text:
Journal's website states different and much higher impact factor than what I found on Scopus. What do I do?
I looked up the website of a journal where someone I know had published research. They listed their Scopus impact factor as a number that is much higher than when I searched the website of Scopus.
I am not exactly familiar with academia, all I know is the number I read on the Scopus website (assuming I read the correct one, don't know), seems much lower than the one listed on the journal's website, in other words, the impact factor on the official journal site may be fake and the actual factor might be lower.
What should be done now? I don't wish to accuse the journal of anything malicious before I understand what's going on and what exactly an impact factor is or signifies.

What should you do? Don't pay attention to impact factors.

Short answer: Scopus have their own database of publications  calcuating citations per year, which is different to the trademarked "impact factor". There are also variations between years and between citescore and 2-year values.
Note on predatory publishers: It is common for predatory publishers to fabricate an impact factor, or come up with some variant of an official impact factor (e.g., "google impact factor"), when they do not have an official impact factor.
However, your case is different. The journal does have an official impact factor (or scopus citescore) which suggests that it probably passes some basic quality threshold. The website is simply listing a different impact factor than what you have found.
While it could be a typo, or even fraud, the most likely answer is that there are many different "impact factors".
Official impact factor: First, I believe impact factor is a trademark traditionally of ISI. But the main point is that "impact factor" in this sense refers to 2-year impact factor using a particular bibliometric database (the Web of Science, I think).
Even here, the impact factor is updated each year and there is a 2-year and a 5-year impact factor that is commonly reported (although without clarification, it should be the 2-year impact factor). So, occasionally, a journal website might be showing a slightly out of date impact factor.
Impact factor more broadly: There is a boarder concept of impact factor that relates to the general formula of dividing citations by publications over a given period. There are subtle ways that this formula can be tweaked based on what counts as a publication. In particular, the choice of database dramatically influences what publications contribute towards citation counts. The more inclusive the database, the more citations a given publication will receive, and the higher the "impact factor" will be.
The scopus metric is typically called citescore. I think the scopus metrics focus on a three year period and uses a different database (i.e.,Scopus rather than web of science) for generating citation counts. https://journalmetrics.scopus.com/ . Also see http://www.scimagojr.com/ for another set of rankings also based on Scopus.
In general, the original ISI impact factor has a certain influence in the market. Various reasons include quality control of their database of citations and the fact that they were the first big player in this space. They have also trademarked the term "impact factor", which is interesting given that the concept of dividing citations by publications is a pretty straightforward idea.
Nonetheless, the meaning of an index of citations per year is often based on benchmarks within a field. For example, researchers in a field get to know the impact factors of the journals in a given field and they form rules of thumb about what is poor, good, and great. In this sense, if you change the index, then the rules of thumb may change. For example, if you used Google Scholar to calculate impact factors, then impact factors would probably increase massively (e.g., by a factor of 2, 3, or more more), because Google Scholar is highly inclusive. So for example, a bunch of journals that had an ISI impact factor or 2, now has a GS impact factor of 6 or 7. So some care is required when using a new index to ensure that relative benchmarks are recalibrated.
Check out this review of the mapping of scopus citescores with ISI impact factors.

What index is widely used amongst researchers in all fields?

@Oooker. I think the original ISI  "impact factor metric" in pretty much dominant in all fields.

@TheBitByte old-school or strange web design can be a red flag.

@Ooker Why do you think there would be one? Citation practices vary widely by subfield, so using the same method for all is not really useful.

@JessicaB what possible "factors" that can "impact" the impact factor so that different fields require different measurements?

@Ooker In some parts of maths it can take two years for a paper to be published, and work stays applicable for decades, so citations come in the long term. On the other hand, I'm told in some parts of chemistry a paper is out of date in about 6 months, so citations are likely to occur very quickly. The 'normal' number of references in a paper can range from 5-10 up to 70-80. Impact factor also ignores the different reasons for citing something.

It doesn't sound like you have the expertise to judge whether the journal is legitimate. You could ask a separate question on this site along the lines of: Is journal _____ a legitimate journal? And is ___ it's impact factor?

I'll answer the question "What should I do?" and not "Why is that so?". Also I understand the question "What should I do?" as "What should I do to judge the quality/reputation of that journal?".
To find out if a journal is the right outlet for your work you should:

Check out the aims and scope of the journal.
Check out other paper published in the journal. Do you think your work is comparable in focus and quality?
Check out the editorial board. If you haven't heard of anybody on the board (e.g. as author of a paper you read), that's probably not your journal.
Ask experienced colleagues (e.g. your advisor). Reputation is not measurable by any number and is actually more something that is vaguely agreed upon by a community.


text:
Strange Sign on Lab Door
I saw a strange sign on a door to a geophysics lab in a museum in Switzerland. I was really curious about what it means and wanted to know if anyone is familiar with this sign.

Here's the full image of the door so you can see the context/type of work going on in the lab.

I'm also curious about what the two signs to the right of the one you indicated mean. (I'm guessing the one you indicated is a joke, but I could be wrong or partially missing the joke)

Somebody doesn’t like Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle I guess...

@cag51 I'm pretty sure they're warnings against pacemakers and joint replacements, due to the strong magnetic fields.

@cag51 The heart is no pace makers and the middle one is no medical implants.

I thought the middle one was depicting a hearing aid inside an ear canal, but upon further inspection it does appear to be a hip joint.

Middle and right are related to magnetic field. Prosthetic implants and pace mskers respectively, as jakebeal said.

How about the topmost sign? "Caution! Cocktail shaker in use?"

...Nope! It apparently means, "Danger! High-pressure gas bottles are stored/used in here." Thanks, TinEye!

Are really all implants forbidden in NMR labs? I've had two medical MRI scans and I have a titanium implant afer a fracture.

@VladimirF: There are always 2 distinct considerations: whether the magnetic field (and your moving in that field) can cause harm to you, and whether the implant disturbs the magnetic field and causes artifacts. Ti isn't as bad as ferromagnetic materials, but for medical MRI it may still mean that while harmless to you the whole MRI is pointless due to artifacts => AFAIK implants in MRI are pretty much decided case-to-case. For technical MRI/MRS labs it's just easier to have someone without implant do the work inside the magnetic field.

I think the middle one is a clown. No clowns!

I notice that the sign:

Doesn't quite match the other signs for scale or style
Isn't obvious in what it's communicating (unlike normal warning signs)
Looks like a monster (apparently "We Must All Stop ManBearPig" from South Park):        .

I conclude that it's a joke by the museum staff, much like this "velociraptor-free workplace" sign at the Field Museum in Chicago.

@Monkia: ManBearPig is from the American animated comedy TV show South Park.  It's clearly a joke.  Probably someone who works in the lab is a fan of the show.  It could be a joke with some deeper meaning, since the ManBearPig character was meant as an allegory for climate change, but it's hard to guess what exactly the person who put up the sign might have had in mind.  It certainly isn't anything that's generally "customary" in geology or any other academic field.

@Monkia you won’t necessarily get the joke as it may be “lab” specific ie if most if the lab workers watch that show they may have had a conversation or several about it and that is an “in-house” reference to a particular episode or character for a reason they find funny or memorable. Outsiders won’t get it.

tl;dr-  It's ManBearPig from South Park.  In the future, you can look up stuff like this with a reverse image search, like this one.

If you find a strange indicator on a lab door, it may be easiest to do a reverse image search.  It's sorta like Google'ing something, just you're querying with an image rather than words.
In this case, I tried TinEye, searching with the image you provided in the question,             ,by referring to its URL, https://i.sstatic.net/usUNw.png.  The search results page reveals that this is a warning about the infamous ManBearPig, as previously documented in the series South Park.
Obviously, this serves as not just a warning about the horrors of the existing monster, but to remind researchers about the potential hazards of their reckless tinkering in what man was not meant to meddle with.

It doesn't work for the strange sign on my lab door (though that's a little more self-explanatory in a metric lab)

@ChrisH. Facebook tends to move assets around, so that link is now dead.

@TRiG they've essentially prevented external sharing of photos for some time now. Mine read "absolutely no imperial hardware allowed" with  a forbidden symbol banning Star Wars Imperial machines

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

sort: votes


text:
Does a supervisor have to read a thesis of his PhD student
A friend of mine who is doing a PhD has finished writing the first draft of her thesis. In her school, it's a common practice that a supervisor will read the first draft and then provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.
However, my friend's supervisor is too busy at the moment and explicitly says that he won't be able to read her thesis in a month or so. The supervisor suggests my friend to wait for him. But, since my friend already has a job offer and wants to submit the thesis as soon as possible, the supervisor allows her to submit it now without him reading it.
When my friend was writing her thesis, she sent some chapters to her supervisor. He read some but not all of them.
My question is whether a supervisor has a responsibility to read his/her student's thesis. Moreover, should my friend submit her thesis now even her supervisor hasn't read it yet.
Updates:

My friend is doing her PhD in the UK, which means the supervisor is not in the examining committee.
My friend let her supervisor know about the job offer more than a month ago and they both agreed that the supervisor would try his best to find a time to review her thesis. However, it seems that the supervisor cannot find a time, so he lets her submit now if she wants.

Has your friend told her supervisor that she has a job offer, and so she needs to finish the thesis ASAP? Is the job offer contingent on having the thesis submitted?

My question is whether a supervisor has a responsibility to read his/her student's thesis. — This could depend on the field and the location. My advisor (US, electrical engineering) did not read my dissertation draft, mainly, I think, because I already had a few papers that he provided feedback on prior to writing the dissertation, and he knew where I was going with my research.

At what point did your friend notify the supervisor of when the thesis would be ready for review, and of the urgency of getting it reviewed quickly?

Have to is a strong requirement. In the US, the supervisor is almost always part of the examining committee so at some point they will have to read it. Some departments may have rules about feedback on drafts and how quickly and how much feedback supervisors can provide.
In the UK, the supervisor is almost never part of the examining committee. While I have never seen regulations prohibiting feedback, but there is more of a culture that students should stand on their own. That said, I think most supervisorsuccessful read a draft of a thesis.

Although in the UK the Supervisor is not the examiner, it is in their interest to read the thesis before submission. Most of my colleagues feel that a good or bad student is a reflection on the supervisor, and as such want the thesis output to be as good as possible. No-one wants to end up with a student who outright fails, or is told their work isn't sufficient for a PhD. (Although in this case it says the supervisor had read some chapters, so they should have a feeling of whether things are on track or not)

As mentioned, this is country and field dependent. What should be (and probably is) a universal rule is that the supervisor should have a pretty clear idea of what is in the thesis.
A supervisor having only met the PhD student a few times a years, who has not read any paper turned into a PhD chapter, should definitely read the thesis before accepting it is submitted to a committee, for both the sake of both PhD student and advisor.
If the supervisor had weekly meetings with the PhD student, when the details of the research where discussed, if he or she read several chapters which where compelling, then he or she might be in a position to trust the student into submitting without reading the thesis entirely (but this could be incompatible with the specifics of the field, or with its customs). He or she might also have enough clues to know he or she really has to read the thesis, depending on how the supervision went.
I would also guess that, knowing that the PhD student has a job offer (I assume, outside academia), the supervisor might be less concerned about ensuring a flawless defense and could settle more easily for a merely passing one (not that I endorse this attitude, but it seems likely).

Ultimately, your friend has to decide for herself. But I have a tendency for submitting before starting the new job.
Your friend should keep in mind that

it's not guaranteed that her supervisor will read it soon. Maybe, he is still very busy during the next month or even months.
her own motivation will plummet. Her first priority will be the new job, and in particular at the beginning it will require most of her attention.

So the process can drag on for quite a while before she is finally ready to submit.
But what she should do (if she didn't do it already) is to talk with her supervisor in detail about the contents of her thesis. For every section he didn't read, she should him what material she coverst so that he can give her some feedback.
Moreover, if she feels insecure about some parts, she could ask a fellow PhD student with a basic understanding what she did to read these parts. They cannot give her feedback about the quality of the research but about the writing ("you lost me there", "the order in which you discuss things is weird").
This can be particularly helpful for the introduction and literature review.

This is just another example of some advisers bad habits. Yes, it is their responsibility to read the thesis. The supervisor is the chair of committee and receives job benefits from this thesis.
When I submitted my Masters thesis, I had two co-chairs. Unfortunately, none of them take the time to read my thesis. They said we know you have done a great job from your reports. In the defense session one of my committee members gave me a real hard time over a missing chapter of my thesis. Later I had to add that chapter. So I do not recommend sending the thesis while it is not read by the supervisor.

This is very country dependent. In the UK the supervisor is not part of the examining committee.

Interesting. So in UK there are no academic rules on providing feedback to PhD dissertation as a supervisor?

Of course the members of the examination committee have to read the thesis. However an other question is, should the supervisor be part of it. The UK and the Netherlands answered that question with no, and I think it is good practice to separate day to day supervision from the final examination.

Even though in the UK and NL the advisor is not part of the examination committee, still it is in their interest to read a draft (or at least be well aware of its contents). The advisor (at least in NL) has to approve submitting the thesis, and if s/he does while the candidate would fail (very uncommon), that would reflect badly on the advisor.

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


text:
In Sweden, can a supervisor ask his PhD student to provide a private future work list of his thesis?
Recently, I faced a new academic phenomenon that a high level researcher informed me about. I am writing a potential reasoning of the phenomenon:
From a legal point of view, PhD is similar to a transaction in which a PhD student produces an innovative content for the University and, in return, the University will give the student a PhD degree. Thus, it may be concluded that whatever the student produces in these years in direction of his thesis is for University.
Moreover, one of the important aspects of a successful research is the potential growth that a research can have (future work). A part of the future work is written inside the thesis; however, many times this part is not such detailed.
Now, suppose that a supervisor wants to take advantage of the future potency of work of the PhD student for the future PhD students of the same University (assuming that the University has the intellectual property of whatever he has produced in direction of his thesis).
In this regard, the supervisor may decide to ask him provide a detailed future work list with explanations as a private/inter-lab document so that the next students follow this direction.
Is this request legal (based on the Swedish regulations) from a supervisor to his student?

Is this hypothetical?

No, some one explained me that it had happened somewhere in the world and it was new for me; thus, I asked here to check if it is legal.

Legal? Depends on where it happens. Ethical? Depends on how it happens. "Slave! Write the proposals for PhD students for the next 5 years or you won't graduate!" is not, "dear PhD student, would you mind giving me a hand and share your expert knowledge with some PhD proposals?" sounds OK.

Could you please write it as an answer?

If you are really interested in the legality aspect, then law.se is probably a better fit. If you want to know why a supervisor might ask for this and why a student might want, or not want, to do this, then academia.se is the right place, but an edit is needed.

I have a hard time believing that any jurisdiction is going to have laws addressing such a situation.  Academic institutions, and their staff, typically have very wide latitude in in determining the requirements for degrees.  Legislatures and courts, for the most part, recognize that they are not qualified to micromanage academia in this way.

A supervisor who asks you to write a detailed "future work" document might be trying to cheat you as you appear to worry about, but it's unlikely.
What's much more likely is that they're interested in the scope for future projects both for students, and for postdocs.  If your supervisor can get a grant based on work you've done during your PhD, and there's funding for a postdoc on that, it could well be to your benefit - you should interview well on the topic at least.
Without the backing of your supervisor (either in their lab, or moving on with a reference from them) you're unlikely to have the chance to work on this material anyway, and your dead ends may prove to be good projects for new students with a different skill set.
Finally viewing anything in academia as a simple transaction is rarely helpful model.

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


text:
Seeking advice with dissertation chair: possible theft of idea and possible blackmail
I am hoping for advice in how to move forward. Last spring I submitted two proposal ideas to my dissertation chair. He told me that the first idea was 'inappropriate.' I proposed a comparison of statistical methods, and my advisor said that I could not compare the 'new and novel' method to the 'traditional' analysis method. He felt that it was inappropriate to make a comparison between these methods. Before telling me that I could not continue with this idea, he asked me to type up notes about each statistical procedure (background, assumptions, how to complete, coding packages, etc.) as well as to send him the relevant literature supporting the 'new' methods. I sent him approximately 28 pages of typed notes discussing each method in depth and my entire file of literature sources. Then, he told me that I could not move forward with this idea.
So, I selected a new topic. One semester later, my advisor sent me a draft paper that he was submitting to a conference. He told me that if I completed the statistical analysis, I could be the fourth author on the paper. I was shocked to read that paper, as it was my original dissertation idea of comparing methods. I refused to work on the paper. I attempted to discuss my concern that the paper was very close to my original dissertation proposal; while my chair says that I 'motivated' him to explore a new area of research, he denies that he is using my idea.
Now, I believe that my chair is holding up my dissertation. I was supposed to defend my proposal in July, but he has refused to allow me to schedule the defense. This summer, he told me that I was ready to defend, that my proposal was solid, and that my first three chapters were in good shape. However, he thought a fall meeting date would benefit the faculty committee members. In the meantime, he instructed me to begin conducting the proposed research in anticipation of committee approval in the fall.
This semester, I have had two meetings with my chair. In both meetings, he has brought up that he wants me to perform the statistical analysis of his new project (which I believe to be my original dissertation proposal). He even suggested that I should extend my studies for an additional year and apply to be his research assistant. I have not agreed to participate in the research project or to delay my graduation. After telling him that I would not participate in the research project, he sent me an email questioning if my proposed dissertation (representing three semesters of work) was sufficient or if I should start again with a new topic.
So....
I have reached out to the omsbud office and I have debated filing an ethics complaint against my chair. I also reached out to the program coordinator of my program to request a change in dissertation chair. To change chairs, I may be required to file a complaint because I am in my third semester of dissertation hours.
I am hoping for advice. I worry about repercussions if I file a complaint. A student filed a complaint against this particular professor two years ago and that student was ostracised by both faculty and her peers. She dropped out of the program. This summer, I thought that the best course of action was to keep my head down, ignore my concerns, and finish my dissertation. Now, I wonder if I will be able to finish my dissertation as my chair will not allow me to schedule the proposal defense. I am further restricted from contacting any members of my committee; one of the covid policies that my department adopted was that all communication must go through the committee chair. So, I have five members on my committee, but I am only allowed to communicate directly with the chair. I tell you, I would not believe this story if I was not living it myself.
Currently, the path of least resistance seems to be quitting the program but then I forfeit all the time and work spent towards this degree.

Your post is very long. We would like to help, but is it possible to compress the story to get a clearer picture? Also,do you have an ombudsperson at your university?

It is crucial to find out if your university has a student complaints procedure. If it has, it is probably (or should be) independent of the people you are concerned about. This is the best place to seek advice and help within the university’s own published procedures. Keep a timed and dated record of all events, emails, conversations.

Thank you. Good suggestions. @Anton

I downvoted because the question says you have already decided what to do.

In my view, you did well. It is very courageous what you have done so far and science needs people like you.
The difference with the girl you refer to from two years ago is that probably she had not contacted the ombudsperson and you are second. I suspect there are more cases. Would be good for you if you discretely can find out as it may help your case.
It is difficult to predict the outcome in these situations but I believe on a higher level in life, you will succeed whether here or somewhere else. Shallow comfort: Your case will also add to the file of this supervisor.
You did not ask for this to happen but it did. It is not your fault. It may take you extra time but in the end it will enforce your personal strength.
You may consider to ask the ombudsperson to start an independent investigation. An ombudsperson can start such investigation if there is sufficient reason. In that case he/she should able to keep you out of shot and a formal complaint from you should not be necessary.
Take care, trust your instincts and do not let this unfortunate situation break down your self confidence.

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


text:
An already poor career profile turned worse this year. Any hope left for an academic career?
31 years old, with a PhD in mechanical engineering. Graduated last December, I did not get any decent postdoc position due to my poor publication record during my 5.5 years duration PhD (1 first author and two co-author papers).
Early this year I published 2 more papers from my PhD thesis and was working on the third when covid struck. In March, I was waiting for my work permit to join my PhD supervisor as a postdoc. I was supposed to get a contract of 1 year and planned to publish multiple papers during the period.
My work permit got delayed, I am still waiting for it, though under implied status, I was able to officially start working from June. However the uncertainty and wait severely affected my productivity and mental peace.
I have till now worked on three different topics, but they are at least two months away from being written into a journal paper.
Also, I am still working on the last paper from my PhD thesis, which should have been submitted till now.
Due to covid, I am restricted to job search in my current country of residence. I don't have a valid work permit, so I am hesitating in applying for other positions and I am also aware that my profile has not improved in any significant way from the last year. So, even if I do apply, I won't get anything.
With my age and the time spent in unproductivity, I don't know if I have any prospective academic career left. I have a prior Master's degree and 5.5 years long PhD degree.
Do I have any propects of a academic career left? I wanted give it a shot before going for industry. However, at the moment, industry seems unattainable too considering my lack of internship and professional experience.
Any advice or suggestions?

You should not trust anyone's job market predictions during an economic crisis.

Why do you want to be in academia? Do you have a career advisor? Are you sure industry is impossible or is this just a conjecture?

Ask yourself why you feel that you need an academic career. I have met too many researchers who are wedded to the idea despite the reality that the years are passing and their pace of progression is slow, their security of tenure uncertain. Do you just like the intellectual atmosphere? Do you feel it is prestigious? Do you think jobs elsewhere lack intellectual satisfaction? If you answer yes to any of these, it is important to realise that atmosphere, prestige and satisfaction may also be found in industry, in civil service, in places other than academia. And often they will be better paid ...


text:
Can you decide to not publish your research at the present stage as the first author?
I have a three-part question:
First, if I am the first author of a research manuscript, as previously discussed with, and agreed by, both the second author and corresponding author(s), then due to some concerns about the paper content, am I legally allowed to unilaterally decide to delay publication (to edit the results presented in the paper), or in the worst case scenario, to not publish if I am not satisfied with the new results obtained?
This question arises when both the second author and the principal investigator hope to rush with the publication, despite my objection to the current manuscript. For this specific paper, my contribution is in running simulations and obtaining the data, while the second author's contribution lies in part of the paper-writing, including explaining the graphs and data I've obtained. This essentially means the research cannot be split in half, where the second author publishes his/her part and I publish mine separately.
Secondly, in response to my attempt to delay the publication until the manuscript is edited to a satisfactory standard, the principal investigator, my professor, asked/threatened to have me removed from the position of the first author, and instead make me the second author, if I delay publication. In doing so, both my professor and second author plan to bypass me in the publication process. Is this legally allowed? My professor's official reasoning is that, after a thorough examination, he found my contribution to be insufficient to be the first author. My problem with this explanation is that three months ago, I still hold the position of the first author, but three months later, when the second author presses for publication, somehow my work is deemed insufficient.
Lastly, any suggestions on my course of action when both aforementioned situations arise?
Update/further questions:
My principal investigator has tried to remove me from the position of the first author (as previously agreed to) to simply "acknowledging" my effort. Is this allowed, and just research malpractice? My guess is the PI really wants to have the paper published, and if I get to veto as an author, then I can't be an author anymore. What should I do in this case?

I'm aware that this is not your question, but I think it's crucial for you and your career to urgently seek advice with a neutral third-party person in your institution, for example ombudsman or neutral colleague. The ideal outcome would be to find a way out which satisfies all the co-authors. Currently the way you present it looks more like a worst-case scenario: whatever happens, your relationship with the co-authors would be permanently damage, and if accusations are thrown publicly on either side it could get really ugly. Is this paper really worth the cost?

@Erwan Good comment. SE should have a category for archivable non-answers relevant to the question.

@Erwan Unfortunately yes. I have spent a tremendous amount of time in data collecting and designing the experiment for this paper, at least more than triple the time of the rest of the authors combined. Because of this, I find retreating civilly, giving my contribution away for free, and allowing myself to be bullied as seriously unacceptable. (I have tried to discuss with them to find a middle ground, but the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful.)

I truly sympathize with your situation, but if the paper is worth so much to you then I really think that you need a kind of mediator to help disentangle the conflict. Currently the only two options are pretty bad even for the work: either it's published in a way that you don't want or it's cancelled with little chance to republish it. And it's certainly hard for you to get some perspective in this mess, but it's also important to think about your future. Involving a neutral person would be a step in de-escalating the conflict and try to find a solution, and if it could even help your case ...

... since you would be seen by other people as the one who does the effort to try to solve the problem.

All authors must agree to publication; any co-author may delay publication, or withdraw, if they aren't satisfied by the results. (Intellectual property law prohibits publication without consent of all authors, in many jurisdictions.)
Author ordering should be agreed early to avoid disputes. Renegotiation is possible, especially when circumstances change.
No author may strip another of authorship. Any author may push for renegotiation of author ordering. Although an author delaying publication isn't reasonable grounds for reordering, it may be reasonable for reordering if delay is being introduced so that author duties change, e.g., when an author is going to do more work than initially considered.

What would happen if no agreement is reached during renegotiation? Would the ordering have to remain as previously arranged, or do the authors take some kind of a vote, where   the majority decides who takes the position of the first author?

@HarryWang It's up to the authors.

@Libor Suppose I disagree with publication, what does that mean? Would the manuscript still be submitted?

The implication is that every "author" gets a veto, not a vote. But you are encouraged to act as a colleague, not a jerk. And fighting with your doctoral advisor or other PI is not a good path to success.

The PI closing you out may not violate any legal code, but it is certainly research malpractice and should be condemned.

This is not really a legal question, but one of academic standards and it would never be decided on a legal level. That's as far as the legality issue goes.
However, there is a good chance that at least one side here is likely to be acting unethically or at least questionably, but this is outside of the realm of the legal.

Either your co-authors wish to publish a premature result and you are rightly unhappy that the work is not carried out to satisfaction.

Or you are unreasonably perfectionistic or perhaps even overpedantic and you wish to block your co-authors from publishing a perfectly acceptable result.

We are not able to judge that. Basically, from a purely formal academic integrity point of view, you can sabotage your fellow authors by blocking them from publication. Your contribution is such that they cannot remove you from the author list without violating a core contract of academic authorship. In other words, strictly spoken, you can - at least as concerns academic rules - prevent them from publishing. They can not circumvent that without breaking academic integrity.
That being said, if you would be sabotaging a publication without very good reason (as I say, we have no grounds to determine either way), this could be considered a violation if not of the letter of academic conduct, but of its spirit.
A supervisor of such a student who is scrupulous in matters of academic integrity (the supervisor) would probably not force the issue on that paper and just cut their losses. However, they would be perfect in their right to cut off the student from any promising critical project in the future and might also bring the case to the academic misconduct case if they think the blocking was unreasonable. If indeed the prospective author would be found sabotaging the paper, this would not bode well for them; nobody likes to see their departments' PhD supervisions and/or research funding wasted. Of course, the OP might consider appealing to the academic integrity board on their own side to prevent publication of the paper without their authorship or consent. Alternatively, OP might contact the journal it was submitted to, but that is already an escalation beyond the institution, and probably should be only considered as next step.
Note in all of that that the judgement of what would constitute a reasonable result is highly subjective and thus there is a considerable grey area of what would constitute a reasonable refusal to publish vs. an act of sabotage. I repeat: we have not enough information to come to either assumption, but I wanted to make sure OP has the full picture.
It may therefore be a wiser decision to contemplate whether an appropriately moderate honest presentation of the - not so impressive - results would make a publication acceptable, rather than trying to block it in its entirety; after all, that's the result, honestly presented. Other scientists then know they do not need to walk down this path.
To be honest, none of the above is really satisfactory; the best of all outcomes would be to entreat your coauthors with a convincing case as to what work needs to be done to bring the paper up to the standard that one would like to see it in rather than go into confrontation. If the results are not as desired, what alternative experiments/simulations could be done to achieve that.


text:
Talking about other projects in a job talk
I have seen plenty of job talks, but whenever the speaker talks about a list of topics that they are "not going to talk about today", I often get distracted and even a little bit annoyed. It dilutes the main talk contents, and I hardly ever remember what those items were. I understand that they want to show their breath, but it usually doesn't convey very well. Now that I am in that position, I am wondering if there is a good way to deliver the message.
What would be a good approach to briefly mentioning other projects that you are excited about?
Should I talk about them at the beginning or at the end? Is it a good idea to put all of the other projects under a single theme and not talk about the details at all, or should I try to explain each project's objective and approach? Should I talk about only a couple of projects or is 4 a better number?

A variation which may be better: "If you're interested in hearing more about this, please ask me after the talk."

I've always felt that a good job talk should be a good talk, period.  A good talk is usually about only one project, or a couple closely related ones.  You can show your breadth in your CV and research statement; the job talk is your only opportunity to show that you can give a good talk, which they will use as a proxy for teaching ability, among other things.

NB: Not everyone agrees with me on this.  There just may be people in the department who are too lazy to read your application file, and could assume if you talk about only one thing that you've done only one thing.  On the other hand, I got my current job after giving a talk about one project, without breathing a word about any other project.

The answer you need depends very much on how closely related your collection of interests are. What I did for my job talks was the following. I chose one of my topics that I knew would provide lots of pointers to my other ones. This way I did not just give a laundry list of "things I do" but rather at a nice point in the talk I could say something like "this raises two questions, the one I am going to talk about today is the first but I am happy to go into the second one privately later." The idea here was the other project came up when it made sense, indicated breadth (at least for my collection of topics), and did not feel overbearing.
You mileage may vary but remember that you can choose which topic to give your job talk on and choosing the one that will give you the most connections to the others is as good a tactic as any.


text:
Job applications reviewed "until the position is filled" (i.e. soft deadline): What does that really mean?
I noticed that many ads say "Review of applications will begin on Day X, and continue until the position is filled". I wonder how this kind of search works. Assume the search committee received a certain number of applications on Day X. Usually none of the applications is from a superstar that you definitively want to hire, but let's say between five and ten are good enough for you to hire one of them. What would the search committee do? Would they contact the candidates, arrange interviews and hire the best one there? Or would they still wait for a month or two just to see if a superstar would apply after all?

This is a good question.  I don't know for sure, but I understand that some institutions have a rule that a search must continue until a hire is actually made.  But the committee doesn't really want to keep reading new applications while they're interviewing finalists.  So I've understood such ads as saying: "For practical purposes the deadline is Day X.  Technically we're required to accept applications after that date but we probably will ignore them, unless you are a superstar."  It'd be great if someone with search committee experience could confirm or deny.

My impression is similar in spirit to Nate Eldredge's but in some ways opposite: some universities have strict rules that forbid any hiring outside of exactly what was promised in the job advertisement.  I.e., if you set a deadline of X, then you cannot hire someone who applied on day X+1, and if you specified area Y, then you cannot hire in the related area Z.  Even if you have concrete plans, it's advantageous to phrase the job ad vaguely enough to preserve your ability to change your mind.  So I interpret "review begins on day X" as "we envision X as a deadline but might make an exception."

It's not unheard of as well for a position to literally go unfilled until next year. I've had to call a University tech support because I applied last year, and couldn't apply this year because I had already applied last year to the exact same posting and they had to reset the system.

This is the Secretary Problem and the search committee just does the math and follows the optimum path.  It's science.  Right?  I mean, that is what they do, right?

"Review of applications will begin on Day X, and continue until the position is filled" is also translated as:
We want you to get your application in on time, but if you're totes amazeballs and late we'll overlook it.
The motivation is the same as what was mentioned. If you say that there's a hard deadline for submissions, and then Dr. Awesome Sauce applies a day later and gets hired, you're opening yourself up to a lawsuit from all the Dr. Not-So-Awesomes.
Practically, academic hiring works on a calendar, and universities compete with each other. For example, in computer science it's rare to be making a first offer well into May unless you're at the University of I'm-So-Cool and know that you can afford to be last. And even then it doesn't always work. So practically speaking there's a deadline of sometime in March to make decisions on offers and start wooing your preferred candidates.
This means that you can't realistically process a new application any later than early-mid February (because it takes time to collect references and organize a trip)

I could imagine that if the University of I'm-So-Cool makes offers in May, it's not getting all of the top candidates, since all of the top ones would have accepted their offers back in March. No one's going to wait until May in this job climate. +1 for a good outline of the process.

The upshot is, if I can satisfice and get a pretty good app in by the date that "review of applications begins," or I can spend another 2 days polishing the cover letter, which is preferable? And this seems to indicate the former, no?

@Philip: Right, if it is at all possible to submit an acceptable application by the "start of review" date you should do so; do not let it go past just to make the application a little better.  On the other hand, though, if you don't find out about the job at all until the date has passed, and you think you're a really good fit, there may still be some value in applying.


text:
Interview Dilemma: Other Offers
Tomorrow, I have an interview at one of the top UK universities where I really want to end up. However, I already have a few offers from other places. So, I am wondering, if they ask me whether I have other offers, what should I say?
Maybe it sounds weird, but I was thinking: if I say "yes, I do have other offers", they might think that since I already have a few offers, they can give the position to someone else. If I say "no, I don't have any offers", it might be a red flag that it is mid-April and I don't have any offers yet.
What would be the best way to respond to such a question?

Why is this weird or non-standard? Have you searched this site for other people with the same sort of question? It seems like quite a standard and typical one. https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=other+offers gives 5,271 results - I'm sure not all of these apply, but sifting through the first couple dozen it seems like most of them do to some extent.

It sounds like your brain is trying to trick you into believing that no matter what you do, they will try to find fault with it. Don't fall for it. Of course it would make no sense for someone to ask you a binary yes/no question and then interpret both possible answers to your disadvantage.

For what it's worth, I'm in a very similar position to you and I've simply been honest when the issue came up. They know that competitive candidates will be applying to multiple institutions. So far, it only came up when I was discussing timelines - I asked for slightly extended decision time on an offer - and the prospective PI's reaction was rather neutral.

Everybody wants the best students. Saying that you have other offers will only make you look better in the eyes of admissions committees. The only possible exception would be a low-ranked school that is limited in the number of offers it can make because of some bureaucratic policy. They might not make you an offer based on the premise that you will probably not accept it, so might as well make that spot available to someone else. But every other school will offer you the spot, then put the 99th candidate on a waiting list.

I suggest honesty.
Not only does that let your conscience alone, but,also, you never know. University people may well talk to each other.
Also, I don't think that "he has offers, so we'll offer it to someone else" is a likely reaction. Each university is trying to get the best set of students they can, just as each student is trying to go to the best program they can. This results in a lot of chaos around the time that everyone has to decide.
I once worked with a guy who made these decisions, not for a university but for a quite prestigious internship. He had lists, the students had lists, there were lots of shuffling.

Both of your worries do not really capture how hiring committees (or individual PIs, since you are apparently applying for a postdoc) think.

Since I already have a few offers, they can give the position to someone else

Their goal is not to maximise how many people overall get a position. Or, to turn this around, not once have I heard somebody say "we should make an offer to this person, because it's unlikely that they will get a job otherwise".
Frankly, they do not care what exactly your plan B is if they do not select you.

If I say "no, I don't have any offers", it might be a red flag

This one is slightly more plausible, but also not really how people think. They don't know where you have applied, and what has happened in these application processes. Also, the fact that they are interviewing in April indicates that they don't think all the good candidates will already have offers at this point.
There is one real issue when considering whether to tell another university about your offers - if they get the feeling that you are unlikely to say yes, for example because you already have offers that you would prefer over the place you are interviewing, they might indeed decide that it's in their best interest not to rank you (and lose time in a negotiation that will not end in their favour).
Consequently, there is usually nothing from saying that you have other offers, but make it clear that they are still very much in the running (i.e., they can definitely make you an offer that would make you pick them over your existing offers).

it might be a red flag that it is mid-April and I don't have any
offers yet

This thinking implies that the comitee is relying on other universities comitees to judge you. This is wrong on many many levels, especially from a "top" university (whatever that means): if they are a top university, they are good enough at judging candidates on their own without the needs of some "confirmation" from their peers.
There are thousands of practical reasons why one has no offer in mid-April, and additionally mid-April is an absolutely arbitrary time in most of the university system.
So, in short, they do not care about you not having other offers, but they may care if you have other offers purely for organizative reasons and it may give you leverage in asking for an expedite feedback after the interview.


text:
Editor's decision in Nature and under review in Research Square
I submitted a journal paper in scientific reports and I found something very weird. Two different status if I check via nature webpage with Editor's decision and through Research Square under review no updates from one month.
I have sent an email and the assistant has told me that they have received all reviews they need but I do not get any final answer and the research square does not change from under review to editor and it is not updated for one month. But the status changed from reviewer 3 received to reviewer 2 received but without changing dates. Only under the title of my paper not in the tracking itself.
I am afraid that the tracking is not correct so the editor does not know about the paper. As it is not consistent one tracking with the other.
I have sent one email about this issue to the assistant but she checked the nature systen only so I don't know what it is happening and why there is no further updates for one month and why they are different from research square.
Someone else had the same issue?

I am not sure I understand your question. Research Square is where your pre-print is. Nature scientific reports is where your manuscript is. The Research Square page says "Journals can participate in In Review with varying levels of transparency into the peer review process" You seem  to think Nature and Research Square should sync to each other. Is there any reason you think so?

Research square should track the status of the paper for some journals but as I saw it cannot be trusted.

SHORT ANSWER
Research Square and Nature are two distinct publication venues.
Nature might offer the option to send a submission to Research Square so that it is made public (and time stamped) while still in the review process, but the only system which matters for their reviewing process is that of Nature. The status of a submission on Research Square is probably updated only after some key points, for purely informational purpose.
LONGER ANSWER
The "In Review" service of Research Square ("a free journal-integrated preprint service offered to authors at participating journals. Authors can opt to have their manuscript automatically posted online in the form of a preprint with a DOI") might seem to you as an integrated part of the submission system of Nature, but it is actually a separate entity, with a distinct purpose:

Nature's purpose is to publish peer-reviewed articles (with the seal of approval that such long peer-reviewing process provides), while
Research Square's purpose is to 1) diffuse  preprints without peer-review, and to 2) help writers to improve their draft before submission to venues with peer-reviewing processes.

My advice would be to trust Nature's editorial process (they have a long experience with it) and to use Research Square as an easy to use way to share a time stamped version of your article with colleagues while waiting for the official results of Nature's peer reviewed process.
Hope it helps!

Thank you, you were right the research square was making errors only nature must be trusted. I got the response today when the research square was under review.


text:
Usefulness of prior industry experience before entering grad school
I worked full time throughout undergrad and about 11 months after undergrad in the pharmaceutical industry. I worked mainly in manufacturing and quality control doing mainly routine testing and assay troubleshooting where I learned several lab skills. I also have undergrad research experience (and a publication). I’m planning on applying to PhD programs in biomedical science in the US and I was wondering if these industry experiences will be beneficial for my application. How much of the industry experiences, if any, will be beneficial?

As long as they are relevant for the direction of your study and fit into the story of the application, anything is useful.

FYI similar question was asked here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/120/19607 but the focus there was CS rather than biomed.  (I am not in either area and I don't know if there is a difference.)

I largely disagree with the earlier answers on this. You have 11 months of work under your belt that competing applicants are unlikely to have.  That's 11 months of maturity, and 11 months that demonstrate that you've been earning a living and still want to go into a graduate program, suggesting a strong commitment.  Aside from what you've been doing during that employment, that's great stuff for any grad school application.  Also, since (presumably) you haven't gotten fired, it shows an ability to work with others, and to do your job to your supervisor's satisfaction.
If you don't believe an admissions committee will find this important, part of the job you need to achieve in your application portfolio is telling the admissions committee why it is important.

Indeed. Further, "...they also (should) give some though to how well the person will do out in the world with the degree with an eye on representation of the institution & program, and of course economic ability to contribute money as an alumnus. So a candidate's interest, abilities and success in industry could certainly have a positive influence on acceptance, depending of course on the details." from comment

OP undoubtedly did get useful experience and it's worth putting a positive spin on it.  But that wasn't the question. The question is whether PhD admissions committees will care.  They're academics and researchers who typically have almost zero industrial experience and they're choosing future academics and researchers.  I have not seen any evidence they care about candidates' industrial experience or, for that matter, LORs from industry.  They want a strong academic record and research experience and LORs from academics and researchers.

@NicoleHamilton - you might be underestimating the amount of industrial interactions faculty members in the biomedical sciences have.  There are enough faculty that have their own companies, or consult with industry, or get research funding from industry, that a general industrial awareness exists.

Those are not typical industrial experiences.  I grant that if an applicant's industrial experience does include starting their own biomedical company, consulting, or obtaining research funding, that would attract attention.  But do you really think that's the kind of experience OP is talking about? I'll say again, most junior TT faculty have basically zero industrial experience of any kind, so it can't be that important.

I'm not saying that the experiences line up, just that there's a fairly evolved knowledge of industry in academic life sciences.

Very well, please describe the industrial experience you had when you applied to PhD programs and how you think it affected your applications.

@NicoleHamilton, I had none, but the argument is logically flawed.  I can certainly make fair observations and evaluations outside of my own personal experience as a student.  When I served on our grad admissions committee, such experience was looked at positively, as one part of their portfolios. Indeed, quite a few of our doctoral graduates go on to successful industrial careers.  About 20% of our external advisory board is from jndustry.

Also, if a department is not actively considering that plenty of their grad students will end up in non academic career paths, and accommodating that, they're doing their students a real disservice.  This is a factor related to the issue at hand, though not directly on point,

I'm not sure whether this might be mainly a cultural difference - but if an applicant told me that their industry experience is important because working for eleven months in a company without getting fired shows "an ability to work with others, and to do your job to your supervisor's satisfaction", this would certainly not increase their chances (to put it mildly).

Doctoral programs are about research. Your experience doesn't seem to be research oriented, so I'd guess that it counts for little, though positive. But it does explain what you've been doing in the interim and that seems productive, so a good thing to state.
If the lab skills are specific to what you intend to study then it is a bit more positive, so focus on that aspect.
But other things such as GPA (especially in major subjects) and letters of recommendation will count for more in a US application.

Among all the other excellent answers you've written that I've appreciated and upvoted, this is the first that I've ever disagreed with. While universities certainly consider likely academic success in the program as a baseline, they also give some though to how well the person will do out in the world with the degree with an eye on representation of the institution & program, and of course economic ability to contribute money as an alumnus. So a candidate's interest, abilities and success in industry could certainly have a positive influence on acceptance, depending of course on the details.

I completely agree with Scott Seidman's answer that this is likely to be a big plus for several reasons outlined there, and that you should be proactive in helping to make that clear.
You've mentioned:

I worked mainly in manufacturing and quality control doing mainly routine testing and assay troubleshooting where I learned several lab skills. I also have undergrad research experience (and a publication).

I'm pretty sure that research faculty in the program would be horrified to discover that skills and ability to carry out research from day one were being ignored as selection criteria. Certainly when they select students to work in their lab, "Can this person be productive here?" is a primary selection criteria.

...I was wondering if these industry experiences will be beneficial for my application.

It should be so likely it will be in some cases. But as Scott Seidman's answer (linked above) points out:

...part of the job you need to achieve in your application portfolio is telling the admissions committee why it is important. (emphasis added)

Lean in to the skills you have developed in your undergraduate research and in your industrial experience. You can DO stuff on day one, you can be a positive influence on others and bring perspective from an industrial setting at least to laboratories where research may overlap with industry, e.g. research potentially contributing to the development of new equipment, techniques and technology, drugs, biomedical materials and procedures, etc.
Actually, when you specifically say biomedical rather than biological, some overlap with industry seems to be guaranteed one way or the other.

In my experience, very few junior tenure track faculty have any industry experience beyond maybe a couple summer internships along the way. I think you can take from that that industry experience is not a big factor in PhD admissions.
Factors that really move the needle are strong LORs, a compelling SOP, and any research experience and publications. GPA needs to be above a threshold but beyond that doesn't matter so much. (Top programs could fill every spot with 4.0 students but they don't because that's not the only thing they care about.)  Industry experience and glowing LORs from industry may be helpful, but definitely not as much.

I would be interested to learn whether those who downvoted did so because they think that the claims in this answer are not true or because they think the claims should not be true.


text:
Is it legally possible to stand up for getting unfairly marked by my professor?
I recently completed my coursework for International Business Strategy in the UK. I have been marked unfairly in a sense where my professor has given me the feedback of not mentioning certain points from the criteria. However, it’s quite evident that I have, for which I have proof and have raised it with him. Yet, he’s quite formidable and blatant towards me on this. I quite evidently wrote about the points he said I haven’t under the umbrella of scholars which used a different term for the words and I provided citations for, which he clearly didn’t see. Anyways, he did say to use simple words which means that he didn’t understand the grammar and marked me low. He has refused to remark me. I am in great disbelief after looking at my results and I want to know what I can do to make it right.

"Is it legally possible to" This is a question you need to ask your lawyer.

I am not a lawyer. But I believe that (a) all UK universities have documented appeal processes (b) the courts are normally unwilling to consider a case until the university procedures are exhausted. It sounds to me that you have only taken this up informally with the professor; if you want to go further then you need to find out what the procedures are and take advice (adviser, student union, ??) so that you make your case properly and clearly.

Typically, academic judgement is not a matter which you can appeal or take to court. The University / legal system are concerned with whether the formal rules of the assessment are followed. They may take action if there is a systemic bias or discrimination of a group of students. But when it comes to individual pieces of work, neither University nor the judge have enough expertise and time available to remark your work.
Typically, major pieces of assessment (e.g. >50% of your grade) are double-marked or moderated, meaning that someone looked at your professor's marking and checked it. Still, mistakes happen, and sometimes you find your work being marked lower than you expected. This is unpleasant and I am sorry you find yourself in this position. Try to learn from it as much as possible -- even if the learning point is that your professor is not able to appreciate a term used by other scholars and you have to use the term from the class next time. Writing down terminology used in class is definitely an excellent method to prepare for your assessment and ensure that your markers can appreciate all the right points in your work. Good luck!

You are not going to get legal advise on this forum. For that you need to talk to a legal specialist. But even if it is possible, you need to set your expectations right: A judge is not going to grade your work. It can only look at whether certain rules are followed. It is perfectly possible that your professor did not break such rules, and still got to the conclusion you disagreed with.


text:
Help with academic low self steem
I have an engineering degree and work in a giant business corporation. I am currently doing my MBA (in the last semester).
Sometimes the fear of not getting the degree bugs me (I have to present a thesis); maybe it will be really bad and all the effort was in vain.
How do you cope with the fear of failure? For example, fear of failing the thesis defense many times.

you paid already so much to enroll in a MBA course, pay the required additional money to be coached to deliver a good thesis. No one cares about the content of a MBA thesis, as long as it is not copied or produced by someone else than you.

From a tactical standpoint, you want to get feedbacks from someone who can critique your thesis. During oral defense, your advisor’s role is being your advocate. So you should work with him or her to prepare for it. From the emotional perspective, having a mentor or a talk with alumni would help. Without any more details about how well you are doing academically and juggling time for work school life balance, it’s hard to offer specific advices. But as this is your last semester, the end is near.

This is something I struggled with throughout my PhD, and having a good Director of Studies and having other PhD colleagues around me made a difference. Don't get me wrong, I still struggle with the so-called "impostor syndrome", but I think the key is to surround yourself with people who are supportive, are able to give you positive yet constructive feedback and who can listen to you in moments of struggle.
Something else that can help you is keeping a journal where every day or every week you write down the things you have accomplished. Doing research and being in the industry/academic sector surrounded by very successful people can sometimes feel overwhelming and make you feel small. I did this journal activity in order to force myself to see my accomplishments and it did really help. Otherwise, I always felt life got in the way and all I was able to see was the X, Y and Z that still needed to get done, and not everything else that I had managed to finish.


text:
How important is "research-fit" in post-doc hiring
To clarify, this is my definition of "research-fit": research-fit is a term used in academia to describe the (degree of) overlap between research interests—and presumably also experience—of two or more individuals. It is commonly used in PhD admissions to match applicants to potential advisors.
I am wondering whether a similar analysis is done during post-doc hiring decisions. Of course, if an English PhD applied to a physics post-doc, the answer is somewhat trivial. However, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
A theoretical computer scientist decides that they want to study algebraic geometry and indeed, they have trained in algebraic geometry (perhaps through demonstrable coursework), but have published only in theoretical computer science with possibly a small overlap that an algebraic geometer might not care all that much about. Would, then, an absence of "research-fit", in particular the absence of relevant research experience in algebraic geometry, be a hurdle in said computer scientist's interest to pursue a post-doctoral position in mathematics despite adequate training? I am not thinking of computational algebra, but rather, pure mathematics.
More broadly, are there situations where faculty may be interested in (or even have need for) post-doctoral candidates from outside their field?

I think a lot hinges on "despite adequate training". Is coursework in the area without research experience considered "adequate training" by the hiring advisor, or not? It seems like you have decided you have "adequate training", but if a potential advisor does not hire you, their reason for not hiring could very well be that they do not think your training is adequate for the position.

Clearly the people hiring you have to see some fit for what you would do for them and what they could do for you.

(Not a full answer but still): in the UK, shortlisted applicants are usually first divided into "employable" (for the position), and not. I suspect that the hurdle you may face is that you could be found "employable" in many of your applicants, but if somebody with a better "research fit" applies, you may not be the top ranked amongst those candidates that got a "pass" and therefore not get offered the position

You might have picked bad examples as areas of research, but... well less than half of algebraic geometry PhDs obtain a postdoc position - despite having finished a dissertation that likely requires learning substantial background material beyond what is taught in a yearlong algebraic geometry course - it's possible that the theoretical CS PhD does have ideas and insight that are of interest to the algebraic geometers doing the hiring, enough to overcome most likely having less background than all the competition that is already not getting a postdoc, but I'm not sure how likely.

@AlexanderWoo: I know comments are not for extended discussion, but I have to ask -- where do the other half end up?

@principles-investigator: They either end up in teaching-oriented academic jobs, either temporary or permanent, or they end up in an industry job, almost always unrelated to algebraic geometry, frequently in some sort of software development.  (Thankfully, most of these temporary teaching-oriented jobs are at least full-time.)  Outside of the top 20 or so departments, PhD graduates who land a research-oriented position are rare.

This depends entirely on the group one is joining. I've seen a situation where there were no expectations at all, other than the general subfield of math. But there are other situations where a post doc is hired for a specific purpose and the PI (say) is looking for an expert in that precise topic.
The first case I mentioned was more to see if a promising faculty candidate would fit into a department (he did, and was later hired as an assistant professor). But the short term of most post doc positions might indicate that some specific talent is needed in a specific project.
And, anything in between is also possible. Each position is distinct. Read the announcement for hints and ask people doing the hiring about "fit".
Most post docs, however, are expected to produce something. I think it rare that it is treated as a purely educational opportunity.

It depends on the job, the hiring panel, and the competition. I was once on a committee looking to hire a physical oceanographic modeller. It was difficult to find good candidates in that field at the time, so as well as interviewing a couple of physical oceanographers, we interviewed an applied mathematician with a strong programming background and a physical limnologist. In the end, we hired the mathematician. More recently, I was on a hiring committee looking for a marine ecologist with a particular skill set. We interviewed — and seriously considered — a terrestrial ecologist who had an impressive CV and had the skills we were looking for, but in the end, we took the safer bet of hiring someone who was already working in marine ecology. The stronger your CV, the more likely you are to be considered for a job outside your immediate research area. The harder it is to find good candidates in the field you are aiming for, the more likely it is that you will get a look-in. But if there is strong competition from people who have been working in exactly that area, you’re a long-shot.

Depends on where the money is coming from and what the demands are. Typically agencies or sponsors with strict timelines and deliverables necessitate a tighter overlap because we don't have time to get people up to speed.
Industrial money has strict deliverables, often with weekly meetings. The postdoc better be directly aligned and start producing ASAP. DoD/NASA with monthly meetings, there can be a bit of flexibility. DoE with quarterly, even more so. NSF doesn't really fund postdocs so no comment there. NIH (still trying to crack that nut). Foundation/fellowship money is the best because the postdoc is free to explore and learn, and typically just a short report is required annually. I just hired one of the latter and it was more fun looking for people who could bring a diversity of background to some of the projects I have going, without any strict pressure to produce right away. Whereas my current search for an industrially-funded postdoc is a bit of a headache as I need some very specific skills, and I need their start dates to align.

In theoretical mathematics in the US, most postdocs are hired on university money through a combination of the teaching budget and endowed funds.  They are in effect temporary junior faculty members.  Also, they are hired by the department as a whole, not individual faculty (though some departments effectively delegate the choice to individual faculty members or groups, possibly on a rotating basis).

@AlexanderWoo -- that is going to vary by institution.  At my R1 institution, we are the opposite.  All postdocs (regardless of field) must be guaranteed by the appointing PI; no teaching or dept funds available at all.  We don't let them hire anyone without a guarantee of funding (from a portfolio manager).  If it later happens that the PI cannot afford them, they are let go (with necessary notice, etc.).

@AlexanderWoo, in relation to R1NaNo's answer: what kind of timeline do these post-docs hired by the department work with? Are they on similarly tight schedules as industry funded ones, or more relaxed timelines or perhaps somewhere in between? Additionally, I assume there are some teaching expectations as well?

@principles-investigator -- when you do contract work (not grant work) you may only have a couple weeks' notice before the start date of the contract.  If you tend to make offers to postdocs in the spring for a fall start date, but your contract starts in July, what do you do?  Wait until next fall to get a postdoc?  The contract could be over by then or you are so far behind it causes problems with your sponsor.

Thanks @yourfriendlyresearchadmin, that makes sense; but perhaps I should clarify that I meant more in the way of workload and deadlines for deliverables.

@principles-investigator - departmental post-docs in the US are usually hired on approximately the same timeline as faculty, though maybe slightly later - applications due November-January with offers January-March for jobs starting in August-September, and jobs run with the academic year (since teaching is involved).

@yourfriendlyresearchadmin - that effectively means you have almost no postdocs in theoretical mathematics (not counting those that come with their own funding) since grants in theoretical mathematics are less common (a majority of R1 faculty do not have one) and very few such grants include money for a postdoc (because one can't expect even a highly qualified unknown person to be able to contribute to a specific project as their ability to generate insight might not combine with that particular project).

@AlexanderWoo, sorry; I actually merged theory CS and applied math in my head. Yes probably for theory math less common to have grant funding, but that's because regular research grants are less common, not because of NSF as a sponsor disallows postdocs as this answer indicated.  For theory CS and applied math, our people use NSF funding all the time.  NSF allows postdocs on regular research grants.  Even if we budget a grad student, we are allowed to rebudget into postdoc as part of normal rebudgetary rules. If theory math people can get an NSF grant, it can pay for a postdoc.

@yourfriendlyresearchadmin: NSF is skeptical about postdoc and grad student funding in theoretical math - yes it can happen (particularly on CAREER grants since they are required to be quite large (for theoretical math)) - and of course it happens on grants from programs that require a training component - but few regular grants include personnel funding beyond a month of summer salary for the PI.

Research administrator here -- I work at an R1 and support PIs with various fields, but specifically Computer Science.  I help with the appointment process for portfolios assigned to me, so I would like to mention some possible administrative hurdles based on my experience with a diverse group of people within the same institutional policies.  Overall, I want to emphasize that there is a widening gap in the culture of hiring in CS from the rest of the engineering and applied sciences.  Because of the competition with Big Tech, there are more options for postdocs, and they know them and use them to their advantage.  Sometimes that is ok, but often I find many more obstacles with the appointment process because we are competing with industry to make competitive offers.  I have not found there to be equal pressure in the other departments.
Need for Specific Expertise
As an example, we have cases where a materials engineer requires a computational person on their project, and they find it more useful to add such a person to their group rather than create a collaboration with someone else in another group/institution.  Here are some questions I would raise for this scenario:

Are you paying this person the same as the rest of your lab?  In this case, CS people make much more than materials postdocs.  This can cause issues in the lab.
Is this person being appointed with the title of postdoc in CS or in Materials?  Are there rules requiring one title over the other (e.g., based on their PhD field)?
What are the specific advantages of personally mentoring someone who does not have the same background as you?  If they are on your grants and you are the PI -- you have to oversee their work.  How will you do this if you do not know their field?  Who will help them if you cannot?
Are there visa issues that prevent this from working out?  There could be a problem for OPT paperwork if that is a factor and a different field is used in the appointment process.

I have seen this work out in cases like this, but the PI needs to be very engaged and work to find solutions for the obstacles that will inevitably arise.  It's not an "easy" path.
Hoping for a Strong Postdoc in the Lab Regardless of 100% Fit
I have seen cases, particularly in CS, more than other fields, where postdocs appear to be looking for a temporary home and use the PI as a stepping stone.  The PI also is hoping to get some help in the lab, and due to a shortage of postdocs, accept the individual.  I never saw this happen ten years ago; it's now much more common, and something I am wary of.  Once they are in the lab, I have seen postdocs actually refuse to work on their PI's grants and projects.  As you can imagine, this is pretty upsetting for the PI.  They felt like they had a strong person in their lab, but it turns out this individual was not interested in the PI's topic, and thus, it caused tension in the group.  My questions in these cases:

How do we pay a person who doesn't want to work on the PI's projects?
How can the PI mentor someone where their research interests do not align?
Does the PI need to be able to go through a disciplinary process and are they prepared to do this if necessary?

In these cases, the postdoc often ends up leaving on bad terms.  I do not advise this situation at all.
General Advice
Overall, you need to make sure offer letters are clear on what the topics will be that need to be worked on.  Make sure that this will help if you need to go through a disciplinary procedure.  Talk to your faculty affairs/appointing office prior to making offers.  If the difference in field is large, ask about salary requirements.  Check on visa requirements if that is a factor.  Try to find additional support on the intellectual side so that you are not alone in mentoring this person.
Make sure you know about all of the possible hurdles with making an appointment and keeping the relationship stable before entering into a complicated appointment.


text:
How to network with professors when not attending a univeristy
My story is a long one to tell, so I will just say my current situation and leave out how I got here. I am interested in studying mathematics but I do not have the opportunity to attend a university due to being hired soon. Recently I learned that I can take college-credit courses without having to enroll in a program. There are two highly reputable schools that offer online upper-level undergraduate math courses: UIUC and Johns Hopkins.
I have no problem investing the money and I foresee no issues on learning the material since I am very motivated and have already studied some of the subjects on my own. The only issue is how to build relationships with professors so that I can apply to graduate schools later in life. Online courses are generally run by instructors who are not doing research. Most graduate schools require 3 letters of recommendation. I'm thinking that investing money in these courses may be pointless if I cannot build relationships with professors.
Does anyone know if professors are willing to help someone not affiliated with a university? Should I try emailing professors at UIUC or JHU?

You're correct that most on-line courses are not (actively) taught by tenured faculty, but by adjuncts, whose letters of recommendation would have less weight... Still, "certifying" your competence in things is worthwhile, especially if you otherwise have no official evidence of what you're learned. Yes, you'd still want something stronger to get to grad school... The latter is harder to arrange...

@paulgarrett Enrolling in an online BS program may give me a higher chance of collaborating with faculty. Some schools have capstone project as part of their requirements. However, this will be more expensive as I would need to complete more credits (including lower-level courses and other gen-ed requirements), doesn't have the leisure of completing courses at my own pace, and typically these programs are only offered at less prestigious brach campuses such as LSU Alexandria and UI Springfield. Seems like a Catch 22. Life is tough for those who didn't find their passion when they were young.

What level math courses are you taking now?  Starting at Calc II will be a lot different than starting from Galois theory.

@TerryLoring Now? None. I am not in school. A year ago I completed my PhD in Engineering (throughout I thought about quitting due to my greater interest in math) and before that I got my BS in physics (I don't count this toward my actual education though since I had no study habits when I was younger). Outside of school I have studied linear algebra, analysis, abstract algebra, topology, and first-order logic up to Godel's theorems. I studied these with a mentor. He is a retired math professor but he no longer has connections to academia.

Even if he did, all graduate programs that I have seen, including the lesser reputable one, require around 18 credits of upper-level math on a transcript. I don't have this despite having the knowledge.

Basically you are asking for a "back door" into academia.
It is not impossible. But there is, quite naturally, no official path to it. You are going to have to improvise.
There are two bits of advice I can be pretty sure will apply, though I can't necessarily tell you how to apply them.
1 - Don't make a pest of yourself. Nobody likes ants at a picnic. Whatever method you find to get yourself a relationship with a prof, don't try things that annoy, harass, waste time, and most especially, don't do anything that will make them worry about their safety. Or any other person's safety. Or the safety of the university.
2 - Find some way to make yourself look good to a prof. Typically students do this by producing outstanding work on their assignments. And by being useful in class interaction. (As opposed to being, for example, a know-it-all. See point 1.)
If you could find a class you are especially interested in and take that in person, it might be a good chance. Especially if the class was taught by a prof you might be interested in working with.
If there is some area of math that you are especially interested in, and you have done some work on your own, you might get somewhere by "cold calling" (cold emailing) a prof and asking for help on some point. If you are pleasant about it, and if you are interesting, the prof might respond. And then you might be able to start a relationship.
This is the autobiography of John Moffat. He was living in Paris, an artist doing paintings. And studying general relativity on his own. He decided one day to write a letter to Einstein to ask a question about relativity. Einstein wrote back. Moffat wrote again, and Einstein responded. Eventually Einstein asked why Moffat was not asking his own professor these questions. When Moffat explained his situation, Einstein helped him get into Cambridge. Directly into the PhD program with no undergrad degree.
So it is possible. It is certainly not the usual pattern.
And once again, be nice about it.

Thanks for the advice. The only problem I see with 2) is that any online classes will be taught by instructors who are not doing serious research. So I will probably have no opportunities to make myself look good to faculty members with higher prestige. Also, how would I even begin to do work on my own?  To do that I would need the guidance of experienced faculty to give me a research question which is doable at my skill level.

When Moffat was studying GR on his own, there was no internet. You have the opportunity to obtain very nearly all of human knowledge on line. You might have to pay for a subscription to a journal or two. You might have to buy a text or two. You might have to watch some of the on-line videos of profs explaining things to their regular classes.

I have already done the latter two but not the first. I'll see what I can find.


text:
Should I link my research in my SOP?
I have done some independent research that I wish to mention in my SOP. The full account of what I have done till has been published as an e-print on arxiv.org. Can I give a hyperlink to this e-print in my SOP?

I would differ a bit from both of the previous two responses.
The SOP and the CV serve different purposes. The SOP is the high-level summary (some would say sales pitch) for why your work is interesting and why you should be hired. This needs to be tightly written and compelling, and part of being compelling is highlighting particularly unique, interesting, or high-profile publications. Importantly, I've been told by several hiring committee members that more people will read your SOP than your CV - so if something's important, don't bury it only in the CV. The CV is more of a "data dump" in which you list everything that you've done that may be of interest. You don't necessarily want all of this detail clouding up your SOP, although you want the hiring committee to have access to it if necessary. Think of your SOP like a glossy brochure and the CV like a dictionary - the former is intended to be read while the latter is intended to be referenced.
So, that said, I think it's both a mistake to leave your publication out of your SOP entirely and also to list all of your publications there (if you have many). Reference only the key ones that support the rest of your story and include a hyperlink in a footnote if you think that a reader might actually follow it. I would suspect that this will be a rare event, though, and I would encourage you to put enough detail from this publication in the SOP itself that a reader won't have to follow the link to get the gist of what you did.

Think of your SOP like a glossy brochure and the CV like a dictionary - the former is intended to be read while the latter is intended to be referenced. -- I really like this part.

Yes, you should absolutely list it in your statement, in the bibliography, with a hyperlink, along with all the other papers you cite in your statement.

What I think I should do is mention all the citations in my resume, what do you think?

I don't understand what you're suggesting.  Your CV should list all your publications and preprints.  Your research statement (aka "statement of purpose") should describe your research interests and accomplishments with citations to the relevant literature, most likely including your own papers.  If your statement only cites your own work, then you may as well use your CV as your bibliography, but what kind of scholar only cites their own work?

No, you shouldn't list it on your Statement of Purpose. You should cite it properly in your CV / Resume, or in a separate list of publications.
You can certainly discuss the research that led to the paper in your statement, but if the statement-readers would like to read the paper itself, they can find the reference in your other material.

Why shouldn't it be listed in the statement of purpose?  Certainly it should also be listed in the other places you mention (including it just in the statement of purpose would be a bad idea).  However, it's common for statements of purposes to cite references, in which case it should be listed in the bibliography there too if it is cited.

authors: timi1tv天美传媒app下载--免费完整版片

authors: timi5 tv天美传媒在线-完整版免费播放


text:
How does a book chapter in an edited volume compare to a peer reviewed paper?
I have been invited to write a book chapter in an edited volume, relating to my field of work. I have a paper ready that I have not published and was planning to submit it soon. So, I am wondering is it worth to use that article for the book chapter, as both are on the same topic, or is it in a sense a waste of a journal paper, as book chapters might not be seen to have the same academic value? What should I do? Should I, instead, send the ready paper to a journal for a review and write a book chapter, based on a couple papers I have published, for instance?
Generally speaking, where does a book chapter stand? Is it something between a conference paper and a full-fledged journal article? Or, does does it have the same value as either of the above-mentioned publication types, in your opinion?

Like a lot of things in academia, I think this will heavily depend on what discipline you're in. In computer science for example, while there's nothing wrong with a book chapter, a paper at a conference or in a journal is typically more valuable.
The reason normally given is that papers are peer reviewed (as compared to edited), so they are somehow more 'valid'.
Having said that, there's always myriad exceptions. Writing a whole book that everyone uses is much better than a few papers. Later in the career, book chapters perhaps gain value as they're a mark of respect and prestige (once you've already proven your research ability).
As a counter-point though, from my limited experience, it seems that book chapters are much more common in bioinformatics and operations research, and thus are viewed more highly.
Talk to fellow academics in your area, their opinion will be the best guide.

Even within computer science, many book chapters are also formally refereed.  It just depends on the book.

Depending on your institution that you're at, if they take into account the world wide university rankings, then generally, Journal Articles will be of highest value out of all publication types, see: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2016.html
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ranking-methodology-2016#survey-answer
https://www.topuniversities.com/subject-rankings/methodology
(I Believe QS uses just Articles and Reviews, but I couldn't find that in that link.  These are also the top 3 university rankings, so they do provide some context)

In my field a peer reviewed article counts for a lot more than a chapter in an edited book. That said, a published chapter in an edited book counts a lot more for job searches than a working/submitted/under review/under revision manuscript. Often edited books lead to a publication in press much quicker than a journal. I would definitely look into the time scale of the book chapter.

It may depend on the book. If the other chapters are being authored by big shots, then their prestige could rub off. On the other hand, if the other chapters are authored by less well-known people, then it might not be seen as that great. Another thing to consider: your university or department might weight impact factors in their assessment of your research quality, which means publishing in a good journal will be of the most benefit. In the end, the strength of the article itself will say a lot, independent of the publishing venue. If it becomes a classic in the field with lots of citations, then that's pretty good, no matter what.

It's based of field but the general rule is to pump articles because they are peer reviewed. However some publishers have a review process so if the chapter is in a handbook or in a collection that will be important to the field then you're good. Look at publisher rankings and try to only publish chapters under top ranked book publishers. If you're a junior tenure track then ask colleagues and dean for tenure and promotion info. I will say that in the humanities or social sciences you are more likely to have your chapter cited by another person in their work than an article. Hope some of this helps.