30,000 AUD per year, and you almost do not pay taxes from that amount. If 15,000 AUD per year is enough for Perth, and if you find a half-time job, then you will definitely survive. The only issue is to actually find a job and whether your student visa will allow you to work half-time.

@Tanmay You should ask your students how easy or difficult it was for them to find part-time jobs. And you should check whether there won't be any legal obstacles in getting a half-time job on your student visa. There might be two kinds of obstacles: (1) the Australian immigration law (i.e., your student visa may simply not allow you to work more than a certain amount of hours per week; it depends on the exact type of the visa), (2) the internal requirements of your university. You have to find out these details in advance.

@Tanmay Also note that for foreigners, Australian doctors are extremely expensive. You will have an insurance, but its purpose is to cover things like surgeries. A visit to a GP will cost you about 60 AUD, and a visit to a specialized doctor (e.g. endocrinologist) will cost you about 200 AUD. I do not think that your insurance will cover such things, although it might partially compensate the costs. It depends on the insurance. I strongly recommend getting all dental work done in your home country before flying to Australia. .

@Sandra I asked my students and they told me that master degree students can work maximum 20 hours in a week and unlimited hours during break. But for PhD students, I found over the internet that there is no limit on number of working hours. I am not sure about internal requirement from the university. Regarding part-time jobs, yes competition is high even for cleaning job also. Initially my students also faced difficulty to get part-time job. but now, it is fine for them.

It would be impossible...
I’ve lived in Aus as an international student and submitted my PhD 4 weeks ago with a stipend, a top-up scholarship and a fee waiver. Even with that, it was a struggle at the best of times.
The cost of living is extremely high i.e. rent, food etc.
They have strict regulations regarding your work hours during study time which would make living here a struggle.
If you had a stipend, I would say “go for it and don’t look back” and also work part-time to get by. Otherwise, I would say approach with caution.

Thanks for sharing your experience. As per my offer letter, school will cover my tuition fee. I have to take care rest of the things such as health insurance, living expenses and travelling cost. My supervisor was telling that I may get teaching assistant-ship which can help to bear my living expenses. But as per your suggestion, it seems that it would be a really challenging job if I don't get full-scholarship which will include everything. Actually getting a response from a PhD supervisor is really difficult. That is why; I was thinking about the offer. thanks

I may be wrong but I thought it was compulsory for the university to provide overseas health cover for international students as a bare minimum? Again, the details escape me so I can’t be certain. Good luck.

Actually on my supervisor recommendation, school has waived off my 4 years PhD tuition fees. But as I didn't get Australian post graduate research award, so I didn't get full scholarship which will include stipend, top-up, fee-waiver and health insurance. That is the reason, I posted the question that by doing teaching assistant-ship, part-time limited hours work, can I manage my cost of living in Perth or not? Thanks for your response...

To be frank, I don’t think it is possible to manage without a stipend.


text:
Is it ethical to obliquely cite articles published by a predatory publisher?
There's a recent article published in Research Evaluation analyzing MDPI's self-citation rates. The author argues that MDPI's self-citation rate is anomalously high relative to leading journals in the same field, and that this is indicative of predatory publishers.
The article contains this paragraph:

The high rate of self-citations of the journal Sustainability is coherent with data that the journal itself provided in its bibliometric review over the period 2009–18 (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1655), showing that Sustainability ranks first in citing journals (2,496 cites) very much over the Journal of Cleaner Production that occupies second position (658 cites) in this bibliographic review. It is remarkable that in the aforementioned bibliometric study over the period 2009–18, the first 30 positions in the citation ranking were occupied by journals from the same publisher (#3 Energies, #8 Water, #23 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, #24 Remote Sensing and #30 IJGI). Copiello (2019) also analysed the citations and self-citations of articles published in the journal Sustainability in 2015 and found that the journal had a higher self-citation level than expected.

The cited website is actually an article published in Sutainability. The full citation is

Tang, M.; Liao, H.; Wan, Z.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Rosen, M.A. Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051655

The way the Research Evaluation article cited the Sustainability article is clearly different from the way it cites other papers (c.f. the Copiello (2019) citation in the same paragraph), and this oblique style of citation causes the citation to not show up in the references section. I'm guessing that this is happening because the author believes Sustainability is predatory and therefore does not want to add to its citation counts.
I am wondering if this is ethical.
Update: OUP published an "expression of concern" to say that the Research Evaluation article is being reviewed for unnamed "issues".
Update #2: the expression of concern is resolved now, and the above paragraph remains in the article.

Why would you suspect that?  Perhaps the authors do not know how to cite references properly.  In my experience, MDPI publishes many sub-par papers.

@Prof.SantaClaus firstly Research Evaluation is not a MDPI journal, it belongs to Oxford University Press. Secondly, the author (there's only one author) is citing every other article in the standard way. This is the only exception.

I agree that this looks like an attempt to cite without giving credit.

@Roland you're not the only one with that impression. One particularly egregious problem with that paper is that it calls MDPI's 1000-2000 CHF APC "high", yet it is published open access in a journal that charges EUR 2678. It's pretty ironic. I know some people who are thinking of writing a sarcastic comment that Oxford University Press must be a predatory publisher that only accepted that article because the author paid ...

Maybe the authors are trying to hide their shame? i.e., that they read an MDPI article!

Another reason: maybe the cited MDPI article is written by their mortal enemy; so they do not want their enemy to find out.

Interesting.  I've been seeing a lot of oblique citations of articles presenting a competing view to the authors' recently, in another field.  IMO, unless the illegitimacy of a cited work is quite firmly established, it should be cited properly. If it appears to be legitimate work, oblique citation is improper, even if the conclusions appear likely to be incorrect. (Caveat: haven't read the papers.)

No, if you're going to cite an article, you should do so in the standard manner used by your publication or by one of the standards used in your field (say, if you're publishing privately, such as on your own website). Merely linking a page as an in text citation, without naming the author(s) or listing it in your references is simply a "no go".


text:
How much data is enough to be awarded a PhD?
I feel my data is not enough to be awarded a PhD (compared to the work of others in my lab), but I have spent too much of my time as a graduate student (approx 7yrs); should I wind up and defend my thesis (feeling embarrassed all the while), or stay longer?

The answer to the question in the title is "enough to satisfy your advisor and department".

You don't get a PhD just by getting a lot of data.  Otherwise, all the people who conduct surveys would be PhDs.

No particular amount of data can earn you a PhD. One data point, if it's correct and meaningful enough could be enough for the degree. What's important is the new knowledge that whatever data you have allows you to create through your analysis. If you are measuring something very noisy, you may need billions or trillions of data points in order to show the theorized effect. If you are trying to prove that there are indeed black swans in the world, then bringing one specimen back to the Old World is sufficient.
You should ask yourself what new things can you demonstrate with your data, and does your analysis have sufficient statistical power to satisfy others that these conclusions are true. If it does, then you're done, if not, then you may have to collect more data (or find a new hypothesis!).

Did you want to say that "No amount of data can earn ONE a PhD", or did you actually imply that no amount of data can earn me a PhD. The amount of down-votes to my question is causing this doubt.

@Navodita: Bill Barth means that there is no quantity X of data such that in all circumstances one can trade in X data for a PhD.

@Navodita: I didn't downvote the question myself, but I believe the downvotes are a reaction to how the question is posed rather than commentary on you or your work or future prospects.  (You seem to be seeking advice, but it's hard to know what to say without far more information.  Maybe you are being too hard on yourself, and you have done plenty already, or maybe you have accomplished almost nothing.  We have no idea.)

@Navodita, Pete is right. In addition, no one can tell you that 6 data points or 6 billion data points are required to graduate. You must use the data to make an analysis which constitutes new knowledge about your field. What does your advisor say?

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


text:
Semi-solicited motivation letter for professorship
I would like to be promoted to a full professor (who wouldn't?!). I have a competitive track record, publication index, and, above all, demonstrated capacity to bring in Big Money. I know my little department will soon recruit for a professorship. Plus, the Dean himself, over drinks at a faculty meeting, invited me to motivate my candidature, when I semi-jokingly suggested that I should be promoted. Keep in mind I'm now only Asst. Prof.
So, let's say I want to motivate my professorship. I figure the best way to do is to write a report in which I succinctly outline my most important accomplishments.
My question for you is: Is there any precedent for such a document like the one I describe in the previous paragraph? Even in other university systems. I'd like to emulate an official format to make this look serious.

Shouldn't you have a meeting with the Dean first to see what's this truly about?

From an HR stand point - if the job gets posted to a job board, you can put in an application just like any other candidate. The documents required are usually outlined in the posting - CV, letter of intent, etc.

I have the impression that there's a more informal route, if it's properly motivated

What country are you in? Procedures are very different from country to country.

(My answer assumes that you are in the US, or another country with a similar tenure system.)
Summary: Ask your local experts.
Every reputable university should have written documentation of the policies, procedures, and standards for tenure-track faculty promotions. Here are the procedures for my university. Read yours. Today. Now.  Really, you should have read it before you accepted your current position.  These are the policies that explain what "tenure" and "full professor" means at your institution.
A standard component of most tenure/promotion processes is that the candidate submits statements summarizing their most important accomplishments, ongoing efforts, and future plans in research, teaching, and service.  The purpose of these statements is to answer the question "Why do you deserve this promotion?"  These statements are almost certainly what your dean meant by "motivating your candidature". The specific format and contents of these statements depend on your university's promotion expectations/standards/practices/priorities, which is why you must read those policies before you even think about applying for (or even working toward) a promotion.  In particular, research-intensive schools have different (not "higher" or "lower") expectations from more teaching-focused schools.
Another standard component is an evaluation of your tenure/promotion case by members of your promotions and tenure ("P&T") committee, which is almost certainly composed of senior faculty in your department, or larger unit if your department is small.  The purpose of their evaluation is to answer the question "Why does your colleague deserve this promotion?"  You should already know what they're going to write, because you've already discussed your case in detail with at least one senior faculty member who serves (or has served) on the P&T committee.  (If you don't already have a senior faculty mentor, march into your department chair's office today and demand one.)  Your faculty mentor knows the unwritten priorities/standards/politics that the committee will apply, and so they can effectively help you craft your pitch.
Another standard component is a letter from your department chair to the dean (or whatever titles your boss and their boss have), summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of your case and the deliberations of the P&T committee.  The purpose of this summary is to answer the question "Why does your faculty member deserve this promotion?" Aside from snippets from your recommendation letters (which haven't been written yet), you should already know what this letter will say, because you've already discussed your case in detail with your department chair. In fact, you've already had at least one discussion every year with your department chair about your evolving career and your progress toward a strong tenure/promotion case (if you have not had such a discussion with your chair, walk into their office today and demand one).  Your department chair knows the unwritten priorities/standards/politics that your upper administration will apply, and so they can effectively help you craft your pitch.
In particular, your university's promotion policies, your faculty mentor(s), and your department chair can tell you the expectations for a direct promotion from assistant professor to full professor. Such a promotion would be completely unheard of at my university---not impossible in principle, but never actually done in practice---but may be more acceptable at yours.
If your department chair and other senior faculty are not willing to have regular frank discussions about your potential for promotion, polish your CV and look for another job. At a rank commensurate with your accomplishments, of course.


text:
Share prize money from conference presentation award with co-authors?
I am a PhD student and I recently won a young scientist award and prize money (~500 USD) at a conference for the "best presentation". I did the majority of the work for the presentation, and I was the only one present at the conference.
However, my co-authors (8 people) all wrote their share for the conference proceedings (that's what makes them co-authors). The co-authors are in various stages of their career, from professors to fellow PhD students.

Should I share my prize money with the co-authors? If yes, with all of them in equal amounts? Or only with those who would be eligible for a young scientist award themselves?
Would it change the situation if I won the award for something else, say "best paper"?

What if, instead of money, it was an object? Does the answer still applies or something changes?

Another thing to consider is whether too many people doing this might influence culture so that people will get used to expect getting a share of the money no matter how much they contributed. It's fine to give them a share while it is voluntary, but do we really want to turn it into a trend where not giving will be considered rude and offensive?

is your name the only one on the reward? if so then of course you shouldn't share it—it's your money. don't give your money away unless it's to a charity.

There are some excellent answers already, but if my student won an award, my first and only inclination would be to congratulate them, and tell them to enjoy having a little breathing room on making rent next month.

@FábioDias: I'd suggest as a take-home message for organizers how decide what prizes should be there to think twice whether they really want to hand out money. Actually, most of the prizes I got were books (sometimes allowing some choice of book). A book, possibly signed by the jury, is IMHO much better.

@cbeleites: Don't take it too seriously, but your comment reminded me of: "Homer: Aw, twenty dollars? I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services."

@PeteL.Clark (totally off-topic) that Simpson's came up here very recently in a discussion... :D

First step: ask your university and whoever funded your research if they believe they are entitled to all or part of your prize money or if the award will reduce any financial aid you are receiving. My institution required any student receiving financial aid from the university to report any off-campus income.

Note that if you paid for the conference, the award is effectively a reimbursement, and it wouldn't make sense to share the presentation award with people who didn't bother or pay to come to the conference to contribute to the presentation.

First, let me say that I really like jakebeal's answer and his dinner idea. Some of the other answers make good points as well. However, none of the answers so far address the key point of whether morally the award is meant for you alone or also for your coauthors, except for Stephen Kolassa's answer, which I think gets it entirely backwards.
By your description, the award is a young scientist award and monetary prize, given for the "best presentation". It has your name on it. You are the person who actually showed up at the conference and delivered this "best presentation"; presumably it was your good performance that won you this honor. Moreover, the conference organizers speak English (or whatever language "best presentation" was translated from) and know full well the difference between the meaning of "best presentation" and "best paper" and between the meaning of "award given to young scientist X" and "award given to paper authors X, Y and Z". I think it is presumptuous and rather inappropriate for some of us to be questioning their intent here. They wanted to give you the award, not your coauthors. So, from a moral/ethical point of view, I see no principle that says you have any obligation to share the award money in any way, either by a cash distribution or by paying for a dinner. One could even hypothetically argue (depending on whether traveling to the conference was a burden for you and something the other coauthors wished to avoid) that it is the other coauthors who should be paying for your dinner.
With that said, from the practical point of view would it be a good idea for you to share the prize money? Well, if I were your coauthor I would flatly refuse to accept any share of the money, for the reasons stated above. I would also find it a bit strange to be invited to a dinner at your expense. I would not take offense to such an invitation, and I find the dinner idea appealing in general, but I would politely tell you that you deserve to keep the award money and I prefer to pay for my own dinner. I also find it very hard to imagine any professor who would feel slighted by not being offered to share in the prize money from a PhD student's young scientist award, so I find Stephen Kolassa's talk of making enemies a bit unreasonable. The one aspect of the prize-sharing suggestions that I can agree with is that it may make sense to offer the other PhD student coauthors a share of the prize money (or a free dinner), purely as a gesture showing kindness and generosity on your part. I don't think you are obligated to do this in any moral sense, but it will very probably win you some good will that may be helpful to you down the road, and is just a nice thing to do in general.

The "making enemies" part was not about making enemies of established professors. I explicitly had the other grad students in mind. I agree that taking them out to dinner may be better than parceling out cash (if practical). However, keeping all to yourself because it was a best presentation award risks coming across as arrogant, whether this impression is justified or not. And yes, that's exactly the kind of thing people will discuss over beers. "Did you hear about that guy who got a fat award but didn't share it with his labmates?" You don't want that.

@StephanKolassa okay, thanks for the clarification. Maybe it's because I'm not in a lab science, but I still completely don't get where you're coming from. If someone said to me "did you hear about the guy who got an award that was given to him, in his name, for a presentation he gave, and he didn't share it with his labmates?", I would shrug and say "yes, I heard about him. Good for him for doing a good job." I'm sure there's something in your experiences that is leading you to see this "making enemies" scenario as plausible, but it just doesn't resonate with any of my own experience.

I feel similarly with Dan Romik (and am in the same field as he is, which is not a laboratory science).  I find the idea that other graduate students will hold a lifelong grudge against the OP for not divvying up his prize money (btw $500 is non-negligible money for a grad student, but calling it a "fat award" seems like a stretch) in a situation in which he did the majority of the work on the paper and the presentation and was the only one to attend the conference.  The other coauthors of the paper are getting something: coauthorship on a prize-winning paper.....

...In my view, a much more plausible moral for a fellow graduate student coauthor to draw here is "Wow, the graduate student who took the lead on a project I was working on got to present at a conference and even won an award.  That's great for him, but I wish it had happened to me.  Aha: I'll step up my involvement on the next project -- and/or find another project in which I know I can play the lead role -- and maybe it will happen to me too."

I agree with @PeteL.Clark. When there are 9 authors, and the first authors did most of the work, the contributions of each of the rest may not be that much. And having their name on the award-wining paper is already a big award.

@qsp and PeteL.Clark, the paper is not award-winning. The award was for best presentation, which -- as I was saying in my answer -- is an honor the other coauthors cannot claim a part in. (PeteL.Clark got this detail right in his answer but apparently had a bit of a slip-up in the comment above.)

at my group (germany, chemistry) it was normal that, if someone wins an award he would bring s.th. in the next week. If you are generous (or a lousy baker) it would be something from a bakery or ice cream or something to drink ad otherwise you would bake something for the group, just to thank your partners and to have a small celebration.

This is highly cultural, in Spain we invite each other almost for no reason so it'd be reasonable to accept dinner

I think that it is important to recognize that the biggest value of the award is its contribution to your C.V. and future career, not the prize money.  As such, I think you should approach the question of the money as generously as possible: after all, you gave a good talk, but many of the aspects of that good talk depended critically on the contributions of your co-authors.
What, then, is a fair way of allocating the money?  Pretty much any numerical formula that you follow will both a) leave some people feeling that their allocation is too big or too small and also b) only be a few dollars anyway, given the number of people involved.
I would therefore recommend defusing the question entirely and turning the prize money into an investment into future goodwill and papers: suggest that it be spent on going out for a fancy dinner together (or similar such outing) to celebrate the success of the collaboration!

This was the answer that leapt immediately to my mind while reading the question. Handing out bits of cash just seems wrong. A nice dinner out with everyone would be nice, and the award pretty much covers it at a decent restaurant.  If a little under, you keep the spare change; a little over and you cover it. This is about them and their help in making everyone successful (including you).

Good idea! What if the some of the co-authors are not from my university, but based in another country (i.e. it's not practical for them to attend a dinner)?

@traindriver I've been a key remote co-author in a situation like that---not another country, but more than 1000 miles away. We waited a few months until there was an opportunity where most of the key authors would be in the same city, and had our celebration then.  Not everybody could make it, but an attempt was made to be as inclusive as possible, and nobody demanded perfection.

should the OP have to be the host of the dinner?

@Ooker Not sure what you mean, exactly: if the group chooses to go out to a fancy restaurant together, nobody really needs to be designated as "the host."

@traindriver If waiting for the co-authors to be present is not practical, send the remote co-authors a gift basket or some nice flowers.

I'd suggest to take into account the culture in your group. To me a poster prize would rank slightly above acceptance of an important paper. If a paper is celebrated by the first author bringing a cake, then a poster prize should be celebrated somewhere between cake and BBQ. I'd strongly suggest not to tie the celebration to the monetary value of the prize, as I think the monetary value that is handed out depends more on how good the organizers are at finding a poster prize sponsor than on the amount and quality of work behind the poster.

First of all I give a frowny face to everyone who suggested that a graduate student try to divvy up a $500 "young scientist best presentation award" with post-PhD personnel.  At least in US academic culture, that borders on the ridiculous.  Postdocs make about twice as much money as graduate students, and professors make at least three times as much money as graduate students.  $500 may actually make some difference in a student's life: e.g. they could perhaps buy a new bed rather than sleeping on a futon with a broken plank (to take an example from my own graduate student days).  If I was a coauthor on this paper I would have absolutely no expectation of a share of the $500.  I wouldn't be offended by such an offer, but in my mind it would be a terrible mistake to put any of my student's prize money in my own pocket.  (I gave @Stephan Kolassa's answer a downvote for the suggestion that the OP is compelled to do this or it will haunt him for the rest of his career.  No way.)
I agree with Dan Romik's answer, which calls attention to the fact that the people who made the award are probably as familiar as we are with academic life and linguistic nuances: when they say the award is for the presentation and that it is awarded only to the presenter as a young scientist, surely they mean precisely that.  If one agrees with the ethics of this then it seems to me that the only people the OP should contemplate splitting the award with are other graduate students who were involved in preparing the presentation.
He says that the prepared the majority of the presentation, which I find to be of some significance.  In my much more individualized branch of academia I have never collaborated with anyone on a talk or conference presentation; even when I am describing joint work, the description of it is entirely my own.  (Occasionally I have had the chance to watch a collaborator present on joint work with me, which can be very enlightening: their presentation is always different from mine; sometimes it is better, sometimes it is worse, and sometimes it is just different.)  It could be (but might not be; I won't pretend to know) an assumption of those who gave the award that the OP singlehandedly prepared the presentation.  If he got significant help from someone else, then that should have been clearly reflected in the presentation itself, and it might be worth raising that issue with the conference organizers.  Here I would determine significant both by the total proportion of the presentation prepared and its role in essentially improving the presentation.  Routine help should be paid back with gratitude and reciprocal routine help.  Many professionals could feel embarrassed by the suggestion that  routine help entitles them to a share of an academic prize.
I do want to admit that one could question the ethics of a prize which is given to an individual for work which is known to be collaborative.  In my field (mathematics) awards given for conference presentations are very rare, and I remember that within the last year I read about a fairly prominent award given for a "best presentation" at a conference.  I can't quite summon all the details now, but I do remember scouring CVs of the various parties involved to try to figure out whether the collaborators on the paper were getting short-changed for this.  I found it a bit weird.  However for a graduate student with eight coauthors to refuse a $500 prize on ethical grounds seems really impractical.  If all parties agree that this is an improper recognition of an individual for a team effort, then it could be handled internally by not viewing the money as being individual money at all: it could be used only for expenditures by that group of coauthors, e.g. as funding for a different coauthor to speak on the work (or some continuation of it).
Finally, let me say that sometimes academics make mountains out of molehills, and I see a bit of that in the answers to this question (including mine!).  If the OP takes the money, writes warm thanks to all of his collaborators, and tells his advisor to let him know if any further action is warranted on his part, I think he'll be fine.

Even though I make a proposal different than yours, I agree with much of the spirit in your answer.  I suspect that that differences between fields play in here as well, e.g. is the presentation considered good because it exposits a mathematical result nicely (in which case it's much more about the presenter in particular) or because the laboratory results it shows are exciting (in which case it's more about the whole team)?  Personally, I would also be annoyed at the conference organizers for putting the presenter into an uncomfortable position with respect to their coauthors!

@jakebeal: Well, in this particular case I see some indications that the award is being given for the presentation rather than the presented work.  First it says "best presentation" rather than "best paper" (the OP picked up on that too).  Second, the award is being given to a "young scientist".  It doesn't make much sense (to me) to reward an entire research team because one of its nine members is a young scientist.  But all of this takes place a bit outside my academic comfort zone anyway...

No disagreement from me about the logical interpretation.  I've also seen exactly the opposite being done in some computer science and biology meetings, where a young investigator award for presentation is given to an individual based (in significant part) on the content produced by a multi-person research team that includes people who are not young investigators.

First, if you have spent some of your own money, I believe part of the prize ought to cover it.
Second, a "young scientist award" sounds personal. Yet, awarded at a conference, where awards are (usually) not granted on "paper only", communication is part of the package, where all co-authors have taken part. So the award "should" go to all the team, just like for a journal paper. From your side, offering something with it is the best: barbecue party, restaurant, personalized gifts, than can re-enforce the links between the publishing team. They can decline the offer, to leave you with the money. Their call.
Side story: I won a presentation award with another PhD student, whom I did not meet (not in the same country): we co-wrote the paper by mail. Since we met two years later only, I offered him a wire transfer, which he declined. Recently, the PhD student I supervise won an award. We (the seniors) immediately told her to keep it.
The result will be a balance between what you propose, and what they offer.

A PhD student I worked with recently won a $2000 prize in giving a talk at a conference. I know he's worked hard and earned the prize entirely, even given a large amount of help given by me. It was still his work and his presentation!
Never the less I came in to find a bottle of Whisky (nice single malt) on my desk and similar gifts on his co-authors desks.
I was touched, the thought meant a lot to me even though I hadn't expected or wanted anything at all. Just something to think about.

I'm not sure it is a rule, but one way to do this is that the presenter takes half the prize money, and the remaining authors share the other half. If the coauthors decline receiving money, you can keep their share.
("Source": I have received a quarter of half the prize money from a presentation at a conference)

The award was for presentation, and it sounds like that was pretty well all your own work.  If it had been for Best Paper, then yes, the situation would be different and you would have much more reason to at least offer shares to your co-authors (although in that case I would've expected it to be awarded to all the co-authors already).
So you are entitled to the money, and will keep the credit on your CV anyway.  However, it would still be good to acknowledge your co-authors.  The amount of money you use for that depends on your own circumstances and feelings - using it all for a communal dinner as suggested would be great, but if you need the money you can also do something much smaller.  For example, providing a large cake at the next get-together of the authors with a little speech "I wanted to get this to thank you all for the satisfaction of working together on the paper.  It made it so easy to present enthusiastically because .....".  Similarly if co-authors are remote, you could just send them chocolates, cake or something similar with a little note.
[Of course, in this day and age you need to pay attention to those who have allergies, are on a diet, hate chocolate etc ..... but hopefully you can find something suitable]

It depends on who the collaborators are, to me.  $500 is a ton of money for some Ph.D. students, and I don't think a prof would begrudge not being in on the split.  If the money is situation-changing for you, I'd limit the split to the STUDENTS on the project who actually contributed.
If the money isn't important, I'd try to do something a bit nicer than splitting it up.  Maybe taking your collaborators out to a medium-priced dinner with it would be a nice gesture.

Morally, I'd say "Sure, share it with them - right when they share their higher salaries and research budgets with you..."
... but think about it as money you can use for political reasons. That is, consider spending it on something which advances your standing either with your research time, your department, future collaborators etc. Also, following @StephenKolassa's suggestion very partially, try to sort of hint at what you intend to do with the money, to give other the opportunity to lay a claim to it, even if you think it's baseless. Better to discuss it openly then for someone to feel you ran off with the money... and probably they won't say anything.
That's my $0.02 anyway.

Try to figure out a good way to ask them what they think, in a way that they will feel free to say what they really think.
That won't be easy--I try it all the time, and try to think what the other person would have to say if they said what they really wanted, and how socially difficult it would be to do it.  However, it is what you're most interested in, it seems--what would they think is fair?
You could say you asked here or "asked around" and then say something along the lines of "people gave the following suggestions, what do you guys think?  I want your honest opinions, because I want this to be something we all feel good about and not something where there will be hard feelings among people who I consider valued collaborators."
One more thing to keep in mind--you might end up needing to report this on your taxes, and prizes are (or were, last time I checked, which was a long time ago) taxed pretty heavily in the US--you might want to find out what the deal is locally wherever you are.

In the US prizes are taxed as ordinary nonemployment income, neither specially penalized nor specially advantaged. The rate on ordinary income is progressive depending on your total taxable income, and generally PhD students will be in the lower brackets (15% or possibly 25%) -- unless married filing joint with a spouse who has a good-paying job, which is possible. If the OP should share at all, I would certainly think it fair and reasonable to share only the post-tax portion, whatever that is.

Yes, you should share the prize money.
I can't think of a better way of ticking off many people right at the beginning of your career than not sharing the money. You do not want to make enemies over this. An issue like this could follow you for decades. Don't make that error.
For the same reason, share it equally, so people don't feel shortchanged.
I understand that the difference between 500 USD and 500/8 = 62.50 USD is nontrivial to you, but the main benefit of the award will be its presence on your CV, not so much the money.
And anyone on your team who already has tenure will most likely decline their share, leaving more to share among the struggling grad students, anyway.
And I don't see how the argument would be different for a "best paper" or other award.

As a postdoc, I would never accept money from a phd candidate. Even less as a professor.

authors: Qüêêñ Ôf Älâmîñ


text:
What is a Brown Bag Seminar?
I have seen several questions and also announcements that mention the term "brown bag" seminar. I understand that in American English "brown-bagging" means bringing your own lunch:

the practice of bringing one's own packed lunch to work.

I would like some sort of a definition in academic setting.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

It means it's held around lunchtime and they aren't going to be providing lunch, but you are welcome to bring your own and eat during the event. So the event is somewhat informal.

On top of the other answer:
Brown bags stem from the times when people used to bring their lunch to work in a literal paper brown bag.

The events have generally transformed into (the key points being):

a "lunch provided" or "bring your own lunch"
are generally over one's lunch hour which is typically unpaid.

Food is often provided in order to counteract the second point of it being in your own time, as to help with attendance.

I don't think the "on your own time" part is universal.

@Reid you could be right, but here in the UK at most of the places I've worked/seen they've almost exclusively been a lunchtime activity with the bribe of free lunch. But I did caveat with "generally" for that reason!

@GPPK -- I wonder if the comment also means you might translate the meaning of "in/on your own time" for the diverse audience

Not sure I understand, but feel free to edit if it could be clearer.

Isn't saying "generally always" a contradiction? Feels weird to read regardless.

What exactly do you mean by "the times when people used to bring their lunch to work in a literal paper brown bag"?  I assure you that people still do that, and brown paper lunch bags are sold by many retailers, including Amazon.

IME "brown bag seminar" has become a fossilized expression, so some "brown bags" are catered and/or held at other times of day. The critical characteristics are that "brown bags" are optional and informal. They don't appear on mandatory training schedules, and (especially for hourly staff) might not be considered work time. E.g. "We are having a brown bag at 10:15 on best practices in admissions adjudication support technology" -> "You can come if you feel this would be helpful or even if you are just curious, but get your own work done first!"

Some people still bring their lunch to work in literal brown paper bags.

I believe I do have a few brown paper bags at home, but all of them came from a liquor store. That would make for a fun seminar!

'paper brown bag'? You're not from around here :-)

@IMil You'll be happy to know that one of the topology seminars at MIT when I attended was called the "Bourbon seminar", I'll let you guess why. Although at the time I attended it, it had mostly made the switch to whiskey (this is no secret, many papers have "with thanks to the participants to the Bourbon seminar" in the acknowledgements).

I have up-voted Elizabeth Henning's answer, but to expand a bit for those unfamiliar with the concept:
Related term: "lunch and learn"
Generally held at or around lunch time.
Will often be considered as not part of work time.   Whether they are optional depends on where you work - they aren't always optional (sometimes you're expected to attend a certain number per year for continuing education).
Often it is person within your institution who does the presentation - instead of a person brought in to present to you.
The presentation isn't always directly related to your (or their) work and may be completely unrelated.
Generally where I've worked it has been considered polite to attend and act interested - but my experience with them has been more at the "less than 20 people" co-worker/department level.
I have seen the frequency decrease in the last ten years or so, YMMV
Also note comments in other answers that contradict my answer

I have seen "brown bag meetings" where someone gives a talk that is only loosely related to their (or the institute's) work, often more a collection of thoughts or hobby interests, rather than actual research. Talks that do not fit in standard research talks, therefore are more likely "binned" (or put in a waste bag/paper bag for disposal). Those had nothing to do with lunch.

my faint impression was that there is "lunch" meaning, as well as "kitchen sink" one


text:
What to do if I found out the preprint paper missed a citation of others' work?
I recently found out my preprint paper (to be published in a journal) that missed a citation of others' work, the paper is just published online in IEEE Xplore? The sentences are rephrased, however, I forgot to give credit notice within the texts. I feel very badly about it. I know this is a plagiarism. I do not want to find the excuse for myself. I want to remedy it before I cannot. What should I do it now?
The paper I should cite is in the reference list of the bibliography. I did not cite it within the texts.

I know this is a plagiarism. - Are you sure you know what plagiarism is?  Because it's not clear to me from your post that it is.

Contact the journal as soon as possible with the correction, and see whether they can change it before the paper is officially published.
When they had real (and not electronic) typesetting, you had to try to change the text as little as possible. That's still a good idea, although it's less important now.
If they can change it before it's published, that's ideal. If they can't, you can decide what steps to take after they tell you it's too late.

And of course, take more care in the future. Making it part of your normal work-flow is a good idea.

I found this in the guideline: "Unacceptable requests are those that alter the author’s original intent of the article, or that involves a possible breach of publications policy". I am afraid it is nouse right now.

This does not alter your original intent of the article. Something that alters the original intent would need to be much more substantial, like a change that adds an extra hypothesis to a theorem. This is just correcting your unintentional oversight of not including a citation.

Agree with @PeterShor.  Aggressively try and contact the journal to get this resolved.  Throwing up your hands and quitting at the first sign of resistance is not the way to deal with this.
Further, don't stop at the first no - make them tell you know 6–8 times before you back off [1].
[1] Diamond, Stuart.  Getting More: How to Be a More Persuasive Person In Work and In Life.  ISBN-13: 978-0307716903.

If you don't contact them, it will be plagiarism. You cannot let this go and preserve your reputation. In the worst case withdrawing the paper is preferable to letting it go through unfixed.

I wish I can. But under the current guidelines, it seems no such mechanisms existed. https://pspb.ieee.org/images/files/files/opsmanual.pdf

I am afraid if I contacted them right now. They will still treat me as Plagiarism

Let me lay out the consequences. If the original authors are still working, they very likely will find your work. They very likely will notice their own work uncited.  They may very well complain. They have every right to complain. Now you have no real defense. Either you are sloppy or a plagiarizer. This isn't an option for you. If they reject your correction, you should withdraw the paper and fix it. If they refuse to do that as well they participate in the wrong, but the consequences will still come back on you. Just. Do. It.

I concur with PeterShor and Buffy. The only way I could see such an edit changing the author's intent is if the author intended to plagiarize. Hopefully that's not the case here (and if it is, maybe don't tell the journal...), so please just go ahead and contact them right away.

@Wayne: there is a window between when the article is first published online and when the hardcopy is printed when it might be possible for them to make changes. Nowhere do I see in the guidelines "It is absolutely unacceptable to make any changes whatsoever after the article is published online in IEEE Xplore". Where do you see this written? And what can you possibly lose by writing them and asking?

Even if the editors consider you a plagiarizer rather than just sloppy, it is far preferable to the situation in which your whole field considers you a plagiarizer. You made a mistake. There will be consequences of the mistake. You can't avoid all of them. But you want the consequences to affect your future as little as possible. Take the good advice being given here, uncomfortable as it is.

See https://ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/publish-with-ieee/author-education-resources/guidelines-and-policies/correcting-metadata-in-ieee-xplore/

Nevermind the written policies. You have an exceptional case. They will make an exception or they will not, but that is for them to decide. If you don't contact them they don't know there is a problem. But future readers of your paper are likely to know that you have behaved badly, though not in what way. Just. Do. It.

You are misreading that document. It says "Acceptable requests include, but are not limited to, an author name is either missing from or spelled incorrectly ..." Surely, they'd be willing to spell an author's name correctly even if your original submitted manuscript had it wrong. It also says "Unacceptable requests are those that alter the author’s original intent of the article ..." That isn't the case here. It doesn't actually address this specific request.

Furthermore, that page seems to address the case of corrections after the original article has been published in hardcopy. They may be more lenient before it's been published. Write them as soon as possible with the correction. (And write the original editors who are handling your submission.) I am willing to bet they don't want to publish plagiarized material any more than you do.

Peter is right on this one, but perhaps it is worth emphasizing the write to the journal now bit. The more time you delay, the more work the journal spends doing typesetting work that might need to be re-done; contact them before they do the typesetting and they'll be much happier to do the change.

Should I contact staff editor first? According to the this link https://supportcenter.ieee.org/app/answers/detail/a_id/289/kw/correction

That's what it sounds like, from that web page.


text:
Part-time UK lecturer - how much admin and what counts?
Can anyone give me a guide to how much admin a part-time university lecturer should be doing. My employer is so very vague and I have no idea if I'm doing too much, or if I can just say no. It seems as though everybody knows how the system works but doesn't want to say it out loud.
I have a 0.6 teaching only contract. 3 classes per term.
People seem to do admin roles to work towards promotion etc, but I have no interest in getting more hours or progressing to senior lecturer etc. My work outside of teaching is what I want to progress in.
Thoughts or advice?

This is a bit hard to answer without information about your contract, but one bit of information that might be useful in answering is what sort of contract are you on. Are you on a primarily teaching contract or are you on a research and teaching contract: most UK universities have a distinction between the two. If you are on a teaching contract but want to advance with your "work outside of teaching", you're in a real bind as you're basically in the wrong position to do that.

Yes, it's a teaching only contract, no research. This is why I wouldn't want to do more than my current part-time hours. My 'research' is what I do when I'm not teaching, and will hopefully eventually be what I do full time. Happy to give more detail via private message, if there is such a thing on here..?

Ah yep, see my answer below. You're simply in the wrong type of position to advance on the research front and it is unlikely to happen from your vantage point. You likely need to be looking for a new job.

Note for non-UK people: in my opinion (not necessarily those of my employers, etc etc) much of what is labelled as "teaching" in the contract consists of what I would have called "admin" when I worked in Canada. So while I agree with @GrotesqueSI that paying attention to terms in the contract is important, it isn't the end of the story

It's interesting that you mention "terms in the contract" as mine is so very vague that it only really says that my duties are to do whatever the head of department asks me to do. Which doesn’t help me to understand what I should be doing at all.
And that HoD is most often an academic who has to do the job but doesn't really want to and has no idea how. And once they start to figure it out they are replaced.

Unfortunately for you (and, I would argue, everyone) .6 FTE teaching-only contracts in the UK are, by and large, used by the Universities to squeeze out as much work for as little pay possible. They are often conceived of as a way to mop up the teaching and admin tasks that researchers with full time research+teaching contracts don't want to do, perhaps because one of them got a big grant which buys them out of teaching and admin. Thus the answer to your question is that you likely have to do a lot of admin and you likely have little choice about it if you wish to keep your job. Indeed many of these .6 FTE positions are on rolling contracts so they can let you go if you aren't performing. As for what admin you should do and what you can say no to, that is something to discuss with your line manager and your head of school. you should have some sort of work load model (or equivalent) that helps spell out what your duties are and then helps you say no to things that are not your job. It is very possible that people are piling work on you because, again, you are in this position that may have been created for work to be piled on to, but it is your line manager and head of school's job to make sure that you aren't doing too much. If they are the ones giving you the work, well, you should probably be looking for a new job.
A note on .6 fte teaching contracts because what you said above is a common but distressing sentiment. You wish to advance your career and gain promotion on the back of your research which you say you do in your unpaid time (though, of course, your Uni gets credit for). However, as you are on a teaching contract, you will be evaluated for promotion based on criteria related to teaching; it is very rare for someone to have their position regraded from teaching, and I've never actually seen it happen. It sounds to me that you are in the wrong position; the position you are in does not match your career goals and is very unlikely to lead you to the research career you are looking for.
Finally, though there is variation, "senior lecturer" is a title that everyone has at UK universities irrespective of if the are "teaching" or "research and teaching". I'm a senior lecturer, I'm on a R&T contract, and 75% of my time is pure research, with 25% of my time for teaching, supervision, and admin. You sound like you DO want to be a senior lecturer, just that you want to be in a full time, traditional, research and teaching role.

Thanks for the reply. Very helpful. Although I think my situation is a little different than you describe. Firstly, to clarify I have got permanency so not a rolling contract. Secondly, my work outside of my teaching job is entirely separate from the teaching. I don't want to do research, I want to do that job instead of teaching. Teaching is my day job, that pays the bills while I try and get the career I want going. I've discussed doing my other work as 'research' but it's not been done before and they don't think it'll work in that way for 'REF'.

But yes, I do see others, on full-time contracts, doing less teaching than me and never on campus, but getting paid double what I am. My passion work is done outside of the university in my own time and I am not paid for it. My current option is to teach until I don't need to any more and then quit. I wish there was another option, because I enjoy teaching a great deal...

I thought as a 'senior lecturer' my pay grade would go up. That would be the only reason for me to push for that promotion, the extra money would be helpful!

AHA! Ok that's a much more hopeful situation. I've come across a number of people who want to do research but take teaching contracts thinking they can convert across when, well, they can't.  I'd say in your case you're probably in a pretty strong position to say "no" to whatever you don't feel like doing. You work for 3 days a week and if what they are asking for doesn't fit into your 3 days, give it a "no". You have both the security of a permanent position and the security of not really caring about advancement to make that possible.

Your pay would certainly go up as an SL

Phew. Ok. So there is some hope! I could probably fit in what they are asking, although you never know how much time these admin roles are going to take up. I've always been told "it's just a few emails and the odd meeting" and then...

It's very strange to be asked if I'd like to take something on like this. I'm always baffled as to why they'd think it would ever be yes. If I have to, then I will. But I'm never going to want to...

What more would I have to do as an SL though? Same hours, same classes... but more admin or perhaps? It's all so vague!

That's something to ask your line manager or whatever office in your Uni manages promotions and pay. In my position the differences between the two, other than pay, are that I can now line manage other people, do more mentoring of staff, and am at risk of being asked to be head of subject. All of those are possibilities, not guarantees. My admin level is actually dropping down that I am an SL but that's because I got a research grant that takes all my time.

I'm not sure I feel I can talk to my line manager honestly. They are the one asking me to do extra admin. And I feel bad saying this is not what I ultimately want to do for a living. I know how passionate some people are about it and I entirely respect (and am jealous of) that! Ah yes, I've been warned to avoid SL because of the possibility of becoming head of subject.

And if I flag this up, perhaps they'll request I do even more admin!!

I think you could argue that on a .6 contract you don't have time to be head of subject, but who knows. I'm sorry to hear you can't talk to your line manager about it, but I don't think you should be too worried about being a little bit honest with them. Again, they have you on a .6 so them knowing you having a life beyond teaching shouldn't come as a surprise. You have to fill the other .4 of your time. But if it is your line manager saying this, perhaps the thing to do would be to request a review of your work load model (or whatever the equivalent at your Uni is)

That's the thing I guess. I have no idea if I'm doing plenty already or am currently getting away with murder, and if I flag it up I may get lumbered with more...

I'm not sure how you would do it, but can you try to find other .6 contract workers in similar departments? Although workload would likely be department-specific, it could still be a useful comparison.

Agreed, talk to others then. A casual "So...who is on a .6 teaching contract in your subject" to colleagues who are a little bit distant might turn up some names. I know who is on a .6 in my subject, for example, so if you asked me I could tell you.

I wish I knew people in other departments to be able to ask...

I come from a freelance background where I was paid by the hour or the day, and only got paid for the exact hours I did onsite. So this is all very strange to me...


text:
Is it possible to be enrolled into a PhD programme in electrical engineering with an integrated UK masters?
I'm an undergraduate in London South Bank University. After I finish my four year integrated master programme, can I directly apply for a 3 year PhD programme in the UK or Europe? Likewise, if I apply for PhD programme in the US, can I skip a year or more from a five-year US PhD program?
Some notes: I'm doing research in electrical engineering. My GPA is 3.9 on a 4-point scale.

I don't know how things work in EE departments, but based on how things work in UK maths departments, one could certainly enrol on a 3-year PhD (in maths, in the UK) having just completed an integrated masters (in maths). However, particular EE departments in particular universities may have certain preferences -- it is worth trying to contact the departments you are interested in applying to

Based on my subjective experience and what I've seen of friends: You can apply and be accepted to a PhD in the UK with an integrated masters (friends). You can apply and be accepted to a PhD in Europe (France - me) with an integrated masters - as long as you've written a dissertation during your final year. You can apply and be accepted to a PhD in the US with an integrated Masters (friend), but you can't skip any of the prereqs. But this is university dependent and overly-broad and it's a question for your admissions officer(s) at the prospective university (or universities).

@ la femme cosmique first thanks for your reply , secondly did you mean that I would be accepted in us phd for 5 years or will I be able to skip a year or 2 from the 5 year phd us program due to having an integrated masters i had family circumstances that already made me postpone one year of my undergrad studies so i want to hurry up .

@h.hamid based on what I've seen, you would be admitted to a PhD programme in the US in the same fashion as any US student finishing a bachelors degree would, you would still need to take classes / quals. Bear in mind that a US BSc is 4 years and a IM is 4 years. This is how it is viewed (even though the IM is much much more specialised). However this is based on a friend's experience. This is really a question for your admissions officer in the US and will likely change between universities. If you want a 'faster' PhD I urge the European route, which is what I did, so I may be biased.

full disclosure: my background is physics/astrophysics and my friends were astrophysics/experimental physics. EU normally requires 5 years total education (3 year license and 2 years master) but I had zero problems being admitted with a UK MPhys because I provided my dissertation. I am a PhD student in France presently, My friend who went to the US went to Denver, CO. YMMV for other countries/universities.
Getting prerequisites dropped in the US is a tough business, most admission officials want to avoid it.

You will have zero trouble being admitted to a PhD programme in the UK with an IM. Your only trouble will be funding if you are non-UK or non-EU. Your decision should be based on what you want to do afterward. If you want an academic TT job in the states, you almost definitely should do your PhD in the US. If not, go to Europe or UK.

@ la femme cosmique thanks again for your reply. actually im an Egyptian and I want to avoid funds and if possible get a fellowship so the uk route is blocked for me . but aren't there any exceptions made in the us for special students im asking if i was able to prove to them that i master the first two years courses maybe by taking there exams before i enter.

im asking this because my older brother had just a pure math bs and got exempted from masters and was allowed to start phd directly in central euroean university Budapest by proving to them through recommendation letters that he mastered the master courses im already going to have an integrated masters

@lafemmecosmique Can you please turn your comments into an answer so that I can vote for it?


text:
Should I include my preprints in Google Scholar after their publication in a journal, if they have been cited?
I published my manuscript on a preprint server (bioRxiv) a few months ago. We then submitted the paper to a journal for peer-review and we are currently at the final stages of it. In the meantime, my preprint has been cited by a couple of papers that were recently published.
Is it OK to include both the preprint and the accepted paper on my Google Scholar page to account for all citations of my work?

Not an answer. When your paper is accepted/published you should consider contacting the people who cite the preprint so they can update the citation.

You can use the "merge" option in Google Scholar for the published version and the preprint.

@MoisheKohan You should write that up as an answer ... perhaps adding a bit more detail about how to achieve/find the merging.

From the Google Scholar instructions:
Select both versions of the article and click the "Merge" button. You will then see both citations for the article listed. Select the best citation to the article (you can edit it later if you wish) and click "Merge". This will merge the two versions (preserving all the citations).


text:
If I get an encouraging but noncommittal response from potential advisor, should I continue to pursue other potential advisors at this school?
Hoping someone can shed some light, or at least quell my worrying. Probably the latter. Anyways I emailed a professor with just an introductory email, I had read some of his work and would like to speak about my opportunities at the university if he had the time. He replied the next morning simply asking me to send my undergraduate transcript. I send it off and a week later I get this:

I think your background and qualifications are interesting, and I would strongly encourage you to consider applying to our graduate program. If you have the opportunity, I would also suggest that you physically visit us at XXXX before applying to see whether we have what you are hoping for.
Do let me know if you have questions.

I guess it sounds encouraging, but my fear is it may just be him being kind. My question is if I should continue to pursue other potential advisors at this school? Thanks for any light you can shed on the subject.

Encourage you to apply in a graduate program of his department is not the same as agreeing to be your advisor, since a) you might not make it (get accepted) to the graduate program b) he might choose other students over you.

It doesn't sound like he is just being kind. Using the wording "strongly encourage" is a good sign. Many US universities do not let individual professors have much of a say in a admissions and his response may be a reflection of that.
Furthermore, many professors are not willing to commit to advising any students before they have been accepted. It sounds like this professor wants you to apply and would be open to talking more if you are accepted (or are visiting).
You can continue to look for advisers, but I'd imagine most of them will say the same thing. It's never a bad idea to see what else is out there, but it's hard for many professors to say much this early in the process.

Good analysis. Note that written materials only reflect part of the student's personality, most advisors will want to get a more direct impression of the student.

This relates to a whole bunch of other questions about whether you should stop searching for jobs after you get an informal offer, etc. In the end, the top answer is always the same. If it's a good opportunity, good job! But, keep all of your other options open until it's formalized.