text:
May my distinguished referee award be withdrawn if I inform the editors that I've actually left academia?
I left academia years ago and am self-employed, but haven't stopped refereeing papers for one of the journals I published a few papers in. Now I've been informed by the editors that I've been selected as a distinguished referee. They are going to send me a certificate and publish a note honoring me and the other distinguished referees.
Here's the catch: I haven't updated my institutional affiliation on their referee portal since I left academia, so they believe I am still employed by the last institution I worked at. And they are going to include that institution in the honoring note as my affiliation.
I'm afraid that if I notify them that I am actually not employed by any institution, they will change their mind and withdraw the award from me, for it would look super weird if they published a note honoring someone outside academia as their distinguished referee. To inform me about their decision to withdraw the award, they might just refer to some allegedly existing internal rules so that I couldn't really complain.
But if I don't inform them about that, it will create a potentially troubling situation both for me and for them, for the institution might react, "Hey, this guy left us ages ago, so would you please publish a correction."
I really want this award, so I want to avoid any risk of getting it withdrawn. After all, I've been selected on the merits of my reports and have done great service to the journal. And the award would look really nice in my CV as a recognition of my expertise.
What should I do? Is there indeed a risk of getting the award withdrawn if I play it straight and tell them I am not employed by any institution? Should I rather ask my last institution whether they don't mind if I use them as my affiliation to get the award? Or should I try to arrange some affiliation with some institution asap, e.g., as a self-funded visiting scholar?

UPDATE: I feel I have failed to bring my point across, so I'd like to explain why exactly I think the editors may withdraw the award. Of course, the editors have no doubts about the quality of my reviews. It was the main criterion. The real problem is this: how will it look if the editors, in effect, publicly admit to sending manuscripts for review to an individual who is outside academia and not affiliated with any institution or even a business company? It raises questions and thereby somewhat undermines the reputation of the journal. To make things worse, I haven't published anything since I left academia years ago. The editors know about my expertise from my reviews, but how can the scientific community know? So, I'm afraid the editors may get simply unwilling to trigger unnecessary questions or rumors in the community by giving me the award.
More broadly, I think the honoring note is not only a thank you to referees, but also a way for the journal to show off, "Hey, look who is refereeing for us - Great People from Great Institutions." It's supposed to add to the reputation to the journal. And giving the award to someone outside academia does just the opposite, no matter their actual expertise. It's simply a move against the reputation of the journal. My last institution, where the editors believe I still work, has a big name, and I'm afraid this may have been a hidden factor. Also, I went through the list of all past recipients of this award and found no one unaffiliated with any institution.
So, despite the three answers suggesting I should play it straight, I am still not really convinced it's the wisest move. There are relatively ethical workarounds mentioned in my question. I even think that telling nothing might actually be not a bad idea. Even if the institution asks to publish a correction - which is not very likely - the award will have already be given to me, and I will have no problem admitting to having left the institution and having failed to update my affiliation data. After all, I did work there.
I hope my point makes better sense now, and I'd appreciate more insights, especially from people who worked on editorial boards.

UPDATE 2: Thanks for all of your answers. I am going to play it straight. And it has occurred to me there's one strong reason for the editors not to withdraw the award: if they do, this will put them in bad light if I spread information about it.

Did you leave because of retirement?

@Buffy I didn't. I work outside academia now. To be precise, I am self-employed.

Maybe I'm a bit naive about how the world works, but I would have thought they (and others) would be even more impressed by your accomplishments upon learning that you left academics several years ago. Maybe the award is as much for their image/prestige as it is for yours?

@DaveLRenfro They might get impressed, but I'm afraid they might also decide to withdraw the award. The situation is highly unusual, so I find it very hard to predict what the editors will do

Does your self-employment have a name? Being "President of Sci152Consulting" might read differently than "Self-Employed", even if they are functionally the same.

Honestly, in the professional society I am a part of (which chooses our awardees), we would not care about affiliation. However, we do value non-academic (professional) contribution to our society.

I understand your concern, but I think you should inform them because not doing so is clearly -- at least it seems to me -- not a correct course of action. If they wind up doing something silly (what it seems to me) as you are worried about, then hopefully realizing that they are acting silly will help ease your loss.

Lots of referees are not in ‘academia’.

My vote to close is due to the fact that only they can say what they would do. I doubt it would be a problem, but you have to accept that it could be. But telling them is the right course of action.

@sci152 Can I ask you for tips on how to make money teaching tutorials privately??

@user354948 The Internet abounds in information about this, but if you have a specific question, ask it on this SE, and I am sure you will get some answers, possibly including mine. I think such questions are on-topic here because they are related to academia.

I think "Why do journals give reviewer awards?" is a separate question...

@DaveLRenfro "hopefully realizing that they are acting silly will help ease your loss." It won't. I spent many days refereeing papers. I deserved the award as they chose me. And if I am stripped of this award just because of this affiliation issue, saying that I'm disappointed will be a huge understatement

"I will have no problem admitting to having left the institution and having forgotten to update my affiliation data" Saying that you forgot to update it, after this discussion, would be a straightforward lie.

why did you spend days reviewing papers? was this your masterplan to be awarded this award? what does this award bring you?
I feel you dug a very deep trench that leads nowhere, and now you are asking how to get out the last chip of gravel from the trench ... surely a huge effort, not sure about the results from this effort!

"...they might just refer to some allegedly existing internal rules so that I couldn't really complain."  Are there not clearly stated rules or conditions for participating as a referee?  If you are in compliance with their criteria there should be no problem.  If, however, there is a stated requirement that you remain affiliated with your institution then clearly you haven't done that and must now face the consequences.  Read the terms and conditions, it really should be that simple.  Secret, alleged rules have no place in such an environment.

It's true that some academics have less than 100% respect for non-academics. But surely, many academics retire into a post-institutional life where they continue to make an invaluable contribution doing exactly the kind of thing you describe, like reviewing papers in their field? Or move into industry where they can apply their expertise gained from their academic careers?

A little anecdote: one of the most prolific contributors of quotations to the OED was a country vicar, and eventually the publishers decided to acknowledge his many contributions. At this point it emerged that it was actually the vicar's wife who had been posting the letters for many years, continuing to do so after his death. Once you've decided to acknowledge the value of the contribution, you have to be prepared to discover new things about the contributor.

Probably this could be a very much shorter question.

I worked on editorial boards of 3 journals (for the record, my journals do not give referee awards). Academic/business affiliation is completely  irrelevant for us when choosing a referee; what matters is the relevance of person's prior work (typically in the form of publications) to the paper. That's all.
Regarding specific questions:

"How will it look if the editors, in effect, publicly admit to sending manuscripts for review to an individual who is outside academia and not affiliated with any institution or even a business company?" - it will look just fine. A journal is judged by the quality of its publications. The community knows all too well that sometimes referees/editors make mistakes and accept faulty papers that have to be subsequently withdrawn. As long as your journal does not have this problem, everything is OK.

"It raises questions and thereby somewhat undermines the reputation of the journal." - no, it does not in the slightest.

"To make things worse, I haven't published anything since I left academia years ago." - this is irrelevant.

"The editors know about my expertise from my reviews, but how can the scientific community know?" - scientific community judges the quality of journals by other parameters. Typically, the community trusts editors to do the right thing. This trust is undermined by faulty publications, but that's a separate issue.

Thanks a lot! Finally I have an answer by someone who has worked in editorial boards, and it sounds very relieving

You overestimate the impact of your institution or being an academic. People invite you to review articles because you are an expert in the field, not because you are a professor or work at Big Name Institution. Conversely, being a professor or working at Big Name Institution does not automatically make you a good reviewer.
The chance of your award being withdrawn is effectively zero, and the only thing that is likely to change is that they will update your affiliation in their honoring note (the name of your current company should work).
Edit:

Of course, the editors have no doubts about the quality of my reviews. It was the main criterion. The real problem is this: how will it look if the editors, in effect, publicly admit to sending manuscripts for review to an individual who is outside academia and not affiliated with any institution or even a business company? It raises questions and thereby somewhat undermines the reputation of the journal. To make things worse, I haven't published anything since I left academia years ago. The editors know about my expertise from my reviews, but how can the scientific community know?

These things really do not matter. Nobel prizes have been awarded for research that was undertaken outside of academia (example). Currently we are also seeing cutting-edge research coming out of e.g. Google DeepMind. The fact that these researchers work outside of academia does not affect their ability to conduct peer review in the slightest.
If you left academia years ago and have not published since, then that is a problem, because it indicates you will eventually cease to be an expert in the field. However, that has evidently not come to pass (or you are still working in the field even though you are not publishing), since the editors still find your reviews valuable.
So yeah - don't worry, the only thing that's likely to happen when you tell the journal is that they will update your affiliation in the honoring note.

"the name of your current company should work"  There's no company. I am self-employed and haven't registered a business name, for it's not mandatory where I live.

You're still over-thinking it. They know how to deal with it.

I have seen self-employed or retired people write "Independent" or "Unaffiliated" when asked to list an institution. Perhaps that would work for you.

Another example of someone publishing out of academia and getting a Nobel prize would be this guy who wrote 4 groundbreaking papers while working in a patent office. He was called Einstein or something.

@sci152 Where I live, registering a business with a fancy name costs you £40 and a £14 renewal fee every year. And I can call myself “Company director, Xyz Company Ltd.” Which is actually true.

For whatever it’s worth, I did a brief investigation of the APS’s list of outstanding referees. This list is long and it doesn’t surprise that most people are from universities and similar, but it’s also not so difficult to filter out lines containing Universi…, Institu…, College, etc. You then end up with a list that is small enough to manually search. The remaining affiliations contain amongst others:

Daimler
Hewlett-Packard
Unilever
General Atomics
Raytheon BBN
OEwaves Inc.

Thus, at least one publisher did grant referee awards to people in industry.

Clearly you need to tell the journal that you have left academia and no longer have that affiliation. And I think you should apologize for leaving it on their referee portal.
I think the chance of them withdrawing the award is low, as you did the work for which it is being awarded.
I don't think you should ask your former institution whether they mind, or try to arrange a visiting scholar affiliation. These things would not be honest.

I even think that telling nothing might actually be not a bad idea.
Even if the institution asks to publish a correction - which is not
very likely - the award will have already be given to me, and I will
have no problem admitting to having left the institution and having
forgotten to update my affiliation data. After all, I did work there.

Sure, you did work there, and you forgot to update your affiliation. But now you admit it here, and you admit it to yourself, so you honestly cannot say anymore "I forgot about ...".
First point: why a distinguished referee is so important for you? It seems it is more important for them, to show they have referees from BigName Universitites.
Second point: the saying "I forgot to update my details for the past X years" it is an extremely poor excuse, it will reflect extremely badly on you (a reliable referee one that is withholding such informations?) and on the journal (no due diligence checks).
If you really have a strong need in having the reviews you peformed publicly recognized, join Publons and try to be the best in the metrics there ...

I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's hard enough to get people to actually review papers at all, much less keep the referee portal up to date.

@user3067860 you are mixing up cause and effects. It is hard to find reviewer because it is a task so lowly valued that no one really cares about the referees, the editorials are just ready to offload all the work and all the responsibility to them. Keeping the referee portal up to date is just one of the example. They do not care about it, but you can be sure that if you did not update it, they will be ready to jump at you and use you as a scape-goat for whatever problematic publication you reviewed.


text:
How exactly should I change research groups during the PhD?
I am a PhD student in physics at a US university. I am currently in my third year and I do not feel that my research interests are perfectly aligned with that of the group. Besides a mismatch of research interests, the advisor (PI) is a senior person and it seems difficult for me to interact with him directly aside from a 2 min talk during the group online meeting each week.
Now, there are several people in the department that I like their research better. However, I do not actually know how to approach the situation, since I actually don’t know if they are willing to take me as a PhD student. Let’s suppose two possible scenarios:
A) I go talk first to the other professors and see if they’re interested in working with me. In that case, I have a feeling that I’m doing this behind the back of my advisor. Also, they will ask me which group I’m in, so I’m not sure what they will think when I tell them that I’m currently in professor X group
B) Talk to my advisor first, but then I would be very worried about what will happen if the other professors whose work is interesting to me are unwilling to take me as a PhD student.
Which one of these options should one take?
I also have this question: if I’m working in a certain group, can I just study whatever I find interesting in the subject, then contact and collaborate with other professors in the department not in my group? More precisely, if my group is interested in a subject X, but there's a nearby subject Y that I find much more interesting. Can I just work on Y in parallel and contact other people in the department working on Y?

Please only ask one question at a time, otherwise the question will be closed due to needing more focus.

Yes, you can go talk to people, expressing interest. If they are interested in you then you can explore changing with them. But note that it will probably cost you time if you switch. This might be acceptable (but see below).
If you come to an agreement with someone else, have them speak to your current advisor, perhaps along with you, to work out the details of the switch. They probably have more insight into how to keep the waters calm and smooth. If your current advisor is that busy it might not be a terrible disruption for them.
And, yes, you can collaborate with whoever you like, though you need to meet current obligations and expectations. Ghosting your current group or advisor is not a good career move. A wide circle of collaborators is a good thing for almost every researcher.
But the other path is to continue with the current group/advisor and finish the degree. This is probably the shortest path, though it might not matter too much in the US (three years in from a bachelors isn't really that deep). Once you have a degree and a secure position (hard these days) you can decide on your own future research direction. People do change; sometimes quite dramatically.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What would my appropriate title be?

I'm a first year Biomedical Science student, who's currently taking a gap year. Lucky for me, I got the opportunity to help out a PhD student with her research. What would be my appropriate title? I've once told my cousin about this and was kinda annoyed by how I wasn't getting paid but then she says it's because I don't have a degree yet. Things I do in the lab would be do experiments (I'm in charge of a control cell line), help her collect data from the experiments and analyse them.
On top of helping out in the research lab, I'm also contributing to a review article (under the same supervisor, just different projects). What would be my appropriate title? For now, I'm only helping out with their abstract, conclusion and references. I've read somewhere that that's not enough to be considered a contributor.

Titles are normally assigned by others, usually according to some process. A university confers degrees, for example, and a monarch confers knighthood.
But what you are doing descriptively fits the definition of a "research assistant". That is normally a title, however.
"Undergraduate research contributor" not being a recognized title would be seen as descriptive and accurate.
You can ask the supervising professor you are working under what an appropriate "title" might be. Hopefully you are getting something for your work, since you aren't being paid. Learning might be enough, but being exploited isn't a good thing. You should almost certainly expect to be acknowledged by name in any resulting publications.

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


text:
I have a PhD from Russia, is it realistic to find a postdoc/job in a field unrelated to my degree in the US? Should I do another MA or PhD?
As mentioned in this very good post (How) Can I switch from field X to field Y after getting my PhD?

In some cultures/fields, it is common to take a short master’s degree, summer school, or “boot camp” in field Y to come up to speed and make some connections. The UK, for example, offers conversion courses, as Sammy Gerbil tells us.

However,  my situation is somewhat tougher than the ones described:

We just moved to the US on permanent resident visa which allows to work, and I don't have any English publications (first one is coming out soon related to natural language processing)
My degrees are unrelated to a high degree (BA in computer science, MA/PhD in Media with slight emphasis on linguistics and NLP) and they don't seem to interest recruiters in the US.
I want to continue research in sociology/demography and get at least some research-related job in the US (I don't know what can it be, any recommendations on possible job titles would be really helpful in my search). During the job search, I try to accent on my experience as a computer scientist/developer, but despite my expectations that doesn't seem like a skill sociology research organizations want to use.

Currently I work as postdoc in Israel (now remotely) in  the public health sector, mostly I do projects/publications related to computer science, natural language processing and some statistics/data science.
I thought that finding a postdoc in the US since we moved here would be easier, but it looks like a Russian degree, a postdoc in Israel and changing the field is quite a stretch.
I am 38 and consider doing either MA or PhD again. Thesis MA would be easier, but could be more expensive since it is less likely to get funded, I think (not sure!).
Can you please share your thoughts what to do to get noticed and hired and what to look for now and after postdoc? One thing which I don't understand, should I aim for tenure, can't I just work as non-tenure researcher, maybe as research assistant if I am ok with a modest life-style?
Do you think independent institutions like Ronin institute can be helpful in my situation?

related/duplicate: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path

@Sursula thanks for the link, however my specific situation is the degree from a country which US doesn't really recognize on that level, maybe doesn't recognize as a degree at all, not sure

Is a russian degree not recognized in teh US? I am from the EU, so I have little knowledge about that. Anyway, also related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162664/how-is-east-european-phd-viewed-in-the-usa

Sorry, I wasn't precise in words, it does recognize officially (although sometimes PhDs have trouble with official part), but recruiters want US credentials for most jobs, unless you are an accomplished scientist with world-name, that's what I wanted to say. Thanks for link

Are you a US citizen? If not, what is your visa status (i.e., do you have the ability to work in the US)?

We are on a green card, permanent resident visa, so I can work. Thanks, I've added to the post, I understand it is important

Which universities in Russia did you get your degrees from? How much experience do you have coding? Any industry experience? These  factors might be important when looking for industry jobs/postdocs, etc. in the US.

I don't know a whole lot about the US, but from what I do know, there are lots of nonprofits working in the public health sector. If it fits you, maybe try your luck there? It sounds like recruiters you have faced are not very experienced with hiring first generation immigrants and/or not particularly interested in that. Silicon Valley is accepting on that front, but it generally favors fresh grads or people already standing firmly on their two feet. Anecdotally, Boston seems to be a popular destination among Russian expatriates, at least those in medical/biotech fields.

@MoisheKohan BA from Higher School of Economics, and MA/PhD from Russian State University for Humanities. Yes, I have about 10 years experience in software, 3 years from that as developer, 7 as tech consultant doing mostly presentations and demos. I consider industry jobs as last resort, because then I have to do research in spare time and that gets more difficult as I grow older and have children

@Lodinn Thanks! I will try non-profits like UN and others. Yes, right, I feel that in US they need just skills for industry jobs and US degrees for research jobs, that's my feeling. I don't want to join industry now as I really enjoy postdoc, but I don't know what to do after this postdoc, that's the problem:) Boston, yeah, popular place, Russia had strong STEM traditionally, so biotech looks like the right place for expats, I might try that if no other doors open.

Oh, now I see what the issue is. It is a whole lot harder to get a Russian degree in humanities recognized abroad than a STEM one, and it is not hard to see why. HSE and RSUH are both strong schools though, and you must have studied there when they enjoyed a measure of independence. This is unfortunate. Recommendation letters from Western countries (Israel is, ironically, a part of that sphere) might open some doors, but you know that already. From the humanities angle, you would need to lean on your portfolio/networking.

I'm going to do this as a comment as it's not really an answer to your actual question. Try looking for the terms "Computational Social Science" and "Social Analytics" in your job search. You probably want to badge yourself as a data scientist in social science

@JenB, Lodinn, Thanks, that's really helpful

Found a related article about a somewhat similar situation  https://www.science.org/content/article/daunting-doable-job-searching-after-postdoc

Hey everyone, after many attempts, I got invitation for interview for a postdoc in AI/data science in public health with possible transition to staff/academic track. That is really good news, I guess if it works I can slowly transition from AI in public health to demography by writing joint publications with faculty - assuming somebody there will be writing papers on demography/sociology?


text:
Prospective employers tell me my field is obsolete. How can I reinvent myself?
I'm currently a young researcher (PhD + 1 post-doc) in robotics. During my PhD I worked on a well-known topic in my field, having (based on what the permanents around me said) quite good results. Afterwards, I landed a post-doc with one of the world-leading experts in my specific area of expertise, for which I was over the moon, and I'm still having notable results.
Since the end of my post-doc is coming up, I started looking for an assistant professor/permanent researcher position (this is in the EU). When I started speaking with prospective employers (i.e., universities and research institutes, not in the private sector), the response I got was quite hard for me: my area of expertise is obsolete, and applying today as an expert on my main topic simply won't fly.
Now I don't know what to do. The most obvious answer would be to seek another post-doc in a different field, but I have a family, and it's getting increasingly difficult to relocate every few years. With 1 year left on my post-doc, I plan to try to integrate new topics in my research, but I am not familiar with the literature outside of my area of expertise, and I don't know if it can be a feasible plan at all.
So my question is: if you had to change research direction without leaving your current team/position, how would you approach it?
I realize it's a broad question, so please let me know if it is too broad, I will try to focus the scope of the answer further.

Edit to answer questions in the comments.
Q: Do you agree with them? How come you didn't notice you work on an obsolete topic?
A: In hindsight, I do agree with their assessment. The "boom" of publications was ~20 years ago, and, while there are still teams working on this, they are all people that were there during the boom. In fact, what I was told was "while we do work on it, the topic is so mature that it doesn't make sense to hire someone today to work on it". I guess the reason why I didn't see it coming is that the people around me were enthusiastic of my work, and told me that it would be easy to land a permanent position afterwards.

1) I assume that when you talk about your field, you do not mean robotics, but some subfield thereof, correct? (Of course, we cannot give you advice on robotics here, but it’s helpful to understand the scale of things and speaking about it.) 2) What’s the rough time scale for a research project in robotics?

@Wrzlprmft 1) Yes, of course. I edited the question. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by "research project". Let's say that the grant which is currently paying my post-doc was for 6 years. If you mean more like "from idea to finished paper", I would say around 5-6 months for more practical stuff (with testing, experiments, etc.) and maybe 3-4 months for more theoretical results (I did both).

If you mean more like "from idea to finished paper" – Yes, that’s what I meant. — Some further questions that came to mind: 1) In what contexts and how often were you told that your field is obsolete? For example, did you apply for general robotics positions and this was the reason for rejection? 2) Do you agree that your field is obsolete? (I am a bit surprised that such claims come as a surprise to somebody in such an applied field.)

@Wrzlprmft 1) I applied in teams that work on my topic, but not exclusively. There are no teams that work just on what I do. I've been told this 3 times now, but honestly, I don't expect the answer to change in the future. 2) I do expect this question a lot, so Ianswered in the main question. Tl;dr: there were warnings in hindsight, but I trusted the judgement of people around me.

Worth noting that academics rarely have anything useful to say about commercial interests. Your expertise may very well be valuable for many, many years to come. Just not interesting to academics.

Your field/topic didn't become obsolete overnight. Can you find out where graduates and post-docs from your labs for the last several years went? If they've pivoted, what did they end up doing?

"the people around me were enthusiastic of my work, and told me that it would be easy to land a permanent position afterwards" - I'd start with asking those specific people the same question and what recommendations they have today

There's a song about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KACt6YhOyY

I’m a professor of robotics, and might be able to provide some more nuanced/specific advice. Do you feel comfortable sharing your subfield here?

Do you really want to stay in academia? Or would be an industry research job be an alternative? Must it be a tenure track leading to a professorship or is some other academic job like a national lab (like in US, France, Germany) or non-professor faculty job (like akademischer Rat in Germany) a possibility? Widen your perspective!

Suppose you work in an extremely narrow field: Nuclear powered monochromatic robotic underwater nine inch basket weaving. Suppose that you write the seminal paper in that field, effectively killing it off. What do you do?
Well, there are a lot of closely related fields in which you have some expertise, even as suggested by the name of the field itself. Look to those fields. I doubt that robotics is dead at this point, for example.
Just don't focus so closely on "my topic". Everything you write successfully, closes that specific thing down a bit. Think about how the things you know and that contribute to that topic, also contribute to other things. Look there for opportunities.
Your background has, I hope, prepared you to learn and given you experience in methodology that can be applied to other topics.

I understand your struggle, as I’ve been through a similar experience. I started my research journey in nanotechnology, and by the end of my PhD, I was told that my field was considered obsolete. It took significant effort to reinvent myself and transition my expertise to public health. My advice would be to use this time to modernize your research focus. Start by conducting informational interviews with principal investigators in emerging fields to understand how your expertise can align with current trends.
To approach this transition, identify emerging topics by reviewing recent conferences, journals, and workshops, and find overlaps between your expertise and these areas. Use transferable skills from your current work to bridge into new fields, dedicating part of your time to exploratory or interdisciplinary projects that align with both your expertise and trending research. Leverage your current network for collaborations, upskill strategically with online courses, and focus on publishing reviews or perspectives that demonstrate your adaptability. Utilize the remaining time in your post-doc to build a CV that highlights your interdisciplinary potential and frame your expertise as a foundation for contributing to new areas. If you’d like more insights into how I made my transition, feel free to ask!

RE your last sentence: yes, I think people would be interested in this. Certainly your specific experiences and lessons learned, as someone who made a similar transition, will be more useful than generalities like "upskill strategically" and "highlight your interdisciplinary potential."

@cag51i don't know his field so I can't advice him concrete situation

First it’s good to realise to realise where you are at: All other things being comparable, it will be difficult for you to outcompete somebody with expertise in the target subfield. However, if the entire field of robotics isn’t massively shrinking at the moment, you still have a chance in whatever subfields are currently expanding and thus do not have enough “home-grown” and otherwise qualified applicants to fill all positions. The tricky part is to find those subfields.
One efficient way to do this is to use the job market to let the field find you: Apply to all robotics (or similar) positions, as long as you feel remotely qualified and the effort remains manageable – bonus points if there is overlap with your current expertise. Only if the targeted subfield is currently expanding, will you have realistic chances of acquiring a position. Obviously, you need to be prepared for an increased rate of rejections. Given the lengths of the respective hiring processes, the right time to start applying to jobs is probably now (if I understand your situation correctly).
Now, at this career stage, many positions will expect you to come with some research plan of your own, and this obviously takes time and creativity. But trying to come up with a research plan matching a given position may be a way to find out whether a target subfield suits you and you may also find ideas of what to pursue in the next year. Ideally, application processes only require you to put in a major effort when you make it past the first stage.
During applications, I suggest being open about your qualities and the challenges you will face in a given position. Highlight your experience in general robotics research, possible overlaps, working independently, advising students, teaching, etc., while acknowledging that you’ll enter a new subfield and probably want a mentor for this, etc.

While doing postdoc, there is always a trade-off between versatility vs. expertise. That is, one can go for becoming an expert in a specific sub-field, by sticking to the same area of research or one can (more or less) deliberately take postdocs focused on somewhat different subjects (or even inter-disciplinary fields) thus being open to a wider range of scientific pursuits. Both have obvious advantages and disadvantages - competing with somebody who spent all their life in a single field is hard... but having broad expertise opens more opportunities. The latter may be of special importance for couples where both partners have promising careers and have to compromise between best employment and opportunities and the necessity to be in the same geographic location.
Things get even more drastic when one moves to industry - with rare exceptions the academic specializations are of little interest in industrial setting - what is valuable is the side-skills - rigorous undergraduate training, experience of research work, experience in scientific writing and otherwise presenting results to public, collaborative experience, etc.
Plenty has been said and written about the transferable skills for academics moving to industry (just the first link that popped up in Google), and it is worth focusing on this, even if you intend to remain in academia. In other words, what have you really learned to do, while working on a highly specialized subject? (Rather than trying to become an equally good specialist in another highly specialized subject, which is probably what is meant by reinventing oneself.)


text:
Mathematics Office Hours in Europe
I am a BSc student of Mathematics in Austria. I've been studying more advanced courses on the side (diff geo) to further my knowledge. I would like to attend contact/office hours of some professors to ask them questions about math and get to know them.
Is it normal in Europe to go to office hours weekly and talk mathematics in their area of research? (of course being prepared with good questions and things I've tried to solve them)
Do professors like being visited or view it as extra work?
Is there a difference between the EU and US office-hour-culture?
I appreciate any personal experience as well.

Are you asking about your current university or about faculty elsewhere?

Generally European universities. It would be difficult to get input on my current university, and of course the answers vary from uni to uni.

And do you mean in-person visits or email/phone/etc.?

In Person visits. I have no idea what the culture is and how one should do it, so I'm seeking for input.
What I have seen, in the US it is normal to come to office hours and ask for help with HW and such. I haven't heard anything about EU.

Your understanding of the US seems correct. If I've published office hours it implies I'm willing to meet people then, though I'd need to prioritize my own students. But others are welcome as time permits.

The usual way would be to talk to your professors (which teach you) and ask them to introduce you to other professors (preferably from your uni).

Coming unannounced (and unknown) would be almost always seen as extra work, I feel.

Probably the most sensible way would be to communicate through email if we could meet for such and such reasons

Like @Buffy my office hours are meant for student visits, and I would prioritize students in my current classes over others.  If the coast is clear I would certainly meet with other students.

"Is there a difference between the EU and US office-hour-culture?" I'm wondering again and again why people keep asking about "how this works in the EU", or about the "EU culture regarding this or that topic". The EU consists of currently 27 countries, with a large number of different languages and very heterogeneous historical and cultural backgrounds. There is no reason to assume that people at universities in, say, Lisbon, Naples, Marseille, Ljubljana, Eindhoven, and Aarhus, would do things in the same or at least in a similar way.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80524/limits-on-one-student-using-all-of-ones-office-hours

In the U.S., I knew of one professor who definitely would NOT want you to come (unless there was a serious research angle to the benefit of the professor!)  Of course, this can vary by person, culture, location, year (how busy is it currently)?

There are positive and negative things to say, and it will hugely depend on what courses somebody teaches, and how many students from these courses use the office hours and for what reason.
It is a pleasure to talk to curious students who have a proper interest in the field, so these are in principle always welcome. However it is in fact working time, and I can use office hour time for something else in case there is no student. As there are always too many things to do and never enough time, we won't complain for sure if nobody turns up to office hours either (I work in Italy and for the courses I'm currently teaching mostly there aren't many students who turn up, so in fact it's better if students let me know in advance that they will come because then I have it on my radar and won't forget the office hour because nobody turned up three weeks in a row).
Or on the other hand there may be so many students that more time is needed than reserved, and this is of course hard to manage as we all have lots of other stuff to do.
So by all means use the office hours, even if it's not about material specifically covered in the course taught by the same lecturer; however have a look at how much traffic there is and try to not overdo it (if every student came once a week, it would be impossible to handle unless course sizes are tiny).

Thanks for the advice! I find the last paragraph a great rule

In the UK office hours are normally reserved for students currently enrolled at the University. Often they are restricted to students attending courses of this professor. Sometimes separate office hours are allocated for students studying at a specific course (aka module) of this professor.
Meeting general public at office hours seems a reasonable idea, but for some reason I never heard of it while in the UK.

"Often they are restricted to students attending courses of this professor." Could you elaborate a bit on how such a restriction is implemented in practice? I'm in Germany, and if a student would like to ask me something, they could for instance just knock on my door. If I'm in office and have a bit of time left, I certainly won't send them away. I'm having difficulties to imagine who could restrict this, and by which means.

@JochenGlueck I am not sure if you would call it a restriction in Germany, but imagine a dialog: -- Hi, Prof, I've got a question on convergence of Fourier series -- Hi, Which module is it from? -- Oh, it's not from a module, just smth I am interested at. -- Oh. Do you study any module with me? -- No. -- Oh. Well, the converge of F.s. is a topic you can find in many textbooks. Now if you excuse me, I see my students also waiting with a question. Have a good day.

@DmitrySavostyanov: Yes, obviously you can restrict access to your own office hours for students which don't attend any of your courses or modules. Maybe I misunderstood the wording in your answer ("office hours are normally reserved for [...]", and "Often they are restricted to [...]"), which made me believe that somebody else (the university, the department, whoever), were imposing such a restriction - which made me wonder how this is possible in practice.

I am sorry if my language is confusing. In my experience, in the UK many restrictions are informal and are a product of a collective agreement that is somehow maintained without a central authority. Customs and traditions, rather than laws and orders.

@DmitrySavostyanov: "in the UK many restrictions are informal and are a product of a collective agreement that is somehow maintained without a central authority" Yes, it's the same way in Germany. I think I was simply misreading your answer. (Regarding the topic at hand, I think at least in my field - pure maths - it wouldn't be common in Germany to send away a student who has a question if they are not enrolled in one's courses. That might be a cultural difference.)

I work in the UK but have studied in Italy.
When I was a student, I'd shoot an email and ask for an appointment to talk about XYZ. At worst, I was told that it was not possible, but it happened rarely.
Now that I'm sitting at the other side of the desk, I'd only expect students attending my courses to show up during office hours, but I'm also happy to see those who would like to talk more generally about academic topics relevant in my field (economics). Office hours do take quite a bit of my time, so I never complain if only a few students show up (or none at all). When overcrowded, I give priority to those students who informed me in advance and/or have more relevant questions about the courses I'm currently teaching.
My own strategy is to publish my office hours on the course webpage (only visible to enrolled students), setting different times and/or days for different courses (when feasible with other duties). For everyone else, I ask them to request an appointment by email. So, were you coming to see me, you'd probably fall in this last category and I'd be happy to see you as time allows.
My colleagues have similar arrangements.
I've had a few students who knocked on my door to ask "What's up with economics these days?" without showing that they did some independent Googling beforehand. While I'd politely answer, I don't find that particularly enjoyable. I'd much rather see and talk to students who show up to say "I've seen [this] and [that] are on these days, but I think [this different but related thing] is more interesting, what do you think?" or "I'm interested in [this problem] but I'm having troubles {starting, finding literature, thinking formally, understanding this paper}."
In conclusion, I'd say that office-hour culture in Europe is indeed different than the American one, although I've never experienced the latter myself and I've only heard from friends about it. But if you wrote to me with a set of clear questions in mind (they need not be formally clear, they only should be motivated by some goal), I'd be more than happy to schedule an appointment. I'd expect colleagues in any other discipline to do the same (but YMMV).


text:
Should I cite open source software libraries I used to create my bachelor thesis project?
I am finishing my bachelor's thesis, and I built an explainable ai and data visualization tool.
For that, I used libraries like d3.js, svelte, tailwindcss, docker, nginx, fastapi, pytorch, tensorflow etc.
For some, pytorch, tensorflow, optuna, they ask you to cite them, so I included it, but I realize now that I used the others to the same extent or even more.
But I am not sure if I should cite these too.
I am sorry if this is a bit of a silly question. It is my first academic writing experience.
Thank you for your input.
PS, I found this: How to cite software used to produce data/images? but it doesn't quite apply, because unlike the examples there, these libraries are used to produce my project and I couldn't have done it without.
edit: reading the second answer in the comment posted by anyon below I decide to cite most of them. Though I do find that the answers there are very handwavy and I am still not sure whether I should or should not.

Also related: Should I cite all R packages I used?, Should I cite all the open source python packages I used like numpy in my paper?

I read the first one, not necessarily, for one, as with the link I shared I feel its not quite the same.
For example, I built a data visualization tool, I think the libraries might be relevant.
But that doesn't answer the question, nor does the answer in the link which IMHO is very handwavy, do I want to give credit? if yes, then yes?
I was hoping there is some rules

@Anyon the second one is a different type of question, I would not cite all packages nor would I ask that because it would never end.
It's more, do I cite everything that I used extensively to build the project and is vital to its working?

In order to answer your question better, why do you think you shouldn't?

@AzorAhai-him- thanks a lot, to be honest I don't know and I am a little lost.
I've been adding them but I am not sure if it is all that relevant and it "feels" like I am doing it wrong.

The general rule for citations is to cite what you use. Usually this means giving credit to authors of papers, but it can also apply more generally to software systems that you depend upon and that provide substance to your work. If you use a particular browser or IDE you don't need to cite it, since it adds no substance. But libraries can be different.
And the fact that it is open-source makes no difference in the need (or lack) of citation. Don't confuse copyright with plagiarism. Open source means you don't need prior permission for some things, but doesn't change the citation issue.
The underlying idea is that you don't want to write in such a way that a reader might infer that you created things that you actually did not. That is a form of plagiarism. It is better to over cite than to omit citations in edge cases. Citation is a guard against charges of plagiarism. It may not be possible to know the authors of open-source projects, but you still give them credit by pointing to the work itself.
One way to do this, rather than inline citation, is to have a short section at the end of your work in which you name and link to those libraries and systems on which your work fundamentally applies. For internet resources, give the dates on which they were last accessed, since such things change. Version numbers, etc. are also helpful.

Oh, that is a very good explanation. So, when I say, I used d3.js to render the visualizations it is very clear that I didn't do it myself, would you still suggest to cite it?

If you point to the source, not just list the name it is a citation, actually.

Oh, so, do I also have to add the reference with author of the package and link in my references, in this example like ... I used d3.js [xx] ? Sorry for the newbie questions :-)

How you do it is less important than the fact that you make the source clear. If you get to publish it later, then an editor might have requirements for format.

Got it, thanks a million!!


text:
How detailed should I be in my bachelor thesis about data visualization and xai about the performance of specific models?
I have another question regarding my bachelor's thesis.
I built a data visualization and explainable ai tool.
Now for that, I have integrated some basic machine-learning models for users to interact with.
I included the basic hyperparameters and results, but I feel that is really not so important and I wonder if I include too much because the performance isn't really important for my project. I wasn't going to include it at all in the beginning but my Professor gave me some feedback, not specific on this part but in general that I should elaborate on the solution more and make my contribution clear.
Additionally, if I report the results, should I also upload scripts that readers can use to reproduce?
I have them but they're not pretty and this is another reason I honestly don't want to go into too much detail because it adds a lot of extra work for something that isn't entirely relevant (it wouldn't matter if the performance was better or worse) to the project.
Thanks a lot for your advice in advance

This kind of question is what advisors are for. So just ask her/him. We don't know what is going to factor into your grade, your advisor does. If we think it should not be there, and your advisor does think it should be there, than whose opinion is going to count?

@MaartenBuis thanks, I know and that is a good point. Unlike the usual where my peers have a PhD as advisor I don't and my Professor wanted to supervise directly, I notice how busy they are and thus I am hesitant to check for things that I think might be a bit too trivial for them (but not for me). I think I'll try putting it somewhere in the appendix.

No, you should ask. If your professor wanted to supervise you directly, then answering that question became her/his/their job.

You are both sub-optimizing and engaging in self-defeating behavior (sorry) if you don't work with your advisor making assumptions that they are "really" to busy to work with you when they have agreed to do so. It is a habit, perhaps, that you need to break.
How detailed you need to be is a local question since the thesis will be judged locally and such expectations vary greatly.
You have an opportunity to work with someone knowledgeable. Take advantage of it. Express to them, if you like, that you are a bit insecure in asking questions of them and then judge the response. They can, most likely, point you to resources you need without a lot of effort.
Note also, that in agreeing to supervise you directly, they have expressed some interest in you and your work. Take advantage of that.
To answer your headline question directly, how detailed you need to be depends on your field and topic and how you approach the topic. We can't evaluate your work, but your advisor can. You might need very little detail and you might need to be extremely detailed with anything in between possible.

Personal note: While it wasn't exactly the same issue, I went through a period in my studies when I didn't speak up when I should have (self defeating). It cost me three years of study and landed me in an extremely unfavorable academic market.


text:
Non-CIFRE Industry PhD in France
I am exploring options in different European countries for doing an Industry PhD related to my work in industry. France's CIFRE program sounds like a good fit for my objectives, but I am unfortunately ineligible for it: as I have worked with my current employer (who would be my industry sponsor) for more than nine months, a CIFRE application would be rejected. I am wondering: in France, is CIFRE the only method for doing an industry PhD, or is there another program I could explore? Thank you for any insight!
Edit: To clarify, a CIFRE thesis is a specific mechanism which subsidizes a doctoral thesis being done by a researcher at an company jointly with a research laboratory. I am looking for options for a similar arrangement, but without this specific form of contract (as the ANRT [the government body responsible for approving these contracts] requires the company employee to have been employed for less than nine months at the time that the dossier is submitted to them for approval).

(The question is old, but for other students wishing to have a perspective, here is one)
Doing a CIFRE thesis is not the only process for your thesis to have a close tie with industry. It is certainly possible to perform a thesis in a laboratory with a grant that is partly or entirely funded by a private company: this is a setup that I've personally witnessed quite a few times, speaking from an engineer's point of view in the industry. If the company is serious, they'll provide personnel to follow the thesis closely, and taking much of the role of an academic advisor, in addition to the thesis advisor (and often, the co-advisor) you'll have in the lab. Do make your homework to check if that would happen in your case. It is in your best interest to have someone from the company following you regularly.
There are caveats. The company will not fund you directly, but the lab, which in turn will pay your salary (you'll thus technically be an employee of the lab). If the company pays only part of the grant, the rest must be sought elsewhere, in the form of another grant. There will be a contract between you, the lab, and the company specifying the use of data, know-how from the company, authorizations to publish, etc (but you'll have the same issues as a CIFRE student). On the upside, it is possible to have a provision in the contract making it possible for you to be welcomed at the company for some duration, generally with the status of a trainee. Thus, it is possible for you to make a claim that your thesis has close ties with industry. On the downside, you'll will have the typical salary of a "standard" PhD student, which is less than a CIFRE student (among many other subtleties).
Another caveat is that, you'll end being generally more in the lab than "on premises" in the company, so you might be driven more by the lab than the company, and do a work that is too remote to the actual industrial needs. This is both a blessing and a curse. It can be the origin of some frictions between the company and the lab. But that can happen in a CIFRE thesis, too.
Beware of the time needed to find the additional funding if the company does not pay everything upfront. The grants can only be applied for at specific dates, which may, or may not match your own schedule. The process to get the contracts in place can also be rather long.
Another way to work on something that is tied to the industry, is to find a PhD thesis that is indirectly funded by some research contract that is passed by the company to the lab. In that case, you'll generally have a priviledged contact with the company. The difference between this setup and the one I described above, is that the PhD is here only a way for the lab to get some manpower to work on the deliverables, while the previous setup is a way for the company to specifically fund a PhD without using the CIFRE process.


text:
What sort of information should be included in an academic's Letter of Recommendation (for species distribution mapping jobs in Germany)?
I graduated at the start of Coronavirus in the UK and have worked in entry-level jobs in healthcare (eg "coronavirus support worker") for much of the time since then. I am now sending speculative applications for paid internships in [faunistische] "Kartierung" in Germany at various environmental planning bureaus.
One of the larger bureaus requires documents in addition to the CV/Cover letter to be submitted as part of a speculative application, and I received advice that including my degree transcript and a letter of recommendation could strengthen my application.
I asked a member of staff who taught on a lot of my courses whether she would write me a letter of recommendation, and she has said that she is happy to. However, she would would like to know whether I have any more detail on what needs to be included in the letter.
I did an unpaid internship in writing for an online educational resource with her in 2017. I don't know whether she would actually need her memory jogged as to what I had been writing about for the internship, or about any feedback she had been giving me for coursework at the time. I also don't know if I should summarize what an environmental planning bureau does for her, or provide her a link to the website of one of these bureaus. I just don't know enough about what I need to specify.

For a recommendation letter it seems much more important who it is for instead of who is writing it. How is this related to academia?

This might be on topic at https://workplace.stackexchange.com/, but not here. Few users here have much knowledge of "species distribution mapping jobs".

Well I thought this question might relate to Academia as quite a lot of the staff at the environmental planning bureaus I have come across have PhDs (I assume a Biologist with a PhD would have input in reviewing my application). However I am obviously not an academic and I am not sure that the environmental planning bureaus count as academia. workplace.stackexchange doesn't actually have any Q&As to do with species distribution mapping jobs either - would migrating to gis.stackexchange.com instead be ok?

@Buffy after reading your comment, would I be right in thinking that I need to use my knowledge of "species distribution mapping jobs" (which few people on here have) to pick out relevant achievements or activities from my degree program (which might require me to spend time reviewing what I did in each module), and send a list of these to my former supervisor? Sorry for this basic question, my social skills are a bit iffy and I have been wondering if my former supervisor might be meaning "detail" which would be more straightforward/less time consuming to provide.

Are these positions that you want to apply to at some kind of research institute, presumably associated to a university or are they private businesses? In the first case, this could be considered on topic here, in the second you should move this to the workplace stackexchange.

@quarague I’m ok with the question being migrated to workplace.stackexchange if necessary (although I have a feeling the advice from there will be not quite as good as on here or on gis.stackexchange). First I will put forward info about some of the bureaus I'm applying to:
ifuplan.de/de/
Institute providing services to eg the Bavarian Academy for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management (ANL). Publication: https://www.ifuplan.de/images/ifuplan/projekte/oekosystemleistungen/OneEcosystem_2017_Germanys_Ecosystem_Services.pdf

fauna.de/profil.html
freelance faunistic expert who is a guest lecturer on courses at the ANL and is the Deputy Chairwoman of the Bavarian State Association for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. She says she is a state-recognized specialist in reptile/amphibian protection in Bavaria.
Publication: fauna.de/texte/DGHT-Tagungsband24_Amphibienschutz-an-der-B305.pdf
bau-vogeler.de
Bureau which can supervise/publish PhD theses.


text:
Does the location matter in a PhD choice?
I am passionate about research, I believe in science and I get excited about it. For this reason, I have decided to start a PhD. Last year I started a PhD in a foreign country but it turned out to be unsatisfactory from different points of view - the work was poorly organized. The supervisor was not providing guidance and knowdlege and I decide to try to change the situation. I won other 2 position in Europe and this was a surprise for me, it means that people really see that this is what I really want to do. Having 2 options was not easy and in the end I decided to go in a very good university in Sweden with a very good project and a lot of industrial connections. My boyfriend is currently living there and he told me how well the PhD are structured in Sweden. I am very very sure that on the working aspect I will have absolutely no problems. I have a lot of fears when it comes to the weather. I have lived in central Europe and it was not sunny everyday and for me it did not matter. Soon I will have to leave my country for Sweden and I started to not sleep at night, to abuse a little bit of alcohol (I am ashamed of it, but yes) and sometimes I cry all the time saying that I do not want to spend my years there. When I think about the project and the university I am very very happy, when I think about the country less, because when I was there, I had not really a good feeling. I do not want to quit my second PhD. I want to start a new PhD being sure of what I am doing.
What should I do? It would probably mean that I will not have a possibility anymore and so I have to give up the idea of getting a PhD. I don't know why I changed my mind, if it is just fear or I really do not want to go.
Please, do not close the topic, I really need an advice. How much social life and location can make a difference in your life? I would like to hear some experiences.
Thank you!

Your health and private life is much more important than getting a phd. I have seen students/postdocs who "lived only for their research" and fell into big holes when there was a problem in their reseach life (no funding/big change in department structure/unclear job situation).

I'm sorry that you feel conflicted about your situation but this question isn't suitable for Academia SE as it is entirely down to your own personal preferences; we cannot tell you whether you'll enjoy living in Sweden or not. I voted to close for that reason. Anyway, try not to judge a book by it's cover. I know many people who studied in Sweden and all really enjoyed it (even an Italian friend who thought the weather would be a challenge -- in fact, he loved the really long, light summers). I expect if you give it a chance, you will too.

Very off-topic advice before this is closed: Sweden is not that different from Central Europe. While the customs may be somewhat different, there are enough similarities in history, architecture, economy, even languages, that you won't feel alienated after moving. In addition, with your boyfriend there, it'll be much less of a problem to create your social circle, so you are in a very good position to try. And if you don't like it - not the end of the world. Good luck.

You should discuss this with a mental health professional.

Last year I started a PhD in a foreign country but it turned out to be
unsatisfactory from different points of view - the work was poorly
organized. The supervisor was not providing guidance and knowdlege and
I decide to try to change the situation.

I'm sorry to hear that, but this can happen in any country!

I won other 2 position in
Europe and this was a surprise for me, it means that people really see
that this is what I really want to do.

It could mean that, but it's hard to know exactly what something like this means. Maybe the reason you got in was because your grades were excellent and the admissions committee found their interactions with you to be very professional.

I am very very sure that on the working
aspect I will have absolutely no problems.

I appreciate this, but please be careful. I've heard about too many PhD projects go sour, even when the student thought the lab they were entering was a perfect fit. To be "very very sure" that there will be "absolutely no problems" seems naive to me, just be careful not to expect "absolutely no problems": there's always some problems in a PhD journey.

I have a lot of fears when it comes to the weather.

10 million people live in Sweden every day, and 20 million live in Scandinavia.
That being said, some people can absolutely not be comfortable in hot/humid weather, and some people can absolutely not tolerate the cold. Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and Malmo are really not too different from a lot of other cities in UK, Northern Europe, Toronto, New York City, Montreal, etc. Nights may be longer and days shorter, but for millions of people this is reality. I have friends at Umeå University, and that is far enough North that weather may start to become more of a concern. Is your university going to be all the way up there, or further South like the other cities I mentioned (you don't have to say the exact city if you don't want)?

I have lived in central Europe and it was not
sunny everyday and for me it did not matter. Soon I will have to leave
my country for Sweden and I started to not sleep at night, to abuse a
little bit of alcohol (I am ashamed of it, but yes) and sometimes I
cry all the time saying that I do not want to spend my years there.

I think there's something more going on than just the "weather". Your boyfriend is there, you have spoken of the Swedish research group with utmost high regard, and Sweden is considered one of the best countries in the world to live in, and most universities are in the South which isn't too different weather-wise from Canada, northern USA, northern Europe, and UK (hundreds of millions of people's homes!). But feel free to say if the university is Umea University or in a similar location.
There's not enough information to know what underlying causes might be causing you to abuse alcohol, but universities in Sweden also have world-class health care and mental health care (counseling, therapy, psychotherapy, etc.).

When I think about the project and the university I am very very
happy, when I think about the country less, because when I was there,
I had not really a good feeling.

You say "very very happy" for the university and project, but "less happy" for the country. It sounds like the pros outweigh the cons. You did not say "very very unhappy" for the country and "less unhappy" for the university and project.

I do not want to quit my second PhD.
I want to start a new PhD being sure of what I am doing. What should I do?

What is the other option?

It would probably mean that I will not have a
possibility anymore and so I have to give up the idea of getting a
PhD.

Also, there's nothing wrong with not getting a PhD either. I know people that quit their PhD programs and hate themselves for it, but they are further along in their careers than I am, and I'm jealous of them for it. Scientific American has this article called "The Emotional Toll of Grad School" which is another reason why I feel that doing a PhD can sometimes be over-rated.

I don't know why I changed my mind, if it is just fear or I
really do not want to go.

It seems like there's something more than just the weather, that's bothering you :)

Please, do not close the topic, I really need an advice. How much
social life and location can make a difference in your life? I would
like to hear some experiences.

I lived in the following countries:
Age 0-21: Canada
Age 21-25: UK (PhD)
Age 25-26: Japan (postdoc)
Age 26-27: Singapore (postdoc)
Age 27-28: Japan (postdoc)
Age 28-29: Canada (postdoc)
Age 30-31: USA (postdoc)
Age 31-Now: Canada
During those years I also spent several months as a "visiting researcher" in Germany, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and other countries.
Every country has it's differences, and in some of those countries I sometimes literally felt like I was living in Hell because I could speak the language, plus the culture and expectations of me were completely different from what I was used to. But I don't regret a single one of those experiences. All the ups and downs made me what I am today, and I'm smarter and wiser than I would have been if I stayed in one country my whole life. If you can speak English, language won't be a big problem in Sweden, and the culture won't be too different from what you're used to in Central Europe. I know people that had terrible experiences in some countries, but I've never heard of it happening in Sweden (that doesn't mean it can't happen, and I appreciate that everyone is different and that you have specific concerns about the weather).

The city is further South like the other cities you mentioned, it is not so in the north like Umeå. I do not have a lot of space to write, but I would like to thank you for your words. It really helped. for the PhD, quitting comes with a high emotional price if you are a sensitive person (and I am one of them). I guess that I have to give a chance to the place and people there, the other option is giving up without trying.
I feel better today, even if I think that I have to speak with a professional as someone in a previous comment pointed out. thank you again! :)

I do not want to quit my second PhD.

It would be unfortunate if you needed to quit -- but not the end of the world.

I want to start a new PhD being sure of what I am doing.

In my experience, it is rare to ever be completely sure of what you are doing.

How much social life and location can make a difference in your life?

A lot.

What should I do?

Ultimately, only you can say.
That said, you've already accepted an offer in Sweden. You're very happy with the university, and apparently your boyfriend is there. In your shoes, personally, I would go and try to make the best of the situation. It won't be for the rest of your life, and if things go badly then you can reevaluate later.

We can't really answer this question because it's about your preferences. It's obvious you are expecting to suffer in your new program. Is that worth quitting your program? That depends on the severity of what you are experiencing and how treatable your problems are. Based on what you wrote, you don't really have the experience of living there yet and are suffering from anticipation anxiety. It's quite strange to judge Sweden harshly without having given it a fair shot. Moreover, things that you don't like about a country are frequently treatable (sun lamps, for example).
Even if it is difficult to live there, is it worth quitting the program? If it were me, no. You are only going there for a few years, not the rest of your life. If it were me I'd bear down and get it done without complaining. In fact, I did not like the location where I got my Ph.D. at all, but I never thought of quitting.
But I may have very different preferences than you do. You say you are passionate about research, but I think maybe you need to take stock of your true preferences and see if that is really the case. Based on what you read here, I don't see research as your primary motivation. Quite frankly, if the location of your Ph.D. is that major a consideration for you, you may be happier with a different life than the one you will get by pursuing a Ph.D.
Good luck, whatever you choose.

Hi, thank you! I love research, but I think that no one should suffer or should get depression in order to do a PhD. This is the reason why I changed program. I saw myself very unhappy in the long term. Of course this may happen also in the new program, because I do not know , but I wanted to give me a second chance.


text:
Filling the page limit with proofs Vs Neat smaller paper with dense appendix?
So I am trying to submit to a top-tier conference in AI. It is focused towards theoretical work. I have a couple of theorems which are the main results and I prove some other completely unrelated algebraic results as lemmas to prove these theorems. The proofs and lemmas are quite dense and quite long and despite my best efforts to clean the notation, they still look ugly. Furthermore, Its a two column format making the paper look really shabby.
I easily meet the page limit right now, but I am not sure the paper looks inviting to a reviewer. An option I am considering is to move the proofs to appendix and write good proof intuitions or sketches. But I am pretty sure I will be half to a full page under the conference page limit.
What would you suggest ? Considering the reviewers are not required to read the appendix ? Also considering the fact that papers under page limit are widely thought to be contributing less.

There is no reason or advantage to "filling up" the page limit. What you want is something readable with a good conceptual flow. So, the second option may be preferred.
Whichever you do, however, it will be the reviewers that judge. Either way may win or cause problems. It is harder for conferences, with fewer options for revision, but for a journal there are opportunities for revision if the reviewers object.
A second reason for the second option, assuming that your proof sketches are sufficiently convincing is that it will be a more comfortable read (quicker) for most reviewers, though some will want all the details. And if you point to the appendix, those folks can be satisfied as well. It would be different if you weren't providing those details at all.
Dense and turgid prose (or proofs) isn't fun to read.


text:
Contacting a researcher for academic queries, but he/she may be a potential reviewer?
So I have a paper submitted in a conference which requires double-blind review.
But while this paper is under review, I had a query in a paper I was reading of the very same field. Now, the authors could be my potential reviewers.
Is it fine for me to contact them regarding the query ?
PS: My paper is on arxiv as well.

What could be potentially problematic with this?

Ignore the "complications". It is overthinking the purpose of double blind review. If you want to ask them questions about their paper it is perfectly ok to do so.
After all, anyone in your field could be your reviewer in a double blind process. You don't need to be paralyzed just because you submit a paper.
If there are any ethical issues they are on the other side in deciding how and when to respond to you.

Agreed. This is not about diplomatic negotiations. It is about two separate things. Do not try to be manipulative of the world or it will come back to bite you.


text:
Citing a Book in Projects/ Research Papers?
I am Currently Working on Writing my Undergraduate Minor Project Report. For that I need to Study Various Topics from Various Books.
Now, My Process is to Read the Chapters Thoroughly and then write them in my own words (Basically Paraphrasing). But this isn't like Paraphrasing a Paragraph or a Statement. It's a Whole Chapter.
So, Should I Cite the Book from which I read the Chapter ?
If Yes, Then How ?, Because the Topics would be Spread over a Range of Pages.
Now, I know about Research Papers that this will be Considered as Basic Knowledge and Would'nt be cited. Am I Right ?

My Process is to Read the Chapters Thoroughly and then write them in my own words (Basically Paraphrasing). But this isn't like Paraphrasing a Paragraph or a Statement. It's a Whole Chapter. How are you avoiding plagiarism?

I was Thinking that, Since this Knowledge is the Basis for the Presented work, And Has been taken from a Book Instead of Some Else's Direct Work. It's not Necessary to cite it.

You're wrong: Taking something from any source (the original or some later publication on it) and passing it off as your own is plagiarism. (Some exceptions exist, e.g., you needn't cite Georg Ohm. That said, if you were to read a textbook on Ohm's law and paraphrase the content without citation, that would be plagiarism.)

Should I Cite the Book from which I read the Chapter ?

Yes, doing otherwise is surely plagiarism.

If Yes, Then How ?, Because the Topics would be Spread over a Range of Pages.

You could open with: The following paraphrases A, B & C 1.

I know about Research Papers that this will be Considered as Basic Knowledge and Would'nt be cited.

The phrase Basic knowledge is subjective. Regardless, over-citing is harmless.

I'm going to write these Topics in the Theoretical Framework Section of my Dissertation. Instead of Just writing the Definitions, How should I Explain these Topics without Paraphrasing ??

Since, I have studied these Topics from the Book Itself.

I'm Really Desperate Right Now, The Deadlines are Closing In and I have a Lot to do, And I'm Really New at this Process.


text:
Applying to Computer Science PhD Programs
I am a computer science and math double major, and I am applying to computer science PhD programs this fall. I have a 3.9 GPA and have done research with 3 professors during my time in undergrad. I have one publication and three poster presentations, and I will hopefully have at least one more publication before I apply (but due to problems in the research group, that might not happen). I can get two great letters of recommendation, but the third might be lackluster. I go to a regionally known liberal arts school, but it is most certainly not a household name.
With my qualifications out of the way, I want to study machine learning. My prior research was not in machine learning per se, but it did involve aspects of it. I have done work in bioinformatics, computational statistics, and computer vision. My professors are not especially well known in their fields, but they do publish frequently. What tier programs should I apply to? My advisor thinks I should apply roughly on the threshold of top/mid tier programs, but I would like more opinions.
On a tangent: Some schools have both computer science and machine learning PhD programs. Should I apply to both? And do some schools admit generally with no specialty? If so, would I have a better chance with them since machine learning is so competitive?

At least in the top-4 (I'm an ML PhD in one of them and helped pre-screening candidates) Machine Learning has become incredibly competitive. We almost always asked for 1 publication (if possible in ML, although not always). Third recommendation letter is probably irrelevant, the two most relevant things were the most informative letter (the professor that knows you best) and indication that you can become an independent creative researcher (1st author papers, out-of-ordinary projects or accomplishments). GPA almost didn't matter. Note that I've heard some of these criteria are different outside top-tier.
Applying to CS will likely increase your chances of getting in. I know many students doing ML in non-ML labs, but this also has downsides and you have to find an advisor that accepts you. Not applying to Reinforcement Learning within Machine Learning will also increase your chances (at least last year).
It's hard to know if you have good chances of getting into top schools, but if you have money and time I would apply widely, it doesn't seem impossible. I applied to 10 schools and have friends that applied to 15. It's pretty stochastic, I got into 3 of the top 4 but got rejected by multiple others.
Focus on doing good research in ML, if possible a workshop at a top conference, and impressing your current advisor.
Best of luck!

Thank you for a thoughtful answer! I am going to apply to as many programs as finances allow in hopes of mitigating the mentioned stochasticity. One final question: as you said, I do have a better chance getting into CS, so for the schools with CS and ML programs, should I apply to both if they allow? Or is that just a waste of energy and money?

one thing to keep in mind is that in PhDs you apply to professors more than schools. Yes, the admission is done at department level, but you should mention professors you're interested in. Thus, check whether each school has professors that excite you. You should also definetely look for exciting professors in less famous universities.


text:
Is it correct to use citations as nouns for scientific papers, such as dissertations of articles?
Which of these two is better accepted, or preferred, for scientific papers?
THIS
The model detaches the calculation of the vertical velocity from the
equations system, and focuses on the longitudinal velocities instead, leaving the model
as a 2D equations system. [Mintgen, 2018] provides a description for the properties, characteristics and limitations of SWE in a detailed manner, some of which will be further addressed an extended for a deeper analysis in Section 2.1.
OR
The model detaches the calculation of the vertical velocity from the
equations system, and focuses on the longitudinal velocities instead, leaving the model
as a 2D equations system. In his dissertation, Florian Mintgen [Mintgen, 2018] provides a description for the properties, characteristics and limitations of SWE in a detailed manner, some of which will be further addressed an extended for a deeper analysis in Section 2.1.
Or if you have any other accepted way of doing it, please feel free. Thank you
References
[Mintgen, 2018] Mintgen, G. F. (2018). Coupling of Shallow and Non-Shallow Flow Solvers An
Open Source Framework. Dissertation, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Muenchen.

If you are going to submit your paper to a journal, the journal will have a preferred style. Best to check it now rather than having to change all your references the day you want to submit...

My field (biomedical) mostly uses numerical index so the first method is foreign to me. A tangential comment is that for the 2nd example, there is no need to mention that it's from dissertation, it does not add anything. Omitting it can also omit the gender pronoun, which can sometimes be hard to determine for names that apply to multiple genders or in foreign languages.

@eru-cs If you write "Smith et. al's study [26]" or "Miller's algorithm [16]", the statement is about the work and not the researchers.

There’s no unique answer to this as citation styles (in text or in bibliography) are somewhat personal or institutional.  Some good ways of getting guidance include

Get one or more previous theses on the same topic and follow those models,
Look up established journals in the field and use their models (if they have a common one).

I personally prefer your second alternative but would then use numbered referencing to avoid name repetition, v.g. “In his dissertation [1], Mintgen ...”


text:
Should I apply for a second masters degree (PSI master's program) after already having done a dual degree in physics?
I am a master's student in India, supposed to apply for PhD applications this year. However, I am still unsure of what I want to pursue in my PhD program. Meanwhile, I came across PSI's one-year master's program which seems like something I would like to explore. Should I apply for it or another master in the same subject will be a drawback for admission committees when I apply for a PhD in the US? I am also a bit reluctant to apply this year for PhD because of the pandemic.
Also, while presently I am mostly interested in computational work related to general relativity, I want to explore more in the theoretical side, hence inclined towards the PSI program.

"I am also a bit reluctant to apply this year for PhD because of the pandemic."  I suspect this is your real question.  Apply for the PhD now if you are planning to do one later.

Could you clarify what PSI stands for?

@user2705196 Given the context, it's probably this program at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, but I'm hesitant to edit the question without OP's confirmation.

Yes, I was talking about the Perimeter Institute's Master program.

Admissions committees would be looking at research potential, if you can go there, figure out what you are interested in, do some work and publish, you will be better of doing that master's program.

I would say if you apply and are successful then it would be worth taking, I think the program in general is well-regarded but if your worried about it looking weird to have two masters degrees you could refer to one as physics and the other as theoretical physics. The program is very challenging to get into but it covers lots of material in theoretical physics, though goes through this material very fast (and the entire lecture series is online).
You will also get to know all the other participants well which will be good for networking in the future, and you will get to meet a number of well regarded researchers in theoretical physics (and because of the reputation they will probably be more likely to keep an eye on people who participate in the program).
The only thing that comes to mind is that it is possible PSI may be looking for students who don't already have a master's degree, but I have no knowledge of that and it if it is an issue, then its not an issue with respect to your ultimate goal.

Should I apply for it or another master in the same subject will be a drawback for admission committees

It's likely getting another (3rd?) master's degree won't help much and may signal indecisiveness in admissions committees.  You've already proven you can get a master's degree in a STEM subject.  It may raise concerns that you will "Master Out" of a PhD program.
It could actually work against you if you aren't publishing. You've spent double the time in grad school, you'd be expected to have more papers published than other applicants.  The university would prefer you did more research at their institution.
If you think PSI would be a good fit, then you should apply to the PhD program instead.
What you should do instead - work for a professor
Instead of getting another official degree, see if a professor will hire you part-time to work with them.  This will usually give you access to classes for free, and (hopefully) provide a great reference and research papers (both of which will help your application).

PSI is very prestigious, getting into it and finishing it successfully could be a very strong pro in an application (especially if the OP is from an unknown university, or worked with an unknown professor).