text:
How do researchers send unsolicited emails asking for feedback on their works?
I wonder how a researcher send an unsolicited email to another one asking for feedback to their work. I guess it will be something like this?

Hello Dr. X
To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z. I'm sorry if this email is not convenient at this time, but my work about A is highly relevant to your work in B, so I think it will be interesting to you too. If possible, can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? Here is the link: Human interaction with cats
Thank you for your reading, hope you enjoy it.

I wonder if the summary/abstract should be included in the email too, since the principle for asking good question is to show everything you know about it. Maybe it's not necessary, since the title of the link should prove its interestingness nevertheless? I'd like to have your confirm.
I'm also interested in the case where Y has no Z, and the link is just a collection of observations posted in a blog, not a full paper with proper citation and literary review. It is possible that the observations may have been covered in the field, but Y isn't aware of that yet.
I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a tracking method in there is fine too? Even if they finds out, they wouldn't feel insulted either, because they find that the link is indeed interesting.

Related:
• Is it appropriate (as a PhD student) to email other researchers asking about some details in their papers?
• Is it appropriate to drop by another university's professor's lecture to talk about research afterwards?
• What are the strategies for getting feedback on articles?

Personally, I would feel insulted by tracking methods no matter the contents. And they'd also greatly reduce the chance of me clicking on the link in the first place.

@nengel well I think putting it upfront is fine, and the problem is just how to write such notice. See What to write in a notice about tracking method in links? in Information Security

Why have you linked to the Wikipedia article on human interactions with cats? Is that an example of what you would send them?

@AzorAhai what do you mean? It's just a funny example

What is your motivation for doing this?  What do you hope to achieve?  Do you want them to give your work a "stamp of approval"?  If yes, this is the role of an advisor, and it is an expensive proposition.  If you want their advice, why should you get it for free? Apply as a graduate student in their lab instead or, if you have an article, submit it for publication.  That's what peer review is for.  Are you looking for a collaboration, maybe?  If so, say that in your letter.  Networking?  Consider going to a conference. What is motivating you to do this?

@Ooker It's not fine at all, but this and some of your other questions tell me that you are not looking for information but for confirmation.

@Ooker: well, I don't think it's fine and apparently I'm not alone. Even if you put it upfront, I'd think "wow, this person has no concept of boundaries, I should do my best to avoid them".

@nengel well if you know me in some other posts you may notice that I'm talking about Daoism. If you read some of its text, it seems to be about doing crazy stuff with an optimistic mind, like walking into a fire with a smile. I don't intentionally want to invade any boundary, but just want make an unacceptable thing perfectly acceptable. If I receive one such email, I will think that "ha, this guy dares to do an unacceptable thing. Now I'm curious." FWIW, the professor is a scholar about Daoism. I'm not saying he will think the same thing as me, but he surely understand its spirit

@Ooker I mean, are you sending them a Wikipedia article you wrote? a proposal? Unclear

@AzorAhai no, it's just a placeholder link, to avoid being mistaken as hiddenly advertising my work in here. I can use a generic link, like example.com, but then I think putting something funny in there is better

Hello Dr. X
To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z.
I have recently published some work on A [this should be a short
description, not just a title. do keep it short though (1-2 short sentences)].
I enjoyed reading your work on B. [now 1-3 short feedback sentences. don't go too much into detail, but make sure it shows you read the work]
I think my work might be of
interest to you, too. If you do find time to read it, any feedback
would be greatly appreciated.
My work is less than f pages/g characters (one of those two. don't use exact numbers for characters but round up to the next good looking number. don't use a font size of 8 and a big textblob without any line breaks and say it's only two pages long though ;)) long and really shouldn't take a lot of time to read through.
Link: Human interaction with cats [also as attachment in pdf form]

This would be a mail that might make me read what you wrote. (strongly depending on how relevant/interesting your description actually was)
There are several differences to your initial draft:

No apologizing: You apologize when you did something wrong. Apologizing while you do it is an odd thing to consider polite, especially when you're apologizing for bothering someone as that person having to read through your apology is actually wasting more of his time ;) Also, it makes me feel like you're asking something unreasonable. If it wasn't, why would you have to apologize?

Don't mention it's highly relevant to his work: When he reads your short description, he will know if it's relevant to his work or not. You should never tell someone what is or isn't relevant to him, especially when you're trying to get them to do something for you.

Return the favor: I'm assuming that you did read his work. Otherwise how would you know it was 'highly relevant'? Also, if you're asking him to read your work and give you feedback, it's nice if you do the same for him. If you are coming from a... let's call it lower position though, just mention what you found interesting about it and don't give actual criticism. Bonus points if you mention parts that overlap with your work.

Attachment: Now this point is debatable, as some people are more careful with attachments than with links, but for me it's the other way around. If someone sends me a link it might very well decrease the chance of me reading it. But like I said, different people are different. You also need to make sure that your attachment has a sensible name and is of course virus free if you do choose to go this route.

Needed time: This part is based on some info in one of your comments. Since your work doesn't appear to be very long, you should definitely mention that. If someone wrote me a mail asking for feedback on work they did on something (in academia) I would expect it to be a full paper with complicated calculations I'd have to understand. Meaning a huge commitment of time. So that one sentence really makes a lot of difference. That being said, I feel like page/character count is sligthly better than telling me how much time I will need to read it. You have no idea how fast I read or how much I have to look up. I do.

I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a
tracking method in there is fine too?

No! Apart from spam filters, if I find out, I will never follow any link you send me in the future again, no matter how interesting your link was. If you really feel the need to do this, at the very least tell me so upfront, before I follow your link.
It's also very difficult to measure interesting enough.

The real answer is that they don't. I'm sorry, but I can't slice it any other way. You would need all the planets to align in order to receive an answer after such an email. You are asking someone who doesn't know you and who is probably very busy (like all academics) to provide you a big favor for nothing in return. Because let's be honest, giving feedback on someone else's work is taxing. The best case scenario is that you get very vague and superficial feedback about the first page of your paper.
Instead, ask your colleagues, or people you have already built a rapport with (an advisor or former advisor, a collaborator...). Or do it the hard way and submit it for publication. You will get (anonymous) feedback. But make sure first that your paper is close to being ready for publication, because you don't want a desk rejection, and you don't want to be known as that person who wastes referees' time by submitting drafts.

I can't help but upvote this.

just to make sure, are you saying that the recipients don't answer emails like this, even if the senders are from legitimated institutes, or are you saying the person with the paper don't send email asking for feedback at the beginning?

@Ooker Recipients probably won't answer emails like this if the sender isn't known to them. People do send around papers for feedback prior to submission, but typically only to people they have some sort of pre-existing relationship with - they've collaborated, or corresponded about prior work, or have met at a conference, etc. At the very least the interaction is mediated by a common colleague ("Hey Joe, could you look at Bob's paper?"). It's less about "legitimate institutes" and more about existing personal relationships.

@R.M. I see. Thanks. I didn't realize that. But I wonder if so, then how do they have time to write emails for grad applications? They are unsolicted too.

@Ooker Do you mean something like a reference letter? In that case, the professor and the prospective grad student have some sort of existing relationship already (because they would not ask for a letter otherwise), and the professor likely has incentive for the student to succeed; they could someday collaborate, the professor could be acknowledged in other works, and helping a good student to succeed would improve their field of work. Mentors tend to make time for their mentees, but not so much for total strangers.

@KevinMiller ah I should have used grad applicants. They are as unsolicited as emails asking for feedback from other researchers, but for the latter they have "established a relationship", because their works related with each other. (I'm not saying that I have reached that level yet, I just want to know about it)

Essentially, you have three challenges that work against you receiving an answer to this mail:

You need to avoid your mail to appear like academic spam. Your email draft is rather good in that sense because it is short, nicely written, and free of the usual keywords that trigger people's mental spam filter ("submit your article", "endorse this and that", and so on). However, adding a tracking mechanism is certainly not a good idea for this reason alone.
You need to avoid appearing like a quack. Both, not pointing to an actual paper and not currently working at a university work against you in that regard. While I agree with Dan that it "should" not matter in principle, I am afraid in practice it will. I assume most recipients are considerably more likely to open an email sent from a person working at a reputable university pointing at an arxiv link or journal paper than a mail from a person without affiliation sending them a link to their personal blog.
It needs to be clear enough why it should be a priority for the recipient to read what you sent them. Quite frankly, something being interesting to my work is not enough - my to-read list currently contains some 50 or so papers, all of which are presumably interesting to my work (and some of which I need to review). There just never is enough time to actually read all of them. I think your chances of moving to the top of this list are higher if (a) there is a clear question (that is interesting to me) in the email, and (b) the material is short enough that I can read and comment within half an hour or less.

An almost unrelated anecdote - a few days ago I received a request from a person I never heard of that I should "endorse him as the greatest living computer scientist", because his government is unwilling to grant this title to him. Enclosed were a few unremarkable self-published research works, and a letter exchange between him and a rep from his local government where he tried to make his point that he needs to be officially named the "greatest computer scientist on the planet". The government rep was at least as confused as I was about the entire thing.

The email started with "As you are surely aware XYZ is the most important figure in Computer Science today." Not sure why I am bringing this up, but maybe it indicates why academics are so sceptical about unsolicited emails. There is just a lot of weird stuff coming into our mail boxes.

Point 3 is gold for me. If in the email I include (a) a question that related to their work, but somehow can be answer by my work, and (b) a sentence that it is just a post which can be read under 5 minutes, what do you think? How about not putting the link at all but just asking them questions? That may solve everything.

How did you keep your to-read list down to only 50 papers?

@Ooker If it's a question that can be answered by your work, then presumably you already have the answer. It needs to be a clear question, that you need the answer to, that the recipient is likely to be able to answer quickly based on a brief read of what you send.

@AndreasBlass for tab overwhelming (which I think is related to paper overwhelming), I copy all the tabs to be reviewed to a note and close them all in the browser. After a while I revisit the note and decide which links I still have interest with. I use Easy Copy (Firefox 52 only) and OneNote.

I just realize what I need to do is to make this as a research proposal, and ask him about whether he takes new students. Would that be a good approach? I don't think I can make my work ready to publish in a near future. It really needs a rewrite

Hello Dr. X
  To introduce myself, I am Y, in institute Z.

Looks good so far.

I'm sorry if this email is not convenient at this time, but my work about A is highly relevant to your work in B, so I think it will be interesting to you too.

Why are you “sorry”? I think it’s a mistake to apologize or use words that suggest you feel you are doing something wrong for sending the email. Sending the email is fine, and conversely, if you really were doing something wrong, then you shouldn’t send it.

If possible, can you take a look at it and tell me what you think?

This seems rude to me and decreases the chance (which admittedly is in any case quite small) that you will receive meaningful feedback. This person doesn’t owe you anything, so don’t ask them to do something: they will either do it because they are naturally inclined to do it, or they won’t. I would say instead “I welcome any comments or feedback you might have.”
Also, if you must ask a question, “what do you think?” is a bad question to ask since it is completely open-ended. Make the question precise and specific.

Here is the link: Human interaction with cats
  Thank you for your reading, hope you enjoy it.

This part looks good.

I wonder if the summary/abstract should be included in the email too, since the principle for asking good question is to show everything you know about it. Maybe it's not necessary, since the title of the link should prove its interestingness nevertheless? I'd like to have your confirm.

Keep it as short as possible. You already said the work is about A and is related to the recipient’s work on B. I don’t think any more information is necessary. If you really think anything more should be added, write something that’s tailored specifically to the person you’re sending the email to and to their interests instead of a pasted summary.

I'm also interested in the case where Y has no Z, and the link is just a collection of observations posted in a blog, not a full paper with proper citation and literary review. It is possible that the observations may have been covered in the field, but Y isn't aware of that yet.

This shouldn’t matter. Blogs can be just as interesting as finished papers, just include the link and a description of your affiliation if you have one.

I also think that if the link is interesting enough, then putting a tracking method in there is fine too? Even if X finds out, they wouldn't feel insulted either, because they find that the link is indeed interesting.

If I noticed a tracking mechanism in the link, I would delete the email immediately, so I would never get to find out if the content was interesting. (There’s also a chance the email would be filtered by various spam filters, and some mail software might preload the link contents so you would think that it was viewed even when it wasn’t. So it’s a bad idea on multiple levels.)

“Why are you ‘sorry’?” — Perhaps this is a US/UK cultural difference, but to me, as a Brit, it seems clear that this “sorry” isn’t a marked apology, it’s part of a perfectly normal politeness formula, and on the whole that’s good, since a message without any such formulas can easily come across as brusque or presumptuous.

@PLL answers on here often assume that the only relevant country is across the pond...

@PLL people overuse/misuse “sorry” in the US as well. As this article shows, I’m not the only one who finds this annoying and that it often undermines the intent of the person doing the apologizing. I suspect you’ll find similar articles that were published “across the pond”.

There are good answers here already, let me just share one strategy that has not been mentioned yet and that I frequently had success with in the past. It may not apply to every such email one might want to send, but if it does I believe it is the strategy that has the most success probability.
It is based on the observation that people will usually enjoy talking about their own work more than about some random paper you send them. Your paper may or may not be interesting to them, but their own work certainly is. A good strategy can therefore be to establish a direct connection with the recipients work or expertise. This may not always be possible, in which case I refer you to the other answers. Also in formulating such an email one has to watch out it does not come across as an obvious attempt at flattery.
So essentially my suggestion is to actually show the reader why you think that

[...] my work about A is highly relevant to your work in B, so I think it will be interesting to you too.

Maybe you are challenging their work? Maybe you have some new ideas or suggestions for improvement? Maybe you provide an alternative method? Maybe you have done an interesting experiment that connects to their theory or vice versa? Maybe you build entirely on their work and want to praise how important their work was for you? Or a combination thereof?
My trust in this strategy is based entirely on experience. I personally would at least look at the paper in case of such an email, since missing a directly related work is potentially risky.

I wouldn’t care much for such an email from a stranger suggesting that I will find his/her work relevant or interesting: I can decide that for myself.
My version would be

Dear Prof. X,
I’m taking the liberty of sending a sample of recent work of mine which overlaps with your own.  Please be so kind as to keep me informed of your own progress on this topic.
Regards,
  Y.


text:
Using the Internet to Meet Collaborators
Suppose I am a researcher who is interested in finding out what other people might be interested in collaborating on an idea with me. Are there websites or internet communities that function to connect to other people with similar ideas or interests?
I would be interested in answers in any field.

This seems to be a "shopping" question because you're asking for recommendations. That begin said, check out researchgate.net

Main problem is trust.  O researchgate, you will get plenty of interests.  However, having never worked with any of these people, how do you know that they won't run off with your ideas?

@Prof.SantaClaus I agree. I would use it as a starting place to find people doing research.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should an assistant professor negotiate for a larger yearly raise before receiving tenure?
At my university, we are informed of our yearly raise with a letter mid-summer. There is no scheduled meetings with the chair or anyone else to discuss performance or the raise -- as far as I can tell, we just wait and see what it is. It tends to be a small cost-of-living raise in the range of 3%.
Should a pre-tenure assistant professor actively seek to meet with the chair and ask/negotiate for a larger raise, or is this not done in academia?

Possible duplicate of http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1788/are-faculty-salaries-negotiable ?

I think the other question is closely related but this question seems more about acceptability (and if it affects the way you are viewed, which might affect a tenure decision) while the other question is about tradition (and is it technically possible).

@Suresh I think the link question is about starting salary and this is about an annual raise.

Should a pre-tenure assistant professor actively seek to meet with the chair

Yes!
You should insist on meeting with your department chair at least once a year, if not once a semester, to discuss strengths and weaknesses in your evolving tenure case.  Make no mistake—your tenure case started evolving the moment you signed your offer letter.  If you are doing the right things to get tenure, you need to hear that.  If you are missing something important, you need to hear that as well.  Symmetrically, if you think things are going well, your chair needs to hear that, and if you think things are going badly, especially if something in the department is proving to be a burden, your chair needs to hear that, too.

and ask/negotiate for a larger raise

Oh, I suppose, if you have good pitch.  You're not going to get a bigger raise just because you ask for it.

As in most fields, you only have so many negotiating "chips". You can spend these chips on whatever you want, but some things cost more chips than others. For example, a raise probably requires your chair to get approval from the dean and is therefore "expensive". Asking for some extra research/travel money is "cheap", especially if it is at the end of the fiscal year and there is extra money in the budget, since the chair likely controls that pot of money. Teaching load is often controlled by the chair, but does require someone else to pick up the slack so do cost some "chips". Basically you have to decide what you want and if you are willing to spend the chips to get it. What makes it difficult is knowing exactly how many chips something will cost.

It only makes real sense when you have a competing offer, which means you have been on the market this year, which means you are considering leaving, which means that the chair either knows this or will get to know this when you come to talk to them. It is unlikely that the chair will be excited to give a raise to the person who is going to leave, anyway. On top of that, as Daniel Shub put it, negotiating a salary increase means going at least one level up to ask for the extra money for the chair, and there should be a very good reason for this. Even if you just got the NSF Career award, the chair will just say, "Great, you now have the research money to support yourself -- congratulations! No salary increase, though".
Most likely, if you are going to complain about your pay being too low, you will hear a story about salary inversion, i.e., the tenured faculty in your department making less than you do, which is only justified a small fraction of the time for the deadwood faculty. So the priority will be to raise the non-deadwood inverted salaries -- these guys are here to stay -- and then address your concerns -- you are not here to stay yet, sorry -- subject to any remaining money. Having heard you complaining is not likely to make the chair want you to stay, either.
In a very rare event, you can come up with a scheme in which you bring the department more money, and then your request to see an extra cut of the pie may be legit. This could mean creating a new program/degree/track that is going to be the nations first program in interdisciplinary bubble sort or bean scouting or some other BS, but then it means that you are committing to a teaching track rather than a research track. If your research is stellar, and you want to diversify into teaching, that's probably OK; but most of the time proposals like that from a junior faculty will look weird and awkward.
As JeffE said, you MUST talk to your chair once in a while, and the annual review time is one of the best opportunities to do so. Your case was reviewed by the faculty not so long ago, so the memories of your file are reasonably fresh in the chair's head; it would be easier for them to connect the dots than it would be say in September when the new semester starts, with new students and new courses and all other hectic stuff happening in the department.

My feeling is that it should not hurt to ask, as long as you ask in the right way.
Negotiations are always tricky but having an open conversation with 'the boss' should always be a choice.
You might want to meet the chair with another issue and bring up the salary question as an additional point, as opposed to the main reason for the meeting. Also, approaching it as a question: You're looking to better understand school norms and who better than the chair to explain them to you.

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


text:
How do the completion of online courses impact a Master's application?
I see places like Coursera, Udacity and EdX offer certificates upon successful completion of course work. Also most of the people doing recorded teaching at these places are famous and well known professors.
So if someone mentions those kind of course certificates in CV or application material for grad school, does it have a significant value for the applicant?
Do you consider these kind of certificates at the same level with a grade on an academic transcript?

I think this is different enough from earlier MOOC questions to keep open.  TMNT isn't asking about inclusion in an academic CV (which most people have only after grad school) or getting official academic credit for MOOCs.

Regarding the edit, a grade based on a proctored exam could carry some weight (and I believe this is an option for some edX courses).  If it is just based on online homework or exams, then it means much less.

It will also be an issue of accreditation. The bricks and mortar coursework at those institutions is accredited. The MOOCs may not be accredited or examined during the accreditation process, especially if they are not currently counted as credit toward a degree.

@tmnt Since you have some responses below that seem to answer your question, please consider marking one of them as ‘Accepted’ by clicking on the tickmark below their vote count. This shows which answer helped you most, and it assigns reputation points to the author of the answer (and to you!).

So if someone mentions those kind of course certificates in CV or application material for grad school, does it have a significant value for the applicant?

They are better than nothing, but it's unlikely that they would have significant value.  Courses are only a small part of what matters for graduate admissions, and elementary or low-level courses matter the least of all.  Only a fraction of Coursera/Udacity courses are at a high enough level to matter, and even those courses aren't likely to make much of a difference.
I would not recommend devoting any time to online courses for the purpose of graduate admissions.  If they are teaching something you really want to understand and have no better opportunity to learn, then that's a good reason, but the learning will have to be its own reward.

Do you consider these kind of certificates at the same level with a grade on an academic transcript?

I'd look at a certificate of completion for an online course the same way I'd look at a traditional course taken pass/fail (i.e., without a grade).  It's evidence that you have done something, which shows some level of motivation and energy, but it's not evidence that you actually learned much in the process.
However, there's a bigger issue than grades here.  Ultimately, good grades don't mean that much: standards vary dramatically, the ceiling is rarely high enough to distinguish between excellent students, and even if the ceiling is high enough it's not clear that this is a meaningful comparison.  Letters of recommendation are crucial for supplying the information grades alone can't supply, and this is something MOOCs are currently unable to help with.

I agree. Grad schools tend to care about your grades in the classes you take. If you only receive a certificate of completion, the grad school cannot tell the difference between completing the minimum required effort (which they don't want) and going above and beyond (which is what they are looking for)

Well, they do know you did something. Isn't that better than nothing? Also, grades mean nothing in general, and I think that is what the last paragraph of this answers says.

@Raphael: Doing something is better than nothing, but it's not much.  As for grades, if you get excellent grades in some advanced undergrad classes, it's evidence that you have a good foundation in the field.  That's valuable to know, because not having a good foundation could keep you out of grad school, but the grades themselves won't go very far towards getting you admitted.  On the other hand, a bunch of courses without grades won't even establish the solid foundation.

I still see an inherent issue with recognising "excellent grades in some advanced undergrad classes" because graders grade very differently, but what you say is true. However, I think "better than nothing" is an answer to the question. Or, if you have completed such a course, would putting it in a CV/track record ever hurt?

I don't think it would help much, if at all, but I don't think it would hurt, so I've added "better than nothing" to the answer.

@rocinante: Certainly applicants choose the letter writers they think will make the best possible case for them, so outright negative letters are rare, but letters still vary enormously in strength and content.  I've occasionally seen what's clearly a form letter, but that's not common (and when it does happen, the fact that it provides almost no information is bad for the applicant).  If a letter is vague or uninformative, then that itself is a problem even if the letter is supportive.

Visits/interviews are nice when they happen, but they are often not part of grad school admissions (because of time and expense).  Furthermore, letters can provide information you can't easily get from an interview.  For example, a letter from an undergraduate thesis supervisor can convey much deeper and more nuanced insight into the applicant's capabilities than anyone is likely to get from an interview.

Professors who use form letters aren't doing their job, and it's certainly unfair to their students, but fortunately I don't see this happening very often when I compare letters by the same person for different students (which happens pretty often).  As for travel costs, it's common for students to apply to five, ten, or even more grad schools, and departments may get five hundred or a thousand applications.  This makes it difficult to have interviews for anyone beyond a short list of finalists, in which case you still need to narrow it down to that list.

I certainly don't think the system we have now is perfect, and substantial improvements may be possible.  However, the current system is a response to a lot of constraints, and people have settled into it pretty well (figuring out ways to ameliorate the more pressing problems), so big changes take a lot of work to pull off.  Still, it's always worth a try...

I see these places offer a certificate upon succesful completion of course work.

I agree with Anonymous Mathematician. There is a difference between completion and mastery. Graduate schools need to know that you have mastered the prerequisite material. In the future, courses like these may count for something to graduate schools if they demonstrate and certify rigor and mastery.
Currently, these courses are targeting the Professional Development market. Many industries required or encourage their employees to further their education. For professional development, usually completion of the course/webinar/workshop/whatever is all that is tracked. A future employer may care that you have taken 2 or 3 MOOCs in accounting, but an MBA program would probably disregard them.

How can an admission commitee assess mastery? (That is actually a complex question, and a good answer might help to improve the certification process of MOOCs.)

In the US, presumably, if you take a course, let's say Biochemistry, at a regionally accredited institution and get whatever minimum grade (A or B) that the committee wants to see, then the committee has a reasonable idea of how much you know about biochemistry. You probably had to make high marks on exams to earn that grade. If you instead took a MOOC in Biochemistry, and received a "complete", the admissions committee remains uncertain what marks you needed on exams to achieve "completion".

I don't know about the US, but over here professors devise the exams and grade them. Therefore, an A has next to no global meaning. In reality, grades are not even comparable inside one department, let alone universities. What gets me an A there may only get me a B somewhere else. It becomes worse if you compare grades across borders. If commitees assume something about your knowledge -- or more interestingly, ability -- from the number of A's on your record (in whichever direction), they are kidding themselves.

Raphael, I agree with you, being an A+ student must be personal preference of faculty because they were also an A+ student. Even at the same department there are professors with different grading schemes. Not even talking about  U.S/E.U and other part of the world where continents are different. eDX courses will evolve into TOEFL kind of examination in future, but still there are faculty who don't care about TOEFL scores. But natural selection will sweep these faculty too, as their competitors get access to quality human resource while they are still going the old way.

@BenNorris On Coursera, if students do more than 90% get "with distinction" mark in a statement of accomplishment, at least in all the courses I finished.

You do realize that MOOC's provide the full syllabus of their courses, and generally give a percentile ranking of the students in comparison to students from all over the world.
I'd be more skeptical about a degree/transcript from a university I have heard little about than a MOOC who's syllabus I can consider and depth which I can evaluate, in addition to the obvious motivation for learning FACT.
In addition most MOOC's clearly mention about the amount of grades they require from the students to get a Certificate of Completion.
70 % was the standard for Most Coursera courses that I completed/audited.
In addition, if Coursera is asked, they can provide (in the future) to employers information about how a student develops his code and how frequently he changes his code before committing, etc.


text:
What is the correct form of conferences/proceedings/transactions name in a citation?
I usually try to get citation from publishers website and import it into a reference manager like endnote. I have doubt about the correct form of conferences/proceedings/transactions name in citation. As an example, the provided citation for this paper in IEEE format is this:

D. Bi-Ru and I. C. Lin, "Efficient Map/Reduce-Based DBSCAN Algorithm
with Optimized Data Partition," in Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2012 IEEE
5th International Conference on, 2012, pp. 59-66.

It seems to be misplaced but as you could see in the "published in" section of IEEE webpage of the paper, the conference name is the same as this citation.
The same holds for proceedings and transactions.
Is this way of citation correct?

I suspect that the reason citations are done this way (and now we're verging on english.se territory) is to allow for meaningful alphabetical ordering/indexing.
In this case, the "IEEE transactions on" is the generic part of the name, and should not be used for alphabetical ordering/indexing. This is analogous to how in indices you'll often see things like

Korea, Republic of

rather than

Republic of Korea.

i always thought that particular case was because it is easier to keep track of 'Korea', since there are two one is 'Republic of' other is 'Democratic Peoples Republic of'

That's just it. You want to index based on the most likely term, because people will look for Korea under K. Similarly, if I'm looking for a Cloud Computing journal, I want to look under C rather than attempt to guess if it's IEEE or Transactions and so on.

Venue names are often inconsistent in such a manner. Even if you take your citations from a single source (e.g., DBLP), you will sometimes find different names for the same venue across different years.
When citing, the aims should be:

Give enough information for a reader to unambiguously find a paper
Give enough information for citation engines to unambiguously know which paper is cited
Present the citations in the format required by the publisher
Keep citations neat and consistent in style

With regards to this citation:

D. Bi-Ru and I. C. Lin, "Efficient Map/Reduce-Based DBSCAN Algorithm with Optimized Data Partition," in Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2012 IEEE 5th International Conference on, 2012, pp. 59-66.

This seems to meet 1–3.
With regards 4, I would say it is not very neat. I would do:

D. Bi-Ru and I. C. Lin, "Efficient Map/Reduce-Based DBSCAN Algorithm with Optimized Data Partition," in IEEE 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2012, pp. 59–66.

This reads more naturally, avoids repeating the year and uses an en-dash for the pages (okay, the later is being super-pedantic).
More correctly, you should probably have "in Proceedings of IEEE ..." but I always found that a waste of space.
If you're fighting a page limit, it is common practice to just write the abbreviation for well known conferences within the community (e.g., "CLOUD").
However you choose to format the venue, for the other conference/workshop citations, you should then include a similar style. In this case, all venues should include the edition (5th), the full title (International ...) and the abbreviation (CLOUD).
(And on a side note, I highly recommend switching to LaTeX/BiBTeX and pulling your citations from DBLP if you have medium-to-long term plans for researching in an area of Computer Science.)

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


text:
How can I email a CS professor looking for Phd. students?
This year I will submit about 16 applications to different universities for graduate studies at the US. However, I found that there are new professors looking for PhD. students. So as a foreign student with only a bachelor of science in computer science, how should I approach to a professor looking for students?. My background is the following:

CS major at the first university of my country
A research thesis
3 research papers in the field of the professor's interest. (not ground breaking, the first one is in a local congress the second is in an international conference indexed by Springer's LNCS and IEEE, the third is also indexed in Springer.)
3.0 GPA
I will take the GRE and TOEFL the next weeks

After all, I read 2 papers of this professor an I would like to be his PhD. student. If he would like to know me I will take a trip to the USA just to talk with him. How can I email to this professor and let him know I am an international enthusiastic student that wants to extend his work.

@jakebeal Im not asking about the process of applying to a Phd program. I am asking how to email a professor.

One smallish thing: please avoid using the word "indexed" if you actually published in LNCS proceedings or IEEE conferences/journals. The word "indexed" got a very bad reputation since organizers of some conference started sending out spam mails that mention where their proceedings will be indexed. It also sounds a bit like if your paper(s) have merely been cited by other papers that are LNCS or IEEE proceedings.

Please see http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49483/strategy-for-applying-to-phd-in-the-us/49782#49782

This is kind of a tough question.  As a faculty member, I get tons and tons of these emails and frankly ignore most of them.  I feel kind of bad about it, but the main problem is that these emails usually don't give me any (positive) information that isn't already available from the Ph.D. application.  If I'm on the committee that year, I'll probably see the application.  And if not, well, either someone will bring it to my attention and ask me to have a quick look at the folder or not, but an email isn't going to change that.
I can at least tell you what not to do.  Don't write more than 2-3 short paragraphs.  Don't use more than 70 characters per line.  Don't include attachments.  Don't tell me how much you want to work with me.  Don't tell me how hard you work.  Don't brag about how great you are.  Don't prostrate yourself before me ("Respected professor, it would be the highest honor to work with such a great scientific mind...").  Don't try to impress me.  Don't use a script to try to make a mass email look like I'm the only professor receiving it (believe me, it's obvious the content wasn't written just for me).
Do include a link to your home page, especially if it contains papers and software.  Do try to engage me about something other than the admissions process, but this is tricky because if it's just a transparent effort to try to improve your admissions prospects, I'll get annoyed, and if it's a dumb question about one of my papers, well then I might not be impressed.
Frankly, the thing that works the best is when it's not the candidate but somebody whose judgment I trust who emails me and suggests that I look out for the person.  I don't like this because A) it tends to favor people in the US, and B) I have this feeling that I'm missing out on loads of talent for the simple reason that it's much harder to identify and evaluate good people who aren't compared to people I already know.  (I will say is that if I'm on the admissions committee, you are in my area, and you have a great statement of purpose, I will read whichever publication you make sound the most interesting.  That's a big time investment, but it has definitely paid off for me as I've found some great students that way.  I could go on about the admissions process, but that's not your question.)
I guess basically the more genuine contact I or my group has had with someone not about admissions, the easier it will be to realize that I might have good chemistry with the student and read the papers.  In one recent case, one of my Ph.D. students had previously interacted with a candidate and told me that the guy was a great hacker.  I looked at the application and quickly put the candidate at the very top of my list.
addendum
Obviously what I wrote is just one professor's perspective, and faculty members are all different.  As the OP points out, some faculty actively want potential Ph.D. students to contact them and advertise that on their web pages.  And maybe for more junior faculty, or schools below the top 10, or people who just have better email habits than I do, email is a useful recruiting tool.

Thanks for the feedback. Even so if the professor explicitly says in his personal web page that he wants students, also he says email me if you are interested?

Well, if a professor's web page says to email, I guess that's a different story.  In that case you probably should mention that you will be applying.  I still think it's better if you can get the person engaged in a technical discussion, because if the two of you start talking about research then it will be more obvious if the person wants to work with you.  But I guess there's a higher-level point that all professors are different, so what I offered is one perspective from the other side, not a universal recipe for initiating contact.

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


text:
Paper from my already published PhD thesis -- How do I cite it?
Two years ago I finished my thesis, at the time I wasn't interested in writing papers but I have since changed my mind.
The thesis has been made available online by the department. It has been cited by someone else since that time.
I would like to take a chapter of my thesis and publish it as a journal paper. And based on this question here, it seems that could work:
Can I publish parts of the Ph.D thesis as a paper in a journal?
However, I have a follow-on question. Should I be citing my own thesis if I write a paper from one of the chapters?
Notes:

I would not be adding any extra analysis
I will be using the same figures

Extra for experts: Should I be paraphrasing all or most of the text? At the moment I have paraphrased most but perhaps one or two sentences remain unchanged because I considered them to be in the most clear and succinct form I could manage for an explanation.

In my field (math), a PhD thesis falls into a nebulous category. It is not "published" in the archival sense of a book or a journal paper, but it can be cited. It's only slightly more "published" than a blog post. Republishing the results in an archival publication is not considered double-publishing.  The answer by user3697176 would apply.

Yes, you can publish a chapter of your thesis as a journal paper. The two-year time lag is slightly unusual, but it's not a show-stopper. However, since the thesis has been cited already, it is possible that someone else may publish a work that extends the results of the chapter you intend to publish, which might lead to rejection. You should be prepared for that.
I would also cite the thesis, in the introduction or perhaps in an acknowledgment section (depending on the intended journal; have a look through the archives to see common practices). "Some/The majority/Most of the materials contained in this paper were previously published (in modified form) in my thesis ...".

I strongly encourage you to write the papers. In my experience, this will give your work much more credibility.
I also would not worry about rejection.
If the thesis is original (your own writing) I think no reviewer would be disturbed by you using your own work in a paper- the language and the actual text. However- in my field, journal papers aremuch more concise and require much less background discussion than a Thesis- so the text for the journal would probably need to be made much more concise than it would be in the thesis.
Go for it!! Good luck!


text:
Is a routine life achievable?
I want to have a routine life habit: having lunch at lunchtime, having dinner at dinnertime, going to sleep at 10pm, etc. After all, a healthy brain is in a health body. Moreover, while I can prioritize my thinking flow over my hunger, other people that I care can't. One or two days breaking the routine is fine, as long as the "breaking the routine" doesn't become a routine.
However, this life habit seems unachievable to me, since my brain usually isn't tired when my body is. In uncountable occasions, I can literally stop caring the outside world to focus thinking about my problem. It's not what I want, but when the idea comes it's really frustrating for me to not thinking about it. I have the idea for this question when I was brushing my teeth before going to sleep, and after a consideration I decide to open the laptop to write it down, despite knowing it will take me an hour to think about it carefully.
I have tried many things to maintain the habit: taking notes, using calendar, using task manager. Sometimes the habit slowly starts, but is doesn't last for one month. I'm not feeling guilty about unfinished work, I'm feeling guilty about losing ideas if I don't note all of them down immediately. Noting briefly is only good for simple keywords to research later, not when you have a flood of idea.
So, is there any way to maintain a routine life habit?
Related questions:

How to avoid thinking about research in free time?
How to stop feeling guilty about the unfinished work?

This question is probably better suited in the lifehacks stack exchange.

Yes it's achievable but after all it depends on your personality. All the researchers I know and I have lunch at lunch time and dinner at dinnertime. For what concerns sleep time, it depends on what one does at night: play with family, a dinner with friends, cinema, theater, tv, reading a book, a bit of work. I've met someone who was strictly regular, but they were the exception rather than the rule. During the working week for me sleep time can be anywhere between 11 pm and 1 am, and then I usually wake up between 6 am and 7 am.

Remember: ideas are worth close to nothing, actually implementing them is the important bit. You'll have lots of ideas, most of them will be crap, and if you come up with an actually good one, it means you have actually understood the problem, and it will eventually come back.

Important point missing from your question: why do you want a routine? Are you unhappy with your current life? Or is it just social pressure? Unless you understand your motivation, it will be difficult to find the strength to do it. I know a couple of academics that basically live the life of a vampire (minus the blood of virgins part, or at least I hope), and they are perfectly happy with what they do.

@FedericoPoloni My motivation is to live a healthy life and be able to take care of other people. Basically I can do that, if the ideas don't come up before bed time

I see you are having a few completely normal issues that many people in academia face.
Strict routines are good, and for some people they work wonders. But in my experience, the vast majority of people use more dynamic routines, where it doesn't matter, for example, if you've decided to go to bed at 01:00 instead of 21:00 in a particular day, as long as you are getting enough sleep.
As a researcher, get used to the fact that there will always be something to think about or to do. And since you are (unfortunately) not a robot, and your body needs rest to perform well, you have to set up some ground rules, the most important of which should be to make sure you get at least 7-7.5 (preferably 8) hours of sleep every day.
And there are different strategies how to "shut off" your brain in order to fall asleep: ambient music, alcohol, reading, a winding-down routine, etc. I've found that, for me, a good way to fall asleep is to think about floating in nothingness. Gets me snoring in a jiffy.
To help you record ideas, there is a very simple, but very effective, strategy: make sure you always have something near you to write on. Get a notepad (or notebook, or even simple printer paper) for your bedside table, you should have at least one notepad for all of your desks, get a pocket notebook to carry with you (and put it on a reel, so that you don't lose it).
So now, when you get an idea, but can't work on it at the moment, simply write it down in a concise way, and pick it up whenever you have time.
In fact, for ideas you know you won't have time in the foreseeable future to work on, or you are not sure how they fit in with the rest of your work, it may be desirable to keep an electronic list (or list of lists) of ideas, where you can elaborate ideas in greater detail, have references, associate ideas with keywords, sort them by importance, etc.


text:
Are U.K. grade cutoffs for PhDs hard?
I recently learned that most U.K. universities advertise themselves as having a minimum grade cutoff of a 2:1. I’m an American, and according to Cambridge’s website, they consider a US 3.5 to be the equivalent of a 2:1.
I did some google searching, and on College Confidential people seemed to think that that is a hard cutoff, and your application won’t be looked at if you’re below a 2:1. This really surprised me because, in the US, failing to get a 3.5 is detrimental, but by no means the end of the world, for PhD applicants. I’ve seen plenty of schools advertise a 3.0 cutoff.
Is a 2:1 a hard cutoff for U.K. PhD applicants? Is a 3.5 a hard cutoff for Americans who want to do PhDs in the U.K.? If you do a masters before your PhD, does this apply to the masters coursework?

You may find some sort of answer here: https://www.findaphd.com/advice/finding/phd-eligibility.aspx

This may be true for Centers of Doctoral Training, but everyone I know outside those institutions (including me) got into the PhD the same way you get a job. You apply, get an interview and get accepted. Yes, grade will count in the criteria for hiring, but there is no cutoff. In fact, they also ask for a 7 IELTS (English level) for non-natives, and I know people who got accepted with considerably less English.

In another note: in the UK very very rarely someone gets into a PhD without a masters. The discrepancy in this with the US is likely because a PhD in the UK is generally 3 years, not 5~7 as in the  US.

@AnderBiguri In my experience, this isn't true at all.

@AnderBiguri Sorry, I was replying to your second comment in the UK very very rarely someone gets into a PhD without a masters. In my experience, this isn't particularly rare (although probably now a minority).

@MJeffryes ah, yes. That perhaps also changes with department culture. I have only met 1 person like this, she was however a considerably superior researcher/worker. The type you don't include in statistics because you consider an outlier

@AnderBiguri Starting a UK PhD without a masters but with an American BS is much easier because an American BS is 4 years instead of 3. American STEM students are also much more likely to have more extensive research experience than UK counterparts.

@phimac, 4 years of an American BS vs 3 of a British one is comparing apples to oranges. Consider that students in the British system have already specialised two years before starting their university education, whereas the US system promotes generalisation, forcing students to do courses outside their major even at college.

@PeterTaylor, In my experience in both US and UK large research institutions, although American students have more generalized coursework, they are much more likely to have hands-on research in a lab, which makes all the difference in preparedness. This experience is a big boost for American students wanting to study in the UK (publishing in undergrad is a good idea), and can readily obviate the master's degree requirement

With the caveat that I don't speak for my department or institution (although my experience informs my opinion):
My inclination is to say that in practice the cutoff can be softer than the official advertisements or instructions, but this isn't guaranteed, and may even vary between departments at the same university.
The cut-off is usually there as a first-pass filter for applicants who got their Bachelor's or Master's degree at a UK university. Conversion of grades from other systems, such as US GPA, is done according to some University-determined scale, but depending on the volume of applications at any given university there may be scope for some ad hoc decisions on edge cases.
It's also the case that the relevant admissions committee/team will probably look at the awarding institution, even if GPA is supposed to be standard. A 3.4 from an institution which is known to have a strong undergraduate program, or which has a positive reputation among the academics reading the application, will get treated more favourably than a 3.4 from somewhere that is "less esteemed" in some sense.
(I think one reason the cut-off is higher in the UK is because our PhD programmes are usually shorter than the US and have a less comprehensive training period in the initial stages - so we need to get people in who are better prepared, rather than take a risk on someone with patchy background but some signs of potential. But this is just my experience/opinion from mathematics, and it could be way off-base for other disciplines.)
Even within the UK it's not clear to me that the cutoff is as strict as official statements imply. To take a not entirely hypothetical scenario: an institution might say applicants in mathematics should have a 1st class degree or equivalent. Yet if they get an applicant who has a 2:1 Bachelor's from, erm, certain UK institutions, with good references and with some positive predictions about the Master's program on which they are currently involved... I think that such an applicant has a decent chance of being considered seriously by the departmental admissions team, provided that the application material has made it through the centralized university pipeline.


text:
Is it recommended for a professor to not entertain advanced questions for a basic course?
Recently I worked as a teaching assistant for a digital logic course. The topic for the day was full-adder. Professor explained the full concept of the full adder, along with question and answer session and then it is now the turn of TAs to clarify doubts of the students. One student asked me the question: what is the architecture of full adder circuit using currently in the most advanced CPU of laptops. I really had no clue about it.
But a new doubt raised in my mind that how should a professor react to such questions?
The professor may not know every aspect and every trend in the subject (s)he is teaching. If (s)he says that I don't know, then, the respect for the professor may go down. Else if (s)he says that it is beyond the scope of the course then the research aspirancy of the students may go down. Other methods are providing references later by saying I will send it to you/class later etc., but still, it is like saying I don't know, but indirectly. Because if one the student asks a question, then many people want to know the answer immediately from the professor. I feel that the professor should at least answer the question in a very short form.
So, the final question can be divided into two parts:
1) How should a professor react to the most advanced questions from
their students of a basic course, if (s)he knows the answer?
2) How a professor has to react in the classroom for the advanced questions that (s)he doesn't know the answer?

From personal experience (as a student observing), an answer (but probably not the correct one) for #2 is to say "I use a mac" and move on

What is the "most advanced" CPU, are they not produced for some purpose, i.e., a gaming laptop cpu might be different than a laptop that should operate more energy efficient. And also to what extend does the student expect an answer? I mean sometimes specs and operational details are not that easy to get or even not available outside the company, as they want to earn money and have an interest in keeping things secret. In any case, just say you also need to consult the specs/manual/blueprint/circuit diagram for the details, as a programmer you are also not expected to know everyones code [...]

[...] or every possible implementation of your programming language, that why we have manuals and docs.

I'd like to call out that saying "I don't know." is always OK if it's true; it should not impact your students' levels of respect for you. This is modeling at its best: students need to know what they do and do not know. An academic's job is to determining what they know, what is known in general, then push on the gaps in the two until new general knowledge happens.

To confirm what @StefanH writes - look at: https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/29368/do-computers-actually-use-carry-lookahead-adders

Because integer addition is important for address calculation, it is generally made one of the fastest operations regardless of the purpose of the processor. I don't think you need to go to specs to find out about the general concepts of fast binary addition. It is covered in textbooks on computer arithmetic, and has been the subject of academic research with published papers. There is even a Wikipedia article on Carry-lookahead adder.

"If (s)he says that I don't know, then, the respect for the professor may go down." I teach in STEM at the graduate level: a student or instructor being able to say "I don't know," (when they don't know) is worthy of respect. A student or instructor being unable to directly say "I don't know," is a sign of incompetence and unreliability.

As a mathematician, I've noticed that the best researchers I've met -- including Fields Medalists -- are quite unembarrassed to admit when they don't know something.

Strongly agree with Alexis and academic on the "I don't know issue". And I would say the opposite is also true:  a professor or a researcher who never says "I don't know" is not a good one.

You may want to tag this with culture... In the US, it's hardly possible for students in basic courses to lose respect for instructors--since they tend to start off at rock bottom to begin with.

The best I've heard is "I don't know but I will find out and get back to you." That tends to raise respect.

One of the reasons why lecturers in universities are also researchers is so that if they get questions where they don't immediately know the answer to a question, they have the skills to find out.  "Good question, I don't know off-hand, I'll get back to you" is always a good response to such questions (as long as the "I'll get back to you" bit isn't just a bluff ;o).

1) How should a professor react to the most advanced questions from her students of a basic course, if (s)he knows the answer?

I would distinguish between reasonable and obnoxious questions.

If the question is reasonable, then I would give a concise answer and encourage "offline" follow up. The question in your example seems reasonable -- it's essentially "how wide is the gap between what we're learning and what's actually used?"
If the question is obnoxious (e.g., student is just trying to show off), then I would consider giving a very concise answer (one sentence), or else explaining that you don't think the question is a good use of the available time (and, optionally, encouraging follow up in office hours).

2) How a professor has to react in the classroom for the advanced questions that (s)he doesn't know the answer?

I'm not sure one has any choice but to say "That's a good question, but I have no idea" or "I have no idea, and I doubt it matters for the purpose of this exam."

Also add “what is current now won’t be when you get a job”...

I would see your question 'how big is the difference between course material and state of the art' as reasonable but OPs question was 'what is the state of the art' which to me looks not reasonable because it tends to also depend on half a billion other things and usually there is no simple answer 'they use the X-adaptation of the Y-algorithm'.

Other than when I was a TA way back in the day, I've never taught an academic class.  However, I have presented many professional sessions in a classroom setting (typically a 3 to 5 day, full-day, class on a particular subject).  When someone would ask me a question I didn't know, I'd evaluate it.  If it wasn't a useful question, I'd explain why.  If it was useful, I'd say "great question, I'll look into it".  Then, the next day, I'd present the answer.

@quarague People who don't have a lot of experience in a domain often times don't know how to phrase questions about it. Part of being a good teacher is inferring what a student might be really asking about. (e.g. "Yes" is not an appropriate answer to the question "Do you know the time?") True, you sometimes get it wrong and the student's followups will reveal it, but it's far, far better to assume that the student's actual question is reasonable but poorly phrased, rather than blowing them off simply because their question, when taken literally, is obnoxious/unanswerable.

Assuming good faith is a good rule of thumb. In my experience, though, some students have a real tendency to ask many non-useful questions ("obnoxious questions") which can sidetrack the lesson.

"I doubt it matters for the purpose of this exam." I don’t think that’s a particularly encouraging thing to tell students. The purpose of exams is establishing minimum standards, they don’t and shouldn’t define what is and isn’t interesting.

Autistic spectrum disorders are by no means uncommon in academia (anecdotally especially in mathematics, computing and electronics).  That makes it difficult to tell whether an advanced question is obnoxious showing off or not.  Students with ASD may have a different definition of "reasonable" and are unlikely to appreciate the message behind the approaches you suggest for "unreasonable" questions.  I would recommend simply offering to discuss it with them after the class.

@cag51 makes good points, but I want to focus on this aspect of your question:

The professor may not know every aspect and every trend in the subject he is teaching. If (s)he says that I don't know, then, the respect for the professor may go down. Else if (s)he says that it is beyond the scope of the course then the research aspirancy of the students may go down.

University is not like high school. University students are adults, some of them are coming back to study after some years working in industry. You can no longer expect that the student knows nothing and the professor knows everything.
A part of that, is that students start asking hard questions. Because by the time they get to university, they already know the answers to a lot of the easy questions. It's no longer a loss of face for the teacher to say "I don't know that right now", because they're no longer basic high school questions to which the answers have been mostly the same for years. Questions like "what is the state of the art" or "how about this corner case" are hard but potentially interesting questions.
I think as a professor it's wise to build a bit of room in your curriculum, to handle questions like this. If a student asks a hard question that you think is interesting to the whole class, then you can say "good question, I'll come back to that next class" and use the time you set aside. If nobody asks a good question, then you can use the time on something else.
So I don't think saying "I don't know" necessarily reduces respect for the professor. A professor who pretends to know things he doesn't, or who dodges questions, is going to look foolish. A professor who essentially says "I want to give you the best answer, please wait" shows that he's taking the student seriously.
In a fast-moving field like computer science it's entirely possible that a student has cutting-edge knowledge on some specific thing. Maybe the student has a side job at a tech firm or reads a key tech forum where new developments are discussed. One of the most inspiring things a professor can do is to happily acknowledge that the student knows something there that the professor doesn't yet know. This shouldn't really undermine respect for a solid professor because such a professor probably has much deeper and wider knowledge about the field as a whole. But being taken seriously like this as a student is a really inspiring feeling.

I would suggest two principles: build and reward engagement, and speak to the whole class.
Reward engagement: Someone asked you a question about something related to the course material you're presenting?  Awesome!  That student is engaged and interested!  That's great to see.  I recommend you choose an answer that rewards rather than penalizes that -- so a tone of enthusiasm and delight that they asked, rather than annoyance.  You can also reward asking questions by making them look good of everyone else -- maybe you find the gem of insight in their question and articulate it for everyone's benefit, or something.  For some students it can be intimidating to ask a question in front of everyone else, and it can often be hard to get students to feel comfortable doing that, so finding ways to set a tone that encourages that will help shift the classroom atmosphere towards more interaction and engagement.
Speak to the whole class: Remember that you are primarily there to help the whole class.  You're not just answering the person who asked the question; this is an opportunity to find a way to respond that will be relevant to the whole class.  The student asked about some real-world application of what you're teaching, or is reaching for a way to make a connection between what they're learning and something practical?  Excellent!  That's a fantastic opportunity right there to take a step back and see how you can make that connection apparent for the whole class.   If you do that right, I suspect that might be beneficial not just for the one person who asked, but for many people who are motivated by the idea that what they're learning is used in real products, or in devices they use every day.
If the student asks a narrow question that's probably only of interest to that one student: you can give a very concise, one-sentence answer ("it turns out that modern CPUs something different than what we saw in class, to minimize energy consumption"), tell them how to learn more ("you can learn more about this in our class on digital architecture" / "come visit me in my office hours and I've love to tell you more" / ..), and use that to bridge to a subject that will be of interest to a larger fraction of the class ("it's a good question because it highlights power consumption as a critical issue for processors, and that's something we'll return to in week 10" or something).
If the student asks a question that might be of broader interest to the entire class: pull out what makes the question such a great one ("ooh, I'm so glad you asked, because this is really cool") or show appreciation or enthusiasm for their question or otherwise signal encouragement, and then answer in a way that'll speak to both the asker and the rest of the class ("this is really cool, this design we're showing you in class today was first introduced in the 8086 in the early 80's and now is used in every modern CPU", or whatever).

1) How should a professor react to the most advanced questions from
  her students of a basic course, if (s)he knows the answer?

It depends on how long it would take to explain the answer. If it is a matter of a minute or so, the professor can just answer. If it is going to be a lengthy digression, wasting the time of most of the class, these days I suggest giving a few key terms for web searches.
For example, for the question about adders I might say something like "That is a very interesting topic. Start by searching for carry lookahead.". That will get the student to articles that contain references to fast addition variations. I would not try to answer it in class. Fast binary addition was an 80 minute lecture in a course on computer arithmetic I took as a computer science graduate student, with understanding of full adders and general principles of processor architecture assumed.

2) How a professor has to react in the classroom for the advanced
  questions that (s)he doesn't know the answer?

Begin by saying "I don't know". That will always get far more respect from those whose respect is worth having than pretending knowledge one does not have. If it is relevant enough to make it worth discussing in class, add "I'll get back to you later" and look it up before the next class. If not, "I am afraid that is outside the scope of this course.".


text:
What is a "residency requirement" in the context of Canadian and US PhD programs?
An acquaintance is planning to apply to law schools for a Ph.D in Canada. She is reading about the residency requirement and is sure that it means that she would have to live on-campus, possibly even in an undergraduate dormitory. Here's a sample statement from Dalhousie University:

Applicants must spend at least one full academic year (12 months) in
  full-time residence at Dalhousie after registration for the PhD
  program. The Graduate Studies Committee of the Schulich School of Law
  reserves the right in certain cases to require the completion of a
  second year of residency. It is to be noted, however, that consistent
  with other doctoral programs at Dalhousie University, PhD candidates
  must pay fees at the full-time rate for two years regardless of
  whether they have been required to spend a second year in residence at
  Dalhousie.

I've told her that I believe it's just a requirement to register as a full-time student and live in the area. Are there any Ph.D programs that do require (or strongly suggest) on-campus living? If that's too close to a shopping question, is a Ph.D residency requirement not a requirement to use on-campus housing?
Note: I know of an intensive Master's program that strongly suggests living in campus housing unless you already live in the university area.

Generally, in the context of a doctoral degree, "residency requirement" refers to some minimum number of credits that must be completed at the degree-granting institution, or minimum duration during which the degree candidate must be enrolled full time at the degree granting institution. In contrast, work completed at another institution and applied toward the degree does not count towards the residency requirement.  See e.g. policy statements here , here, and here, which make it clear that this is the kind of residency requirement they're referring to.
But "residency requirement" is occasionally used in other ways - for example, here it refers to students being considered in-state residents for admissions and tuition purposes.
It is very unusual but not unheard of for doctoral students to be required to live on campus for some time. See this Google search. I am not aware of any US or Canadian universities that have this requirement.

Also, a good question to ask (if going to any school part-time) the full-time requirement at many schools can be fulfilled by simply ensuring two consecutive semesters of dissertation work with 9 (or equivalent) hours.  The powers that be explained to me that this had something to do with immigration-y stuff, but it served me well so I didn't ask many questions :-)


text:
In email applications should the text of the cover letter be stated directly in the email or be attached in a separate file?
When applying for example to a postdoc position, is it appropriate to write the text of the cover letter directly into the email, or should it be attached as a seperate file?
One advantage of stating the content of the cover letter directly in the email I could see is that there are good changes that the potential future employer reads it before opening any other ducuments, such as the curriculum vitae, list of publications, etc that might be attached.

Why not both?  Bits are cheap.

It depends who you are applying to. Often the recipient e-mail is not the Principal Investigator (PI) themselves, but a member of the admin staff who pre-checks the application and prints the documentation. In that case a separate file would be better, and the e-mail would just state that the application letter and CV are attached.
However, if the application is being made directly to the PI themselves, I would be inclined to place the application text in the e-mail itself.
On a side note, always use PDF for documents to make sure that they will print and display exactly as you see them regardless of what OS or software that the recipient is using.

I would advise to make the email brief, and make sure that the motivation letter is the first attachment. Often, motivation letters are printed (at least the ones which wind up in the final round) and a properly formatted letter looks better than a printed email.


text:
How to decide the appropriate level of explanation for math in academic papers?
In any academic paper dealing at least in part with math, the authors have to make a choice how much explanation to actually give the math.
It can range from pretty much no explanation:

Given a foobar of 12, a ackbar of 57, and general frobnosticating
  parameter of 9, the resulting nyan level will be 8.

To belaboring the obvious

The first three people went into the city. Later, four more people
  went into the city. This meant that seven people had gone into the
  city which is derived by adding the first three people to the next
  four people. We add because people are individual units and moving
  them to a new location neither combines or divides those units.

How does one decide the appropriate level of explanation? Is there any sort of standard that can be appealed to decide when something is clear enough?
The actual background for this question is that I've looked at a paper for a colleague. It is in a non-mathematical subject but does engage in some mathematical reasoning. I think the paper doesn't explain enough, but my colleague disagrees. I have to work at figuring out what calculations were done in the paper and the justification for many of the inferences he draws. That indicates to me that the explanation is insufficient, but is there a less subjective standard I can appeal to?

Lately, it seems, I have been reading plenty of papers that belabor the obvious when unnecessary, but completely omit any detail regarding the actual hard parts of the calculation. I've found that this occurs partly as an attempt to keep the paper to a certain length, and partly (and independently) to attempt to include some level of detailed explanation. It's frustrating.

@Arkamis, I've also noticed that trend, I've always taken it as people adding explanations where it is easy to add them rather then where its needed.

It depends on the field. I recently saw a famous paper in Bioinformatics whose main contribution was combining very different datasets in a meaningful way. They just said "we applied a bayesian framework", and one had to go to the supplementary materials to see the formulas, right after 70 pages of a table enumerating the  data sources.

I find that the choice of how much explanation to give math is generally a three-way negotiation between three factors:

Your estimate of the audience: different communities will need radically different levels of explanation for the same mathematics.
Adjustment based on the opinions of the reviewers about what needs more or less details
Any length constraints on the paper.

Of this #1 is really the important thing: you really need to understand your audience in order to decide how in-depth to go with your mathematics.
For example, I recently published a paper which spent several pages explaining a mathematical formulation in depth for its target cross-disciplinary audience.  The reviewers requested further expansion of the mathematical explanation (which I was happy to provide).  Were I writing for the community from which the mathematics came, however, I would instead spend several pages explaining the context of the problem, but then the math itself would be covered in just a few sentences.

How does one decide the appropriate level of explanation?

Know your readers.
There are fields, or subfields, of several applied and experimental sciences where equations, long derivations and mathematical explanations are definitely unwelcome.
In fields like mathematics or theoretical physics, equations, theorems or proofs can be the main topic of a paper: the proof of a theorem can be the most interesting part. In other fields equations might be interesting, but their applications much more; and the proofs are frequently considered a nuisance. Tell me how to use your mathematical ideas, what are the benefits and the weaknesses, but please, really please, put all the proofs, derivations and detailed explanations under the rug.
The rug, in this case, can be either an appendix -- but even there avoid too many details -- or, if you think that your proof is worth per se, write a paper in a journal whose readers might be interested in, then cite it. And sometimes, in a few cases, you can even get away without a proof...

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." — Donald Knuth

I'm guessing the author thinks that putting too much math into the body of the paper might disrupt the paper's flow. On the other hand, as a reader, you don't want to have to reconstruct the calculations to satisfy your curiosity that everything is correct.
If both of those assumptions are true, perhaps some of the math can be included in an appendix at the end of the article, with a brief reference in the main body.

I think that's good advice in general. In my case, I think the author just thinks his paper is clear enough without additional explanation and he shouldn't have to put any in.

@Winston - Perhaps that was his initial assumption, but, after you looked over his paper, you seem to disagree. Now the ball is in his court; he choose to heed your feedback, or ignore it. I've offered a solution that would let him address your concern without disrupting the flow of the paper.


text:
No relevant postdocs - maybe a second PhD instead?
I am finishing PhD studies in a field of physics, and I want to do something similar (but more advanced) for a postdoc. However after browsing Linkedin, Researchgate, Nature Careers and some others, I found that there aren't relevant postdocs.
But there are plenty of interesting PhD programs that would be a nice continuation of what I did.
I know that doing two PhDs is generally discouraged here, but my only alternative are boring corporate jobs that boil down to making powerpoints adjacent to what I studied.

What field of physics? How would the other field lead to different results?

IMO “boring corporate jobs that boil down to making powerpoints adjacent to what I studied” is a massive misconception.  Some would say that teaching the same material every year is more or less equivalent to making boring powerpoints adjacent to what you studied.

Your alternative is also opening a bakery, building a startup or living as a monk in Tibet. There are not just 2 life paths here.

Btw, if you see labs with "open PhDs which could be a nice continuation of what you did", you could also send an email to the PI, asking if they have considered hiring a postdoc instead (usually, funding for 3 years of PhD can be converted to 1.5 years of postdoc)

I feel that a potential PI may not be very thrilled about hiring a PhD student who considers the position to be /least of the terrible options/

@AgnishomChattopadhyay ... and may just leave the position as soon as something better comes along.

@DanielHatton Apologies if you thought I was suggesting anything, I was only pointing out the false dichotomy in the question.

@DanielHatton And the third requires the Chinese government to allow you to go to Tibet at a time when foreigners are mostly excluded from the region. Ander's point still stands.

We don't know the details, but It might be a mistake to look for a very specific topic for a postdoc: as a postdoc, you're hired to conduct whatever work is offering funding. The goal is for you to strengthen your profile with new experience and publications. In principle this is temporary, and you will eventually learn to get your own funding to do the research that you want. Basically a postdoc is a potential door to becoming an autonomous researcher, it's too early to be picky about the topic.

I obtained my postdoc position basically by emailing a potential supervisor directly, perhaps you could try this.  There was actually someone in my office who was doing a second PhD but I don't think they got a postdoc position afterwards.

Well, you certainly won't be admitted to a PhD do anything like physics.

Are you looking in the right place for jobs? In the fields I know about (cosmology/astro/HEP) postdocs are pretty much exclusively advertised on field-specific sites like AAS Jobs, AJO/mathjobs and Inspire. But like someone else said, we are at the end of the offer season for this cycle. Most postdocs are advertised September-January with interviews/offers in Feb/March.

This is not a direct answer, as I do not have enough experience to say anything about a second PhD. But there is something to be said about finding a postdoc position.
In my experience, many people (me included) did not find a postdoc by looking for advertised positions. Instead, you can reach out to potential supervisors directly, usually by email, and ask whether they have any opening for a postdoc position*.
It helps if you have met them before or have any sort of connection, but it is not necessary. Usually, you'd want to include a short summary of who you are, what you would like to work on, and why you want to work with them.
In your case, you are already in a good position: you have already identified several groups that are looking for people to work on topics you are interested in. You should reach out and simply ask if they are also looking for postdocs to work on the same topic: in many cases, it may be possible that they can convert the PhD position into a postdoc.
*: I appreciate this may differ depending on the country and the research field.

I’m not sure what you are trying to achieve with another PhD.  Really.  For one, living on a student salary is not something most people want to extend if they can avoid it.
There aren’t enough faculty (or even postdoc) positions in physics for every graduating PhD student, so why would you think your chances of landing such jobs will increase once you have spent another 4 years working on another similar degree?  In other words, what are the odds that doing another PhD will improve your situation rather than simply delay your entry to the private sector, which is where the vast majority of physics jobs are?
Realistically you will not find a private sector job doing supersymmetry or string theory but the most recent available study (2015) of the American Society asked

(p)hysicists who worked in the private sector … to identify the most rewarding aspects of their jobs. They wrote that they found their jobs intellectually stimulating and challenging, and that they enjoyed regularly working with smart and interesting people

and  that

(t)he types of careers commonly pursued by physicists in the private sector involved solving complex problems, managing projects, and writing for a technical audience.

It is also the case that, in “hot” fields like quantum information, private companies can’t hire physics graduates fast enough.  In Canada, a country which historically lacks the US in terms of private sector jobs for physicists, the federal government expects that private sector jobs in quantum technologies will increase 200-fold in the next 20 years or so.  That’s 20000%, i.e. that’s really 200 times.  I can’t find a similar document for the US but or Europe but the X-factor must be in the same range.  Universities have difficulties attracting faculty in this area because they can’t match offers from … you guessed it: the private sector.
All of this to say that suggesting private sector jobs are “boring” is a bit of a broad exaggeration.
If you are hell-bent on doing another degree, consider instead a Masters in a cognate field (computer science or even an MBA) where the timelines are shorter and you can complement or highlight the skill set you picked up in your PhD.

I do not know how long your postdoc lasted but assuming 2 years/postdoc you're looking at something like 9 years after completion of PhD to find a faculty position.  I'm glad to learn it worked out for you but your story is not IMO a terribly compelling argument to continue beyond the first PhD.

... I know many more people in situations similar to yours who never found a faculty position than who did find one.

Proceed with caution when you see the government or societies announcing hot fields, life has a way of taking turns. I'm skeptical of predicted 200x increases, but YMMV. Best of luck!

@Aruralreader yes that X factor is unreliable but even if it's 100, that would still be incredible.  I also take such estimates with a lot of salt but it seems clear that field is hot at least now.  At any rate, my point remains: industry jobs are not necessarily about making boring powerpoint transformations.

"Even if it's 100x" how about if it becomes -100x?

@ if you are suggesting an industry could be wiped out, I suppose it’s possible.  More likely is that the final product will not be like the advertised ones.

In general, it is very rare to see/have someone do a second PhD. Depending on the country you are in, you are not even allowed to do one in a similar area, only in a different field. So sporadically you come across someone who has a PhD in physics and theology, for example.
Apart from that, I would also suggest that you think about why you want to do another PhD. Presumably because you like what you are doing right now in terms of day-to-day work. But what are your longer term dreams/desires/wishes? Where do you see yourself in 5 years or 10 years? Do you want to stay in academia? If so, then a postdoc would seem like a logical follow up as it would prepare you towards independence or a staff scientist position. Maybe you want to teach mostly?
I'd say: grant yourself the time to explore options. There are plenty of physicists super happy doing exciting work outside of academia, so talk to them and see if their life/work would fit you or not. Same for academia.
An definitely e-mail labs you are interested in and offer to write your own grants to support your salary etc. to increase your chances of landing a postdoc if that's what you want.

A second PhD is a strange enough choice that I think it will not look nearly as bad on your resume as people think.
I knew someone that a PhD in physics and then got a PhD in philosophy and ended up in a successful career in philosophy of science.
A professor I knew did a PhD in both math and in biology. Also my PI when I was an undergrad I've heard claims that he was chosen because he had masters in chemical engineering (I think), which made him stick out for our engineering focused school.
I would say if your new PhD is sufficiently different, it will make you certainly look a lot more unique to other candidates and will also give you the option of transitioning to something that's a better fit for you.
Overall though, if you can manage to change fields by getting a postdoc position in the new field of interest, I think this is a lot more natural of a progression.

Аndrea is right, in that sometimes the funds for hiring a PhD student may be converted into hiring a postdoc. With this circumstance in mind, you indeed should continue your search.
Nonetheless, as a back-up option, you still may consider doing a second PhD in an adjacent area. My friend, who had received his PhD in solid state physics in the Ukraine, found it difficult to get a permanent position in the US. So he made a decision to do his second PhD, this time in material science, and at a well-known American school. Given his excellent background, he did it relatively easily and quickly. Soon thereafter, he obtained a permanent job at a respected government lab.
So, if your financial and family circumstances permit you to do this, you still may consider the 2nd PhD as a back-up option.


text:
What's a reasonable STEM postdoc salary at Paris-Saclay university?
The year is 2023 and I'm applying for a postdoc at Paris Saclay university, and I wonder how should I adjust my expectations. I don't want to appear overpriced, but also I don't want to just scrape by. This website says that I should ask between 3000 and 5000 EUR net per month. I would ask for 3000, not to scare the professor away. Is this reasonable?

Asking too little just for that reasons seems like a poor move. They might wonder if you have a good enough opinion of your possible contributions.

If postdoc salaries are negotiable in France (someone else will need to answer that question), I suggest to ask other postdocs for their experience with salary negotiations. If you hold an offer already, an initial request for a high salary is unlikely to scare anyone away. It will likely lead to a counter offer from which you can assess the situation much better.

Academic salaries in the EU are typically assigned based on the number of years of experience and sometimes taking in account your previous salary. You might be able to negotiate a tiny bit, but usually not much.
According to Glassdoor, postdoc salary in Paris-Saclay is 30k-37k EUR per annum. For more accurate estimate, check the website of the University for the payscale or ask the HR/PI this information.

Postdoc salaries in France are fixed on a national scale. If you have less than two years' experience, your salary will be around €2300 after tax (something like €3000 before tax). If you have more than two years' experience, it will be around €2900 after tax (closer to €4000 before tax). As far as I know, these numbers are non-negotiable. Perhaps there will be some flexibility if you are paid from an individual grant rather than university/national resources. You can ask, but be prepared for the answer to be no.
Having said that, if your lifestyle is moderate, even €2300 is plenty sufficient to live on, especially in the environs of Saclay which is much cheaper than Paris centre. If you don't mind living in a small apartment, even central Paris is affordable -- and life is generally more interesting there than in the towns around the Saclay plateau which are nearly all solely populated by physicists...
You will likely also be able to get 50% of your monthly travel costs reimbursed too, which for a daily commute from Paris to Saclay is a non-neglible amount (~€80).
Source: I was a postdoc in Saclay from February 2022 - October 2023.

Solely populated by physicists? Sounds like heaven!


text:
Can I use tables to contain my figures in word, while submitting it as a manuscript?
Because it is difficult to make a figure description stick to the figure in word (slightest motion of figure within the document messes-up a lot of text, especially near the figure) I decided to overcome the issue by making one-column-two-rows tables, and in top field I place the figure, and in the bottom field I place the figure's number and description. Figure contained in such box is much less rowdy.
I'm now considering submitting the article, but all the submission instructions for word documents (preferred by publisher) just say that:
1-figures should be numbered and described
No mention on how to actually do that. Will my approach result in problems? How to best number and label the figures?
Journals I'm considering are "Scientific Reports" and "Journal of Material Science"

I would ask an editor of those publications.

It used to be that figures were on separate pages (one page per figure) at the end of the submitted document. Then it is up to the production folks to put the figures in the "right" place later on. Check the submission instructions.

I see in the instructions for Journal of Material Science: "Supply all figures electronically. Authors are encouraged to embed their figures in the document near the paragraph in which they are first referenced." So, not separate (ignore previous comment). But, yes, I would use the table kludge to keep the figure and caption together...

When you say "in word," are you referring to Microsoft Word? If so, which version and what platform (operating system)? With my version of MS Word I can easily use the feature that it has for labeling figures so that the labels stay with the figures, but perhaps you're using a really old version or a different software title altogether.

Also, a screenshot might help, but then this turns into a question about software support and not academia, and it may be more appropriate on SuperUser.

Not that this is a microsoft word SE, but just to note that you can also make a one cell table and have word add a caption to the table, see eg https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/add-format-or-delete-captions-in-word-82fa82a4-f0f3-438f-a422-34bb5cef9c81


text:
Why is Lishui University present in so many cities across the globe?
I'm searching for a postdoc and it seems that Lishui University recruits for its departments in Tokyo, Seoul, New York, Sidney etc. Typical job ad looks like this.
Not even biggest universities I know have that many offshore departments, and LU wikipedia page says nothing about their foreign activity. I visited their website linked on wikipedia, but it is Chinese-only, and looks suspicious.
Is LU engaged in global recruitment tactic I don't understand, or is it a scam?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the job ad it doesn't seem like they have actual physical offshore locations per-se, rather, they're hiring for a visiting professor, and listing the various countries in their job advertisments instead of "Mainland China" may get the job ad recommended to more potential candidates willing to make the trip.
While I can't say for certain that the jobs are 100% legit, my intuition is that the listings are more for greater advertising reach rather than being a genuine scam. Somewhat related, and not intended to be a sweeping generalization, but as someone who has grown up under Asian and specifically Chinese culture, there's always been the (mis)conception that lecturers from any foreign country are more experienced and knowledgeable than local ones. A university saying "we have lecturers from all over the globe" is enough to garner some perceived prestige from potential students.

"there's always been the (mis)conception that lecturers from any foreign country are more experienced and knowledgeable than local ones." Yes, being a native Chinese speaker, I can attest that this is very true.

It looks like a re-shoring tactic, to bring back researchers from outside mainland China. In the past I have seen similar geo-misplaced Linkedin ads from UNSW Sydney.
The page you posted does not look any more suspicious than Stanford University or Ritsumeikan University.
Whether it is a scam or not: if you can understand how to reach the responsible person for the advertised position outside Linkedin, do it and it will be clear.