text:
How to deal with a mentor asking for sudden tasks
Consider the following conversation:

Mentor: What is your progress?
Me: blah.... blah... blah...
Mentor: Okay.
Me: What about other tasks (if any)?
Mentor: Do not worry about them, I can handle, if any. You focus only on your own
research work
Me: okay.

After a week, while I am doing research work, the mentor comes to the lab suddenly, and then the conversation will be like

Mentor: There is a class today with the syllabus X for batch Z.
Me: Okay.
Mentor: Go and deal. It will be in an hour.
Me: I am aware of X, but don't know in detail.
Mentor: Not a big deal. Carry on with today's class.

This is a sample scenario. There will be many tasks like this with very shorter deadlines.
The only issue I face is maintaining a trade-off between personal accountability and stress. By behavior, I want to be more accountable for any task done by me. But due to the shortness of time, I sometimes experience so much stress (in order to maintain accountability).
How to deal with such mentors?

@Roland he is of professor cadre. He won't allow me to do so. When I ask he says, don't worry about them. But asks suddenly.

@Roland Sometimes even if he agrees, he may break it.

Where I'm from, being asked to teach a class like that is only OK in case of a dire personal or professional emergency, IMO. Is that common in your country, or normally expected of grad students?

@AzorAhai--hehim It is normal only. But the issue is with sudden decisions.

@hanugm That's what I mean - is it expected in your dept that grad students step into classes on a whim, without an emergency? I've never heard of that, but academia varies  a lot

@AzorAhai--hehim Yeah true.

This answer depends on your relationship with your supervisor. If have an honest, open relationship, I would suggest communicating your feelings in a professional and constructive way. For example,

I appreciate you trusting me to take on additional Tasks 1, 2, and 3. However, I already have tasks A, B, and C which require a significant amount of my time. I am happy to do Tasks 1, 2, and 3, but I would benefit from additional notice (24/48/72) hours in order to carry out the task with a high quality. Does that sound agreeable to you?

If you do not want to do additional Tasks 1, 2, and 3 but feel pressured to do so, you always have other options:

Build evidence of your situation and eventually present it matter-of-factually to your supervisor. For example, 'You have requested me to do additional Tasks 1, 2, and 3 repeatedly, and my progress on research and other commitments are suffering. I cannot do these additional tasks any more.'
If 1 fails, build further evidence of your situation and present it to the graduate director.
If you have the willpower to do so, you might accept your fate and make lemonade out of lemons. For example, record each extra lecture you do to add to your teaching CV. Or, at the very least, start to prepare in advance for Tasks 1, 2, 3, ... n.

Sudden tasks are not fun and can indeed be a cause for significant personal stress. It sounds like these requests come during the workday, but otherwise I would suggest sticking to a strict work schedule with dedicated days of no work.


text:
Choosing title for a section in the curriculum vitae
I am now applying for lecturer jobs after my masters. And so have made a decent CV. Now I have a confusion on giving the research interests in my CV. I wanted to make 2 sections in CV indicating my basic subject areas and future research interests. What are the suitable titles for these sections in the CV?

I am from Kerala, India. Here M Tech is the basic qualification for teaching at engineering colleges.

What do you mean with "basic strong subjects"? And if the position does not even require a PhD, do they actually expect you to do research? If not, why do they care about your research interests?

Because they wanted people who are willing to do PhD in future rather than to settle with M Tech. Here the atmosphere is very pathetic. Most People do PhD only if they can't escape from it. In private colleges promotions to Associate Professor etc are based on experience and higher degree.

Most People do PhD only if they can't escape from it sounds great ...

There is no reason to downvote this question. It's on-topic, and the question is concise, clear, and answerable.

Although my comment is not related to the question, I think it is necessary to point out, in view of the previous comments, that in developing countries it is common for someone to become a lecturer without a PhD or even Master's degree, and to pursue a PhD after some years of lecturing.

A possible heading for your subject areas could be Areas of Specialization or Areas of Expertise. You could use Research Interests for the other part. However, the two are usually combined under one heading. Unless you have the necessary expertise to carry out research in the areas listed under your Research interests, there is no point of listing those.
Normally you would use a separate document called Research Statement to outline your proposal for your upcoming research.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do many academic institutions let students deposit their publications in the institutional repository?
I'm a doctoral student and I've published several academic papers. My institution maintains a digital institutional repository, but it doesn't look like I can put copies of my work in it. When I finish my dissertation, a copy of that would go in the IR. It seems strange that the institution doesn't seem to have practices in place to take in other published work of students. Are there other academic institutions that allow this? If so, it would be great to have links to their policies.

My university's repository allows student submissions.  (The front page says "graduate students", but undergraduates can also submit.)

Most university institutional repositories will allow students to submit their work, as the aim of an institutional repository is, generally, to capture the scholarly, research and creative output of a university. This would include work being created by faculty, of course, but also staff and students.
What differs between universities is the emphasis they place on different creators. At a large research university, increasing citation counts of faculty members will be a key consideration that may make the acquisition of faculty works a higher priority than student works. Liberal arts colleges will, based on their institutional missions as teaching centres, will be able to focus on undergraduate research on a level that many research universities would be unable to do.
I have recently become the Digital Repository Coordinator at a research university, and one of the challenges I face is trying to balance acquiring faculty and staff work vs. student work. Many of the faculty I have talked to, however, are excited by the potential of using the institutional repository as a way to showcase their students' work.
As a doctoral student, especially, I would assume that you would be able to submit work to your university's institutional repository. Looking at your profile, I believe that your university's repository does allow students to submit work (See http://digilib.gmu.edu/dspace/handle/1920/2883, for example). If it's not clear how to do so, contact your university's repository coordinator to make it happen! They'd more than likely be thrilled a student (1) knows what an institutional repository is, and (2) is interested in depositing their work.

Have you tried asking your supervisor to deposit the papers?  Certainly in the old days there was usually some kind of review process for technical reports which might still be applicable to solely-authored-by-students papers, but I should think that if it is actually published in a journal and/or a member of faculty will vouch for it then the repository should accept it.

I don't know how common it is, but certainly some institutions allow student papers.  For example, Harvard's repository "provides open access to peer reviewed scholarly articles authored or co-authored by faculty, staff, and students of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences" (http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/2).  I can't think of any good reason to exclude students, so I'm puzzled by why a university would do that.

I guess it is not correct for an institution to host the students' works, but Theses, Dissertations, and Technical Reports, in its internal digital library (usually open to externals). The reason is simple, most papers are published under copyright terms. This way, one is not allowed to host this "copyrighted" content, without the publisher permission. I see many departments, research groups, and so on, making public available the list of publications, with a link to the original source.

The copyright rules do not distinguish between student and faculty papers, yet institutional repositories frequently include faculty papers.  Of course you need the publisher's permission, but in many cases this is automatically part of the publishing agreement (and you can often negotiate for it in other cases).

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


text:
Co-author contributed almost nothing and is blocking publication
Alice and Bob have co-authored a paper together. The contribution (data collection, analysis, writing) was 100% Alice and 0% Bob, except that the original idea was initiated during a conversation between Alice and Bob. Bob acknowledged several times in private that he did not contribute to the project, but he claimed co-authorship for the idea and Alice did not object to that. Alice spent almost an entire year working on the project. Bob spent less than a couple of hours in total. A manuscript with both names has already been circulated, submitted and rejected from one journal.
Bob is now trying to block the publication of the paper due to a personal conflict with Alice. In the meantime, Bob became envious of Alice's early successes and decided to do everything to slow down her career, even at the expense of his own publication record. Bob is already tenured and has no pressure to publish. Alice, by contrast, needs more publications for her forthcoming tenure review. Of course, Bob never explicitly refused to submit the paper. But instead of sending it to a prestigious outlet (where the paper would have a good shot) he insists that they send the manuscript to a non peer-reviewed and unknown journal, which would not help Alice's tenure case. Of course he makes no effort in trying to find an agreement, as he would be happy not to submit the paper at all. Clearly, his decisions are driven by spite and malevolence only and he takes great care into not writing anything incriminating for him.
Is there anything that Alice can do in that situation? Does she have to resign herself to never publishing the paper? What are the risks for her if she removes Bob's name without his agreement and submits the manuscript on her own?
PS: as a response to Captain Emacs' comment, Bob's only contribution was to say "why don't we study the causal effect of X on Y?" in an informal conversation. Alice did absolutely all the rest (literature review, design of the protocol, data collection, analysis, conference presentations, etc.). But there is no evidence of this, other than the fact that Bob would be unable to answer any question that goes into the detail of the paper.

Is there a way to isolate Bob's precise contribution?

Alice should certainly discuss the whole situation with the chair of her department (supposing that's not Bob) or the dean of her school, or both.  As troublesome as the publication issue may be, if Bob is indeed trying more broadly to undermine Alice's academic career then that is a much more serious issue that Alice may have trouble tackling any other way.  If the administration is unwilling to help, then maybe Alice doesn't want to continue at her present institution anyway.

I'm missing why this is getting so many upvotes. This is an overtly one-sided recounting of a very run-of-the-mill advisor/grad student or advisor/postdoc authorship conflict, of which we have numerous on this site already. I'm guessing this is a Hot Network Question...?

@vania55 Why would the manuscript have a "good shot" in a prestigious outlet if it has already been rejected from a journal? For what reasons was the manuscript rejected?

@Charlie the paper was rejected from the most prestigious journal in the profession, and the editor acknowledged that it was a close call. Also, most of Alice's and Bob's colleagues believe that the paper has very good chances at the 2nd or 3rd best journal. Of course this does not guarantee acceptance, but the odds are probably better than for the average paper submittee to this journal.

@vania55 .... For what reasons was the manuscript rejected?

@charlie because the results were not "surprising" enough according to the editor's terms.

Mandatory XKCD

As with the another answer, I couldn't help but notice the almost literary way in which the Bob character is depicted:

Clearly, his decisions are driven by spite and malevolence only

Unless the OP is Bob (what a twist!), she is really not in a position to make that claim.  In my experience, in 99% of all human behavior, after sufficient scrutiny, one finds that "driven by spite and malevolence only" is not the right explanation.  Moreover, I'm not sure I've ever seen an academic make a professional decision to spite someone else even though it hurt their own career as well. Regarding this the OP wrote:

Bob is already tenured and has no pressure to publish.

Now I really think the OP cannot be Bob, because tenured people still have pressure to publish.  The stakes may be different from that of their long term academic survival, but they are not necessarily lesser or viewed as lesser by the tenured faculty.
Anyway, here's the heart of the matter in my mind:

The contribution (data collection, analysis, writing) was 100% Alice and 0% Bob, except that the original idea was initiated during a conversation between Alice and Bob. Bob acknowledged several times in private that he did not contribute to the project, but he claimed co-authorship for the idea and Alice did not object to that.

I accept the premise of the story that Bob has done nothing on the paper past one initial conversation and is now (for some reason or reasons) acting against its timely publication in an appropriate venue.  Which is terrible behavior on his part, of course.  However, I must point out that Alice has also made a terrible mistake at some point in the process.  Bob "claimed" coauthorship for a project that someone else worked on for a year and that he had one conversation about.  That's egregiously improper behavior.  You shouldn't "claim coauthorship" under any circumstances; you should propose coauthorship and that proposal should be accompanied by specific proposed contributions.  If Alice went away after one conversation and worked for an entire year without telling Bob what she was doing, that's a mistake (and by the way, it could much more plausibly be part of what made Bob upset).  If she did tell Bob what she was working on, she should have clarified that if he wanted to be involved in the project he needed to do....something.  And no matter how they get to the endpoint, where Alice has a paper and Bob asks her to put his name on the paper, she needed to object to this.  In fact (although this is not the point), Alice's lack of objection could be construed as academic dishonesty: it misleads the reader as to the level of Bob's contribution.
This act of misleading seems to have come back to bite Alice in the behind.  It is much more awkward for her to take back sole control of her work after having submitted the jointly authored paper.  However, it may still be the right thing to do if the publication of the paper is important enough to her.  I do not see an ethical problem with Alice deciding to pull away with her work, given that it actually is solely her work.  That she may not be able to prove that to the satisfaction of all interested parties makes the action more risky, not less ethical.  If Alice and Bob really cannot agree on where to submit the paper, Alice has the right to say "I'm sorry it didn't work out.  I am taking my work with me...which as you know is everything except the original idea, which I will credit you for so that you can write a paper on your alternate development/implementation of the idea if you choose."  She should not allow the hypothetical threat of Bob's academic dishonesty (i.e., the possibility that he might tell other people that he did the work) to hold sway.
In fact, if Alice convinces Bob that she is serious about pulling away, then with any luck he will see that he has nothing to gain by pressing a fraudulent claim that the work was his that he wouldn't gain better and more easily just by allowing a joint submission to the journal Alice wants.

Good, even if a bit long response. I think the core idea is very good: Alice writes a mail to Bob making clear that she is excising Bob's contribution and acknowledges it in the Acknowledgements, plus @PeteL.Clark's comments. This way, she has a record and if Bob responds, she can make statements about their respective contribution in mail (factual, not aggressive), so that if it comes to a dispute, there is a paper trail establishing the ground positions.

If a dispute pops up Alice can ask Bob to provide evidence that he worked on the paper, perhaps some emails. In one year of work I would find it hard to believe none would have been exchanged. Since Alice claims Bob did nothing during that year for this work, I'd expect Bob to be unable to come up with such trivial proof of involvement. (I think Captain's approach is a good one.)

@Daniel: I agree, and I took such considerations into account in my answer.  Assuming the situation is as reported, Bob is going to have a hard time justifying his involvement on a paper when he had no involvement whatsoever.

Thank you, this is a very thoughtful answer. I entirely agree that Alice made a serious mistake and is partly responsible for her situation. She actually kept informing Bob about what she was doing during the year and he was enthusiastic ; he never made any suggestion though and he seemed to consider that the initial conversation made him a co-author automatically. Obviously Alice was naive not to clarify the situation earlier. I will let her know about your advice :)

It was an easy read until

Clearly, his decisions are driven by spite and malevolence only and he takes great care into not writing anything incriminating for him.

This part seemed to have a serious amount of judgment on your part ("clearly", "only"). I'm not saying you're mistaken, I'm only pointing out that this part seemed (to me) to be at odds with the rest of the story.
I like to believe that people generally are reasonable, and hence can be reasoned with. Has Alice tried to apologize for what caused the personal conflict or "misunderstanding"? Has she explained why she wants to publish? Is she really open for a discussion, or is her mind already set on the route to take and Bob objects to "signing off" on Alice's already made-up mind?
Of course, Alice's interpretation may be right and Bob is really a comic book villain. Sometimes you just come across people that are unreasonable. For the rest of this answer, this shall be my assumption.
Since Alice is in a lower position than Bob, she should avoid engaging in a fight about authorship, especially since there are preprints in circulation with both names as authors, which is evidence for Bob's co-authorship.
However, I think it should be possible for Alice to create a spin-off of the current paper, which she rewrites completely, citing the (unpublished) preprint. This way, Alice can claim that she wrote the paper alone, and she doesn't challenge Bob's authorship for the preprint. Since Bob blocks the publication of the preprint, and since the preprint might not be available publicly, this new paper would probably need to repeat arguments for the reader's convenience. I think Alice's own contributions to the preprint could be repeated without falling under (self-)plagiarism, since the previous preprint was not published and proper attribution to the preprint is given.

Thank you very much. Just to clarify, Alice and Bob come from a small country and Bob was considered as the leading young researcher in this field until Alice started publishing well and received a prestigious scientific prize Bob felt entitled to. After this event Bob said to Alice in a private conversation that he felt that Alice's success was undeserved, that he should have received the prize first, and that he would use his power to slow down her progress. This was while the paper was under review, before being rejected.

@vania55 That suggests that Bob's problem should be with the members of the prize-giving committee, not with Alice.

@AndrewMorton absolutely, but unfortunately there is little that Alice can do about it.

Having a colleague in the same field who won a prestigious prize should be seen as a good thing for Bob, since it gives the field (and thus also Bob) visibility. Working against a colleague in the same field is self-destructive. Of course, it is in Alice's best interest to be on good terms with Bob, to avoid (this corner of) the field being dominated by personal conflicts rather than quality research. But of course one can't resolve a conflict between two people alone...

The fact that it was submitted once with Bob's name on it makes it very difficult (and awkward) to remove Bob's name.
Instead, I'd recommend hot chocolate and cookies. Then Alice should tell Bob that she has addressed the reviewers comments from the previous rejection and will be submitting to Journal of Awesomeness. Ask Bob if he sees any more ways to improve it before submitting to Journal of Awesomeness.
Then, thank Bob for his time, tell him you will do your best to address his comments before submitting.
No matter what, Alice must make it clear that Journal of Awesomeness is where this paper is headed next.

As you need to get on with doing research and writing new papers, you can consider writing up follow up papers that cite the current paper as a paper in preparation or as a preprint.

Reading all responses here feels utterly strange.
People focus on semantics, on word choice and to find all possible other things to focus but the actual problem: someone doing all the work and somebody else trying to put his name on it.
In fact, the hypocrisy is in the majority of the scientific community (my own experience). Typically, submitting the paper to a journal, one has to declare all co-authors contributed equally and everybody knows it. Yet it seems to be a community standard to prey on people lower in the hierarchy and abuse their superiority.
Why then to create the rules of scientific integrity, research code of conduct or making people sing these co-authorship declarations instead of being transparent, as the theory science should be?
My answer to the question in the topic is: Alice should not sacrifice her own career nor work for a sake of pleasing someones ego.
She could write a nice email to Bob, asking him for reasons of his choice of the journal X and to ask him what could he contribute to perhaps improve the paper.
This can go many ways, but anything written is a good proof of Bob's attitude and his involvement in the work.
Alice should submit her work to whatever journal she wants, with her being the only author. The acknowledgement can state that the idea of the research sparked in the conversation with Bob.
Let's stop making simple things complicated.

Well said. It appears that many  on this platform appear to enjoy playing devil's advocate rather than answering the question. One point though, coauthorship in most places doesn't require equal contribution, it just requires a significant contribution.

Reputable scientists normally reject co-authorship suggestions of the type "I contribute the work, you contribute the reputation". Not too ethical, and the risk to publish questionable material on the own name also matters. They should also not be invited into co-authors on the basis "this is because you have told me two valuable sentences in cafeteria". Shame for both.
To save the situation for both, Bob and Alice should agree now on the rewritten paper that (they both declare) does not contain Bob's contribution. As this was just a discussion, no experiments, no analysis, rewriting a few sentences in introduction may be sufficient.

I'd +1 you had you not assumed Bob would agree to do something that is clearly beneficial to Alice and requires some fairness or magnanimity.

Wow, what a difficult position to be in. If Bob contributed 0%, Alice has every right to exclude him from the author list and simply acknowledge his contribution in a footnote. She is then free to submit to whichever journal she feels has the best chance of accepting the paper. For the sake of maintaining some level of collegiality, she should advise Bob of her intentions.
The professional jealousy is an entirely different matter, but her record will stand on its own when she goes up for review. She has an obligation to herself, and not to Bob.

her record will stand on its own, while you would hope this is true, there is even room for politics in academia.

Here is a possible course of action which Alice might consider, but only if she doesn't care about antagonizing Bob even further, and if other courses of action have failed.
It depends on what comes first: (1) The acceptance announcement date at the Journal of Awesomeness, or (2) the submission date at the Journal of Lameness.
If the Journal of Awesomeness deadline comes first, Alice submits without telling Bob she did it. She should try to avoid actually stating whether or not she's going to submit, and sort of let Bob understand She's sulking/angry and that he's gotten away with his little plot. If the submission is rejected - none will be the wiser. If it's accepted, still Alice mustn't tell him, for as long as she can until the Journal of Lameness deadline. Bob won't prepare a draft for that one, and will be expecting Alice to do the work, right? Well, Alice act discouraged and sort of "give up on it". Unless Bob pushes Alice really hard, in which case Alice might have to tell him.
If the Journal of Lameness deadline comes first, Alice should get the draft ready for the Journal of Awesomeness submission, unbeknownst to Bob. She must continue acting frustrated and mopey, and appear to have lost motivation for getting that thing published. Now the Journal of Lameness submission deadline will be approaching. As Alice is the one who does all the work, it's likely Bob won't prepare the draft for this submission, and will be expecting Alice to do that? Well, Alice will sort-of-kind-of be working on it, but not really; she'll try to not show up and not be very responsive as the deadline is coming up. Or she might promise him she'll have it ready on time, but fail to update him on the progress. Alice has to make it so that they miss the deadline.
But when the Journal of Awesomeness deadline comes up - Alice submits the paper; and does not mention that fact to Bob at all.
Finally, in both cases
When Bob finds out (which will be no later than when the next issue of Journal of Awesomeness comes out I suppose) - what is Bob going to do? The paper was already accepted. It's not like he could spoil the publication by claiming uncredited authorship. At most Bob can demand that his name be removed. Bob could theoretically contact the editors and claim Alice published against his wishes - but how would Bob make that argument? It's a perfectly appropriate journal, and the paper was not submitted anywhere else. And Bob has no evidence. And Alice can always rebutt such a claim by arguing it was always clear they were going to submit to the JoA anyway. Win.

Thank you, but are you sure that "at most Bob can demand that his name be removed"? It seems to me that Retraction Watch is full of stories of papers that have been retracted - at various stages - after one of the authors informed the editor that he/she did not gave his/her agreement to submit the paper to that journal.

@vania55: 1. A reason to postpone telling him for as long as possible. 2. How can that be a reason for retraction? Authors can't theoretically veto each other from publishing the work. Unless Bob argues why it's inappropriate for the publication to go forward objectively (e.g. inappropriate venue, legal issues) - I don't see how he would have a leg to stand on. 3. Can you link to examples? I've never notice Retraction Watch before.

My impression is that many journals explicitly require that all co-authors agree on the submission, and that even a suspicion of a conflict would lead editors to retract the paper. See for instance this story : http://retractionwatch.com/2016/07/28/phd-student-expelled-for-submitting-paper-without-co-authors-consent/

@vania55: In that example it seems that the publicatyion without the consulting other authors was just a exacerbating aspect of other issues with the paper. And there was the use of a commercial company to do the work instead of the Ph.D. candidate etc. That's not the same as a perfectly valid paper which only some authors want to publish.

Indeed I could not find an example where submitting without co-author's consent was the only issue, since this strategy is obviously associated with other types of misconduct. However, agreement from all co-authors on the submission is explicitly required by some journals. Two examples: Nature ("Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that (...) all authors are aware that the paper was submitted."),  the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics ("Submission of an article implies that (...) its publication is approved by all authors").

@vania55: "its publication is approved by all authors" - publication is approved in the Alice and Bob case, it's just the journal preference that isn't... as for the first example, yeah, it's a bit problematic for my advice, but - awareness is not the same as consent. Anyway, I guess it would depend on the Journal of Awesomeness' policy.

Thanks a lot for your comments. My interpretation of the rule is different from yours. My feeling is that in most cases (if not all), an editor who would receive an email from Bob saying "I was not aware that the manuscript was sent to your journal and I object to the publication" would immediately retract the paper. Perhaps there would be exceptions though.

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


text:
Correct way to cite paper that is published as part of a book
I'm working on the last parts of my diploma in computer engineering. Right now i'm working over my bibliography. And i'm not quite sure what's the best way to include a citation.
Both refer to the same paper, the first one is a lot more detailed but it's not possible to view the whole paper online, since a few pages are being left out.
The second one only refers to the paper, not including any publisher etc.
@inproceedings{booth2009,
author = {Booth, Danielle and Jansen, Bernard J},
booktitle = {Handbook of Research on Web Log Analysis},
title = {A Review of Methodologies for Analyzing Websites},
year = {2009},
pages = {143-164},
publisher = {IGI Global},
doi = {10.4018/978-1-59904-974-8}
}

or
@article{booth2009,
title={A Review of Methodologies for Analyzing Websites},
author={Booth, Danielle and Jansen, Bernard J},
year={2009}
}

Which one should I use?

which one would you use? — I would use the first, but with the correct author field "author = {Booth, Danielle}",  additional fields "chapter = {8}" and "editor = {Bernard J. Jansen and Amanda Spink and Isak Taska}", and an en-dash (--) instead of a hyphen (-) between the page numbers.  The fact that the paper is not available online is utterly irrelevant.

@JeffE: The fact that the paper is not available online is utterly irrelevant. – Well, one could argue that this makes it even more important to provide full bibliographical data to allow the reader to finde the full paper.

Sidenote: Your citation seems to be @inbook, not @inproceedings, though this makes no difference in most citation styles.

thanks for the replies. the paper itself references jansen as co-author so i guess ill have to include him right? Never thought about the editor field thanks for that! The thing is the paper is accessible online just not through the book, thats why i was wondering if it wouldnt be better to use the short citation. just beginning to review all of my citations, most of them are provided by ieee, google scholar etc but seem to be rather inaccurate.

the paper itself references jansen as co-author — So it does!  Your original author field is correct; my apologies. See also: Muprhy's Law.

The references are there for your readers to be able to hunt down the reference, be it to check what you say or to follow a different thread of research. For their sake, do find out as complete bibliographic data as you can, and add them to the citation.


text:
UK MSc vs MEng when applying for PhD and Chartered Engineer
I did my BEng electrical and electronic undergraduate degree in UK university. It was 3 year degree. So I want clear idea of MSc and MEng and also about Chartered Engineer qualification. Please kindly clear my doubts.

MSc is postgraduate degree in UK, USA, Canada and so on. Is it right?
UK MEng is undergraduate degree in USA, Canada and so on. But UK MEng is  postgraduate degree. Is it right?
Therefor If I did MEng electrical and electronic in UK, Is it equal to BSc in USA, Canada and so on? Because MEng is undergraduate degree and BEng + MEng is 4 year undergraduate degree.
I can get Chartered Engineer qualification in UK but I can't get engineering courses membership in other counties because BEng is 3 year degree. If I did MEng, can I get USA engineering courses membership? Because then I have  4 year undergraduate degree.
If I did MEng undergraduate degree, can I did directly PhD in USA or Canada?  or Do I want to do MSc  postgraduate degree to do PhD in USA?

MEng is undergraduate degree in USA, Canada - No. Where did you hear that?

M.E. is Master of Engineering; it is a masters degree. where in the world is it recalled as an undergraduate degree?

For the sake of your doubts, 1: Yes, 2: No, [3-5]:n/a (not applicable as the questions themselves are invalid). I'm voting to close this question as a low quality post.

@ÉbeIsaac Hey meaning of it is right but recognition it is as a undergraduate degree.

Where is your source? Could you cite it?

@ÉbeIsaac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Engineering#United_Kingdom

@ff524, could you assess the credibility of the statement that M.Eng. is an 'undergraduate' degree in the UK?

@ff524 wikipeadia says that undergraduate degree so other countries are assess that is as a undergraduate degree. I don't know there are assess that as a undergraduate degree in UK.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

A Master's degree is almost always regraded as a graduate degree.  It's probably best to regard counter-examples as anomalous.

What's a "USA engineering courses membership"?  Do you mean the US's professional engineering certification (PE)?

From my experience of the systems in the UK and Canada:

Yes, MSc is usually a 2-year research based postgraduate degree in North America.
No, MEng is also a 2-year postgraduate degree in North America. It is usually a taught masters degree - which means it is mainly based on coursework. In my experience a UK MEng is not usually considered a postgraduate degree as it is common for engineering programs to 'include' the MEng as part of the course (University of Cambridge Undergraduate Engineering)
Not exactly, while a UK MEng is often one additional year after the BEng making the time roughly equivalent to a Canada/US Bachelors degree. It is difficult to compare them as the systems are quite different (the difference becomes irrelevant after a few years of working in industry). A UK MEng would certainly not be equivalent to a 2-year research based MSc in North America (which doesn't really exist in the UK).
Are you sure you can be Chartered with a BEng? I believe you usually need a masters level qualification (What do I need to do for Chartered Engineer (CEng) professional registration?). Although there are routes that don't require a Masters level qualification, that is the typical route. I assume by 'USA engineering courses membership' you mean in order to apply for an engineering license in the USA? In which case, this varies for each state. You would need to check the requirements for the state your are interested in (varies for each Provence in Canada also). In Canada I believe you would meet the academic requirements with the BEng (PEng Academic Requirements - Ontario)
Usually you need a 2-year research based masters degree (MSc) to apply for a PhD in North America. Although this could vary depending on the school.


text:
Re-applying for the same PhD program abroad after finishing it in one's home country?
This is a little bit hypothetical question… Let's assume I finished my PhD in math in my country but I am dissatisfied with it (assume I live in a developing country). Also I have enough money and time. Can I apply for a similar PhD program in an another country? Is it theoretically possible?

Welcome to this side. I edited the question slightly by correcting some grammar (I hope) and removing the salutation in the end. You may roll-back the edit if I somehow changed the intended meaning.

@Dirk Is the title right? He wants a overseas PhD? Or should it be "abroad"?

What is it you would hope to gain from the second program? Perhaps what you really want is a postdoc position.

Looking at all the answers, I see that the best route for me is to get a MSc. degree in my country (since I have to wait for one or maybe two years for personal reasons) and apply for a PhD degree abroad... Thank you all...

No, it's generally not possible.  Almost all Ph.D. programs have a rule against admitting someone who already has a research doctorate.  Under special circumstances, one might be admitted as an unfunded Ph.D. student in a completely different field; but in the same field, never.

Thank you... Is it possible get a Master degree in math in home country and get a PhD in math aboard?. Is there any restriction?

Yes, that is actually very common.

One possible exception is if the PhD from the home country is of such poor quality that it is not recognized in the new country as a valid PhD.

@Bitwise:  Attending such a bogus institution would typically disqualify someone from admission to a Ph.D. program anyway.

Do you mean "...already has a research doctorate in the same field"? (As in, math after math, say). Because it is not very uncommon to see people with a Ph.D. in one field get another one in another (by field I mean discipline I guess, not an algebraist getting a degree in logic later)

@gnometorule: The university where I got my PhD has a general policy that students will not be admitted to a PhD program if they already have a PhD in any field.  Exceptions are possible but they require special permission.  See http://ucsd.edu/catalog/front/GradStud.html under "Duplication of Advanced Degrees".  As Buzz says, I think this is pretty common, though maybe not universal.

@Nate: Interesting. I studied with a Ph.D. in Physics (acquired prior to taking up Ph.D. studies at my school), and know several dual Ph.Ds., so it's new to me; thanks for pointing the possibility out. (None of those did math as a second degree; maybe that is a pattern)

This answer needs to indicate what country it is talking about. Otherwise, the claim that more than one research doctorate is ruled out in "almost all" programs except for "special circumstances" is probably not true across all legislations/research landscapes. For instance, in German-speaking places, it seems quite usual that very highly accomplished researchers have several (different, non-h.c.) doctoral degrees.

If you want to obtain a PhD from a 1st world country I think your best bet is to go to another country as soon as possible. It will be a lot easier to get into a PhD program with a masters degree from a similar country, and it will be easier to continue your career abroad if you have followed a funded PhD program (as opposed to paying yourself / getting a grant from your home country).


text:
Is making minor adjustments to an online tutorial for a coding assignment considered plagiarism?
For one of my pieces of coursework I have to make a game engine and I wasn't completely understanding what my lecturer was going on about. So I looked online and found a tutorial on how to make one and its been really useful and I understand better how it all works but my coursework is basically just the tutorial code.
I submit it in a couple of weeks so it may be a bit late to start thinking this but isn't it just plagiarism? I'm not copy and pasting the code but I'm writing it practically word for word. But on the other had there only so many ways you can use OpenGL and make it look different and do what you want it to do.

Talk to your instructor about this. Your instructor (not strangers on the Internet) can tell you what the course policy is on situations like this (e.g. whether it's OK to submit what you have and just credit the tutorial appropriately, or whether you must submit something that goes significantly beyond what's in the tutorial)

The fact that you are worried about this tells me that most likely you know the answer to your question.

At this point, can you write the code from the beginning, without consulting the tutorial?  If so, I'd say you've earned it, and that it wouldn't be plagiarism.  But if you can't do so, you're likely hurting your foundation and won't get very far in this area of study...

"I'm not copy and pasting the code but I'm writing it practically word for word." You need to get the notion that there's any distinction here out of your head ASAP.

Yes, in this sort of situation (writing your first application with a graphics library), it is plausible for your code to look a lot like whatever tutorial or teaching materials you learned it from. Typically there will be some setup that has to be done in a particular order. I suggest you do all of the following:

Add comments to your code. This will also come in handy for the next opengl assignment you do.
Add an extra feature to your code, just to show you went that extra step. Maybe change the default background or font, or move some of the code to a separate function, or something like that.
Let your instructor know what tutorial you followed, and the steps you took to make sure you understood your code rather than just copying it. I suspect in this case the instructor will understand.

General Rule: Make it clear what your own contributions are, and where the other stuff is coming from.
Simply adding an explanation to your coursework on how you followed the tutorial, how far your modifications went, etc makes sure that you are not committing plagiarism. However, it is still perfectly plausible that your lecturer decides that the extent of your own contribution is insufficient. Thus, I would recommend checking in advance of the deadline.


text:
Should I include that someone cited my dissertation as part of their master's?
In my CV is it appropriate to include a master's thesis that cited my dissertation?
If so how would you include this in a CV and how would you title it.
I am excited to include that someone referenced my work.

cited my dissertation Would you please clarify that it's your PhD dissertation that's cited?

No, individual citations are not typically included in a CV.  Some people might include aggregate statistics such as an h-index.


text:
How to refer to myself as a subject of study in a research paper?
Okay so I have collected personal spending data of myself and significant other over a period of 6 months. I'm quite happy with the data and would like to present it and write it up as a research paper. I'm not going to be publishing it but would like to do it for fun (and a bit of practice can't hurt).
The dilemma I am facing at the moment is that I cannot figure out how to refer to myself or my significant other as participants in the study. I have been trying to figure this out for a few days now and google is really giving me a hard time. I cannot find a single thing relevant to what I am trying to do.
My first issue I have come to is that I am captioning a figure that reads similar to this. Figure 1: Average daily spending vs time for myself (solid line) and significant other (dotted line).
Is this the correct way to refer to myself and significant other? It feels much too informal for my liking. I have considered making a small statement that states that myself will be referred to as "participant A" and my significant other will be referred to as "participant B", but this might add unnecessary confusion.
Is there a standard on this? This has been driving me absolutely crazy over the past few days and would really appreciate any insight or suggestions.

You've hit into a more general problem of writing a paper: if you don't know how to write something, you're probably doing it wrong. And as you've figured out already, any "science" done over a sample of 2 participants is not publishable.

@Laurent This is really annoying me that I cannot respond to your comment so I'm hoping you get a notification for this. "if you don't know how to write something, you're probably doing it wrong." For this exact reason is why I am here asking my question. Whether or not my paper is publishable or not is irrelevant for the fact you've acknowledged - I'm not in any way wanting to publish it. Surely a sample size of 2 doesn't automatically render this study unscientific as you've suggested. It entirely depends on the hypothesis being tested. I don't see any reason why I can't draw conclusions on

@Bradley, I don't mean to say your study is unscientific, as you can still use rigorous scientific tools to study such a small sample. But in itself your paper cannot draw any conclusion that could be generalized to any larger population. If you want to achieve this goal (and I imagine this is a criterion for a study to be published), then you need a large, unbiased sample. "I and my wife" is quite definitely neither large nor unbiased.

@laurent N-of-1 and case study designs are a staple of many fields of experimental science.

OP is not interested in publishing: see "I'm not going to be publishing it" in the question body

Commenters:  the question does not say anything about science.

Use the names "Participant 1" and "Participant 2" in figure captions and throughout the text. You can then, if you want, explain at one point, who these participants are (if it actually matters), but at least you don't have to repeatedly refer to yourself and your s.o..


text:
How to prove that a paper published with a particular English transliteration of my Russian name is mine?
My first name is Евгений (it is Russian; the usual transliteration is Yevgeny). I was born in Ukraine in 1990, when it was still in the Soviet Union, where Russian was the official language. I lived there until 2011, when I went to Canada, where I am currently working on a Ph.D in mathematics. The name indicated in my passport is IEVGEN. It has undergone two rounds of changes: first it was translated from Russian into Ukrainian (Евгений => Євген), and then the Ukrainian version was transliterated into English under the transliteration rules that were valid at the time of receiving the passport. If I received the passport under the present rules, it would be spelled as IEVHEN. The issue here is that the sound in the Ukrainian version is something in between of G and H.
I am deeply unhappy with the "name" IEVGEN: it looks odd, it is not pronounced as the Ukrainian version, and it is definitely not how my parents named me.
I really don't want this spelling to appear on my publications, and ideally even on my Ph.D. thesis. Right now I don't know which version I would prefer, but let's consider YEVGENY, which is the closest to the original, and EUGENE, which is the English/French version of the same name. I know that I am the one who decides under which name to be published, but it raises the following question:
If at some point I will need to prove the authorship of a certain publication that bears a name slightly, or significantly different from what is in my documents, will that be a problem?
EDIT: some of the answers suggest me several ways of how to spell my name, and I appreciate them, but it is not what I have asked. My question only had to do with bureaucratic and juridical aspects of the problem.
EDIT 2: The title of the question was changed by an editor to "What author name to list on publications when English translation of Russian name on passport is unsatisfactory?", which is again completely misleading. I am not asking what to put on publication, I am asking about how to prove that the chosen name corresponds to me. So I edited the title back to the original.

A note: nowadays some journals (e.g. IEEE journals) support the publication of author names in their native languages.

Another note: author names are misspelled in databases so often that they generally accept the fact that two different entries can easily be the same person. (Also indispensable for maiden vs. married names.) I've seen at least three forms of my own name, and that's not counting inclusion / exclusion / TeX form / redundant Unicode normalization forms / inventive workarounds for diacritics.

Out of curiosity, have you considered trying to change the Romanized name in your passport to Yevgeny? I actually have very little idea how hard that would be - have you investigated it?

@Robert Columbia I hope to get a Canadian passport at some point and have a normal name there. However, I don't see it happening in the observable future. As long as I am a citizen of Ukraine, which lives in the different continent, I believe it is very cumbersome, if at all possible.

Anecdotally, one of my professors publishes articles and books under her maiden name, which does not appear in her passport at all (both her maiden and her married name are common surnames, too), and it has never caused her any trouble at all, apart from people who know her never quite knowing which name to use when referring to her in written correspondences with other people.

It'd be so much easier if you could use the same trick as Grigory Perelman - he simply wrote his name as "Grisha". Neat.

@erz sorry to misconstrue. My main point is that your original title does not reflect your question. A good title should incorporate the context of the question and should stand on its own. I've tried again to capture your question: "How to prove that a paper published with a particular English translation of my Russian name is mine?" Feel free to edit further

@Jeromy Anglim No worries. Now it's fine.

Think of publication names as "artists'" names: If most people in research know you as "Chuck Jones" it would be strange to have to look your papers up under "Charles Martin Jones".
Oh, and in the US/Europe/Australia/etc., the name "Yevgeny" isn't so uncommon that people would have trouble dealing with it (some might ask you about your/the name's origins out of curiosity); On the flip side, however, meeting someone called "Eugene" and then finding out later that he's actually called "Yevgeny" in other circles would be strange to me.

So, it basically boils down to: "Can one publish under pen name and still claim authorship?".

yes, exactly. The only difference is that it is more like a "pen spelling"

Small correction: in the Soviet Union, Russian was NOT the official language. There was not an official language,

Curiously, none of the answers touched the main point of your question: It is very, very, VERY, unlikely that you will ever have to prove the authorship  of your papers. If the transliteration of your name on the paper and the transliteration you currently use is even remotely similar (and IEVGEN and Yevgeny definitely qualify), the default assumption is that it's yours. (After all how many people with a similar name work in the exact same field, in that department, at the same time? Also, enough people will remember you giving a talk about it etc.)

The PhD diploma is a different topic, though; that usually needs to have your official (as in: exactly as it appears on your passport) name -- but it never hurts to ask politely. In your thesis itself, on the other hand, (possibly apart from the very first page), you can pretty much put whatever you want. In particular, it should be possible to put both the "official" name (if required) and the original name (even in cyrillic, thank LaTeX) somewhere prominent.

Finally (sorry for the comment spam), since you mention that you're in mathematics: The semi-official database of papers, MathSciNet, is very good at tracking variant names (look at some prominent Russian or Chinese author profiles and their long lists of "also published as" names), so one less reason to worry.

As a possible solution if you are still worried about it: Get an ORCID account.
They basically created an ID, a DOI for researchers. If you link your publications to your ORC-ID, you don't need to worry if your name is very common (e.g. John Smith) or if someone misspelled your name.

Thank you, I have never heard about it. How "official" is it?

@erz very! Its quite widespread.

@erz I think it is pretty well spread. ArXiV for example says it is going to phase out their author ID for ORCID.

+1 ORCID is an awesome initiative. About how "official" it is, it is not, @erz. But check the affiliation of the people involved. It is very abrangent. and widespread, indeed.

@erz I have worked around scientific publishing you can consider ORCID to be close to a standard in the industry, most recent metadata include it. Few notable examples arXiv promotes its usage and Elsevier, Springer and Wiley use it.

Your question has a lengthy introduction, but finally:

If at some point I will need to prove the authorship of a certain publication that bears a name slightly, or significantly different from what is in my documents, will that be a problem?

No.  A slight difference that can be explained by differences in transliteration is not a problem.  This is not a court case, people working in academia are human.  Some people even change their name completely (in some cultures this was or is common upon marriage) and still they can list articles under both names on their CV.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by significantly different because that doesn't apply here.  Just use the transliteration you prefer.

If there really is doubt remaining, I would imagine that your intimate familiarity with the publication topic would be sufficient. I would be quite surprised to find a highly knowledgeable person with an uncommon name masquerading as another subject matter expert with a similar name!

I approve this answer, and would add that publications usually give affiliation together with the name of author. Unless there is another Yevgeny/Eugene/Ievgen with the same last name as you in your department, any question about your authorship (however unlikely they are anyway) will be easily answered.

As mentioned in other questions, there’s no need at all for your academic name to match your legal name as indicated on a passport. So go wild.
More generally, Евгений, I would suggest that you take pride in your name, and maybe challenge the Eurocentrism/US-centrism of science a bit by using your original name in its original spelling. — At least in addition to a Latinised version.
I have mentioned elsewhere that this is unusual: publishers in particular (but also employers etc) really have trouble dealing with names that contain non-ASCII characters, among other things. But this is actually a shame: Own your heritage, and don’t let other peoples’ cultural insensitivity force you to forego it completely.
There’s obviously a balance to be struck between practicality and idealism but don’t make it too easy for people to become lazy with foreign names. On a personal note, I find it rather rude how little regard is often paid in the Western world to original names. Science has a diversity problem, and hiding non-Western culture sweeps this problem under the carpet.
Here’s my recommendation in full:

On your PhD thesis, use your original name and add your preferred Latinised spelling (e.g. Yevgeny) in parentheses.
In publications and when dealing with employers, at least try to make them use your original spelling alongside your preferred Latinised spelling. Don’t be nasty about it but at least make them realise that they’re inconveniencing you.
Use a consistent Latinised spelling.
Acquire an ORCID — though, to be honest, its usefulness at the moment is vastly overrated. Most publishers (in my field) flat out ignore it.

These are my recommendations. But the decision which spelling of your name to use is of course yours — you have the interpretive authority regarding your own name. Just don’t let that decision be taken away from you by other peoples’ inflexibility and lack of consideration.

Anecdote time: Don Knuth, one of the most eminent computer scientists, is one of the few authors to use the original spelling of names throughout the bibliography in his The Art of Computer Programming. This means Kyrillic, Japanese, Chinese etc. letters. I’ve done the same in my PhD thesis where I could find the original spelling.

+1 for Own your heritage. I have a fairly European name but with several diacritics and I've been putting it everywhere. Most of what they do is just put it in a database or print it. If their systems can't handle those tasks in Unicode, that's their problem to solve... it's 2016 for heavens' sake.

@TheVee Ha. Well let's just say that England's oldest University only handles ASCII in its employee database.

Well, at least I try :-) Of course I respect if there's an explicit request to put in a particular format in a form or if it's automatically rejected. But if the system silently accepts it and breaks later, it's a bug they'll just have to fix, there's no need to be cautious just in case.

Thank you for your suggestion, but it kind of defeats the purpose. The goal is to have a name that satisfies: 1. I like it and associate with myself (at least to some extent); 2. Anybody can read it, memorize and associate with me. And it has to be a SINGLE name, so the presence of another spelling will not contribute... As for taking pride in my heritage, I don't think that mathematics is the right place for that. I don't mind to spell my name in Latin alphabet, I guess I am naturally Eurocentristic. In fact my very name is Eurocentristic, as its version are present in all European languages.

@erz Like I said, it’s a balance and what importance you put on your heritage/proper spelling of your name etc is obviously solely your own decision.

Having non ASCII characters in your name shouldn't be a problem nowadays but unfortunately it most certainly is. I can't even count how often I've come across problems because of it. I'd applaud you for trying to use your original spelling but I totally understand if you just decide to use your favorite transliteration everywhere because it saves a lot of trouble.

While I agree with the sentiment, and can emphasize since one of my native languages is Greek which has its own alphabet, please bear in mind that non-ASCII names are a pain for everyone, not just the publishers who are being paid for this. If I have to cite a non-ASCII name in my LaTeX article, I need to include certain packages or escape the accents accordingly or whatever. Yes, the Anglosaxon-centrism implied in ASCII is offensive on the philosophical level, but it does make everyone's life easier to only need to deal with 26 letters and no accents.

@terdon Until 5–10 years ago I would have agreed. Nowadays you’d get fairly little sympathy from me: there’s enough software (and for developers: libraries) out there that implement Unicode adequately. Case in point, it’s trivial to work with Unicode names in LaTeX. Just copy and paste the name and use a modern LaTeX processor. It’s a question of courtesy to accept this truly minimal inconvenience to get somebody’s name right. (Software developers get even less sympathy: it’s not society’s job to solve programming’s problem, it’s exactly the other way round.)

@KonradRudolph you'd think so, but it isn't, really. Yes, getting LaTeX to play nice with Unicode is fairly easy (if you know a bit of LaTeX) but getting JabRef to insert Unicode BibTex isn't. The non-ASCII characters keep cropping up where you least expect it. All I'm saying is that the inconvenience is not only to the publishers. It does make things a bit more complicated for everyone. That might not be a good reason to use ASCII, it's just one more thing to take into account.

@terdon My 100% sincere answer is, then: don’t use JabRef. If a tool is unwilling to implement Unicode in 2016 then it’s crap, and we shouldn’t support it by using it. Not supporting Unicode is completely unacceptable for a text processing tool dealing with names. The point is: this is actively some person’s fault, so we should blame that person rather than setting back society.

@KonradRudolph but that's just it. Is it JabRef or is it PubMed? Or is it the protocol it uses to communicate? Or is it one journal that screwed up? If everyone were using Unicode correctly it wouldn't be a problem, but all it takes is one weak link in a pretty long chain and you get problems. My name is Κάρολος, but I'd rather use Karolos than have to complicate everyone else's life just so I get to see my name in my language.

@terdon I understand your pain but I advocate making people squirm a little: if no pressure is exerted because everybody wants to avoid inconveniences, things won’t change.

Yes, I don't think it is good to use names in Cyrillic in a text in Latin script. Russian names are romanized in western texts and foreign names are transcripted to Cyrillic in Cyrillic written texts. Script is not a languague, one can write Russian in Latin script and English in Cyrillic.

@VladimirF It’s not a language but it’s a culture. Like I mentioned in a comment above, it’s of course your decision how to render your name. Just don’t let fear of inconveniencing other people take that decision away from you. I’ll stress that point in my answer. It’s ultimately about self-determination.

@KonradRudolph No, it is not just your decision. I have just in my hands a book of abstracts with every abstract in Russian and in English. Every name (no matter if western or Russian) is in Cyrillic in the Russian abstract and is Latin in the English Abstract. It is also the editor's decision. Mixing scripts within a single text is really weird and therefore you can read in newspapers about Барак Обама.

@FighterJet I went to great pains (and then some) to stress that it’s each individual’s decision. But for what it’s worth I flat out refuse to believe that somebody would forget — or skip over — the name Harry if it were spelled “Harri” (or vice versa). Similarly, I think that a name in a foreign script (alongside its Latinisation) makes that name stand out, rather than forgettable. There are of course well-documented prejudices against foreign-sounding names. But forgettability? No. That’s just not the case.

@VladimirF And that’s precisely the point I’m attacking here. What you’re describing is true, but it’s chauvinism at worst, and lack of consideration or laziness at best. For that reason I stand by my recommendation: don’t excuse and normalise bad behaviour.

No, it's a logical and traditional behaviour.

@VladimirF Let us continue this discussion in chat.

This answer and the passionate comments by its author make some valid points... but it's essentially an ideological rant, not an answer to the OP's actual question (except for a couple of helpful suggestions about ORCID etc mentioned also in other answers). So: -1, sorry.

@DanRomik Well I honestly think you're completely wrong in your assessment, as this answer provides the information OP asked concisely, and the rest is — true, opinionated but — (a) absolutely not a "rant" and (b) highly pertinent information about the culture of authorship identification in science, which underlies an informed discussion of the question.

Orthodox ways:
My first suggestion would be to write "E. F. Surname" in the author line of all your papers, with the Latin "E" verbatim, and F being the first letter of your father's name. E.g.: "E. B. Uharikoff" for Евгений Беньяминович Ухариков and "E. O. Bender-Zadunaisky" for Евгений Остапович Бендер-Задунайский. Don't make the mistake to transliterate a middle name such as Беньяминович in full due to an apostrophe having to replace ь: it would cause you endless pain.
As a second choice, the translation of one of the main characters of your dear old Alexander Sergeevich was Eugene Onegin.  You cannot do harm by Eugene Surname. Subjectively I like it and I have a friend whose first name is spelt like that on technical documents.
Do use ResearcherID, ORCID, and other means to make sure that you don't lose scientific credit.
Unorthodox way:
If you really wish to stand out: leave it cyrillic Евгений Фамилия or even Жека/Жендос/... (probably even without the surname) on your papers in the author line and provide a footnote with a romanized spelling "Eugene Surname".

I expect you are publishing in English so choose one of the common ways to transcript or transliterate Russian Cyrillic into English latin letters. Some journals will just use the initial E or Y, some will use the full first name. Using one transcription consistently will make it easier for people citing your work.
Others have showed how to connect works published under a different name if that happens.
But if someone will write about you in a different language be prepared that they will use their own transliteration anyway. Jevgenij, Jewgeni, Evgeni, Evgenij, Yevgueni are all common and default ways to transcript Евгений in different European orthographies and using the English transcription in other language sometimes looks very strange.
Using the Cyrillic name in otherwise Latin script name also looks strange, I wouldn't do it. Even in Russian scientific texts the names use the same script as the rest of the text. They are in Cyrillic (even western names!) if the text is in Cyrillic and they are romanized if the text is in the Latin script (usually in the English or other world language).

If you want to be known as Eugene in Canada (and in publications), go ahead.  In your CV you can show the alternate spellings you have published under...

Eugene Onegin (a.k.a. Ievgen Onegin, Евгений Онегин)

As others have written, it will likely not be a problem for you to argue that it's still you despite the different spelling of the name. I would add an (obvious) reason why this should be the case: No competition; there won't be other claimants of the credit for having written your papers than just you. Well, except in very strange and extreme cases.
Something I would suggest practically, though, is that when you write a paper, a dissertation or what-not, always include a footnote with the original Cyrillic spelling of your name. This should typically be rather simple since you already have a footnote with your university/company affiliation - just append to that footnote.
And a second practical suggestion: Why don't you try changing your official  English transliteration of your name to whatever you want it to be? I don't know how these things work in Ukraine but I would think it's possible.

The long introduction is important. The answer might differ for academic assessments in different countries. The author might be publishing in two or three different languages with different transliterations suitable to each language (Japanese use Romaji versions of their names for English publications, Kanji versions for Japanese publications).
Digression: All the more reason to use an ORCHID account, and then publish research in the appropriate language and journal,for the appropriate audience. Can audience-targeting-efficiency be given academic credit in publishing impact assessments? Or is it dangerous to use more than one publishing name and dilute the personal brand?

I am pretty sure its ORC-ID, ORCID

It is quite common for Eastern European people to anglicise their names when settling in English speaking countries.  I had a Hungarian co-worker who was originally named "Szillardi" and he got fed up with people calling him "Mr Salami" so he changed it to "Sillars".  With first names its even a bigger issue.  "Janos" is much harder for most people than "John". So why not change your name to Eugene or even  Gene?
BTW:  Details on changing the name on your passport may be found at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/services/correction.html

The correct way is to tell people that they should learn to pronounce such a simple name. Janos does not even use phonemes to different from those already present in English (nor does Szillardi, but one must learn that Sz is just /s/.

If he has a Ukranian passport and is living in Canada, why would he be interested in a page detailing how to change names on a US passport?

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Can an academic PhD thesis have more than one hypothesis?
I am working on writing my PhD thesis after four long years of work. I'm writing the hypothesis sections, and I am finding it extremely hard to write one single hypothesis that is comprehensive and specific enough without using vague wording. Can I have three hypotheses for my thesis?
For background: my work is in medical informatics, and my thesis work can be divided into three steps:

I evaluated existing models in the literature against our hospital's dataset using a novel approach and demonstrated that their performance is not great;
I developed my own model, which is better;
I implemented it in the hospital, with decent results.

Can I have those three as hypotheses? [1) existing models perform worse than X; 2) a model that is X% better can be built using machine learning; and 3) implementing a model in the hospital can lead to XYZ]? Or do I have to find just one overarching hypothesis and make those three the goals?

That sounds pretty typical in my fields, which is at least medical adjacent

Sidenote: “a model that is X% better can be built using machine learning” – I would remove “X%” here. You certainly didn’t have any numbers in mind when you started working on this.

This is the sort of thing that you should discuss with your advisor if you have questions. This may be field specific; that said, I'd be surprised if there was any sort of specific limit on the number of hypotheses discussed in a thesis.

You can certainly do that, but if you can get your degree with a simpler structure it might be worth doing one thing and use the other work for future papers and such. Your advisor should be a good guide here, actually.
It doesn't sound like you have three distinct things going on, however, and that all three of them support a common overall theme. If the results all point the same way you should have a strong result. Your number (2) seems like the big thing, with (3) supporting it and making it concrete, though I don't see how you support (2) without (3). Not my field, though. But (1) would be a pretty common element of a dissertation.
That sort of thing is pretty common actually in many fields.
I would only recommend against a number of hypotheses if they were disparate in some way.

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


text:
Etiquette for a very short lab visit by a PhD student?
I’m a PhD student travelling to the US for a conference and my supervisor has contacted a former colleague to arrange for me to visit his lab. Under the current circumstances, I only have 2–3 days available for the visit, which means I won’t be able to do any meaningful lab work. They do some interesting techniques that I’d like to learn, but again, I’m not sure if there will be enough time – and I don’t want to be an annoyance for busy staff/students who’d rather just get on with things.
So, for such a short visit, what are the expectations? I’ve offered to present my conference talk at the lab meeting (met with somewhat of an “if you really want to” attitude), and I”d like to see their lab and chat to fellow students about how they do things differently to me... but I don’t think I need multiple days to do that. How long should a visit without any actual research be?
I also don’t know what to expect from them; as a visiting student and not a PI, I don’t think I can expect them to arrange meetings or visits for me, but for the same reason, I’m unsure about reaching out to others at their institute – should I be arranging to meet other people? Is that rude? Is it expected?
I don’t want to waste an opportunity – or embarrass my supervisor, and be a nuisance to a research group that I respect. Should I limit my visit to a single day? Any advice would be great!

I second asking your adviser for advice.
You should also consider that, if the visit is announced, as yours is, the host is likely to arrange some kind of schedule/program for you. They probably planned to take you on a tour, perhaps even some hands-on knowledge exchange. It is not unheard of that they will assign you a designated host, e.g. a fellow graduate student, who you can turn to with any questions, logistical, administrative or otherwise.
I know that this is a leap into the unknown, as I get the impression that this is your first time visiting them, but assume that neither your adviser nor his colleague want to cause you a hard time (rather the opposite) and that they've arranged such visits before.
So again, feel free to talk to your adviser about your uncertainties as well es etiquette, i.e. what will be expected from you over there. Protocols and etiquette are quite normal conversational topics, there is nothing to fear or be ashamed of.

Ask your supervisor for some advise, he knows his former colleague and can probably give you some insight into how to "get the most" out of your visit.

That's a good idea, since the lukewarm response to your offer to give a talk is a bit weird.

@aparente001 That depends a little. Maybe the conference is local and most of them will anyway be there to see the talk.


text:
When is a new method publishable?
In computer Science, let us assume that we have three different methods, A, B and C, to solve the problem X.

All three methods have been proposed by more or less the same group of authors
A improves B that improves C, and all the methods are optimal in their results (for example method A converges faster than B, so it needs a smaller sample to perform the same task and produces more stable results).
All three methods have been presented in a top conference of the field.

Assume now that an author (myself in this case) has a fourth method D, which solves the problem X in a more general setting (a setting that was of no interest for the authors of method A, B and C) but is not optimal (while methods A, B and C are optimal) and has performances between method A and B (on real data).
In this setting, what are the possibilities of being published for method D, and should the author go on investing time on method D?
How much space is there in scientific literature for methods solving the same problem?

My apologies, but I'm a bit confused by this question.  How are A, B, and C both optimal and also improvements on each other?  Do you mean they are optimal in solution quality but have different performance characteristics?

Method A converges faser then B; so it needs a smaller sample to perform the same task and produce more stable results; I will edit, thanks!

In general, for any scientific paper, the key question for being able to publish in a reputable venue is: "Do we learn something new and interesting?"
In this case, I think the key questions to ask in this regard are:

Is there a set of real-world (or otherwise interesting) problems that fit the more general case of algorithm D, and for which A/B/C are not applicable (or perform badly)?
Does algorithm D also out-perform even-more-general algorithms (e.g., some of the foundational algorithms), or do they not apply for some reason?

If the answer to both question is yes, then you've probably got a nicely publishable result.  If the answer to either one is no, then you've probably got something new but not particularly interesting: that may still be publishable in some venue, but probably not well and probably won't have an impact.


text:
Does the posted date in SSRN change if you upload a new version?
I have decided to upload a paper I wrote to SSRN, in part because I want the date in which the paper was uploaded to be publicly available. However, SSRN allows you to upload new versions of your paper. If you do so, does the posted date of the preprint change or remains the same?

The posted date remains, even if you upload a subsequent version. If you update the preprint, it will add a "last revised" date in addition to the "(originally) posted" date. Here is an example where you can see that functionality in action (also, it's a very cool paper I use when I teach stats):
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1592456
So, feel free to update your paper, without fear that the original date info will be lost. Assuming the new version is an improvement, your readers will appreciate it!


text:
Good thinker, bad problem solver in graduate school?
I was curious, what is academia's perspective on the following type of student, assuming that the student is well qualified via research experience, letters of recommendation, grades, GRE, passion, and other things CV related:
The student is very, very good at asking innovative questions and proposing difficult questions that others have not thought about, that is they can see the current landscape of their field and understand it really well. However, innately, they are not a good problem SOLVER. They can pretty much do a minute portion of problem solving in research, but it's something akin to hinting (ambiguous solutions that need a third party to think hard about implementation). They can solve solve problems as per their curricula (and thus get a high GPA), but not unsolved problems in academia. Moreover, it helps that they are a brilliant communicator and writer.
The reason why I ask is because I have a friend who fits the description above. That friend is heavily, heavily revered by his PI who absolutely loves him. One of the primary reasons is because my friend's questions have been the basis for many grants (which he also writes with the consultation of my professor), resulting in a large influx of funding for my professor. The professor, as a thinker, would be qualitatively put as "above average", and is a hybrid between a thinker and a doer. Everyone else in the lab is a lab technician, and there are a couple of postdocs. What's interesting is that the lab has really good chemistry. My friend comes up with an idea, runs it by the PI. The PI, who has insight checks it off or guns the idea down depending on the context. The PI also proposes solutions. Next, the technicians and postdocs who are highly skilled in procedure and are the tangible hands that make the results happen in real life as per the instructions of the PI. The PI admits that they don't have the innate vision to ask these questions, but given the questions can crank out a solution with the lab technicians. It's a little scary to think that for the past 2 years, an undergraduate has been the mind behind pretty much all of the sub-experiments and directions of my institution's top labs by funding and results. The PI has received tenure as a result. What's interesting is, by speculation, no one can survive without the other. Well, the PI could technically survive, but would be reduced to doing his previous projects. However, without an army of skilled labor and a PI as an intermediary, my friend cannot get anything done. My friend wants to move to a different institution for pedigree as he receives an advanced degree. My friend is an abysmal doer, and cannot learn at an appreciable rate.
By abysmal doer, I mean (by his own admission), sometimes clumsy with the hands, sometimes randomly lacks motivation, and when focused, is "slow" in picking up a step by step procedure. For example, we took an upper level chemistry course together for a science elective. He can easily explain PCR on paper and orally, with much deeper insight and implications than a textbook, so you know he's not memorizing. But come in the lab, he looks totally clueless and out of place, looks at the reagents like they're foreign substances.
Outside of being a theoretician (for example a theoretical physicist, something my friend ironically does not want to pursue), can my friend survive in graduate school?

Has your friend though about going to countries where wood-chopping is less important part of graduate school? I believe the focus of US grad schools is not particularly a good mach for his skill set.

"The PI admits that they don't have the innate vision to ask these questions, but given the questions can crank out a solution with the lab technicians. It's a little scary to think that for the past 2 years, an undergraduate has been the mind behind pretty much all of the sub-experiments and directions of my institution's top labs by funding and results. The PI has received tenure as a result." Perhaps I'm way off-base, but I find myself skeptical.  The path to tenure is a lot more than two years.  Tenure-track hires have already exhibited the skill of proposing good projects.

Have you spoken to the PI about this?  Does he corroborate your friend's story?

@PeteL.Clark Tenure tracks at our university follow an algorithm made widely available to the students for public display. In it, a combination of requirements have to be met. One, controversially, is a publication rate by department. If I extrapolated the rate that the professor was publishing, he would not have met that threshold and would have to wait the next tenure cycle. Also, the PI explicitly mentioned that my friend was the best professional colleague he had and that he found new passion for his field as a result of the contributions he helped spur, content he couldn't think of alone.

Thanks for clarifying that "The PI received tenure as a result" is your opinion based on certain projections rather than something the professor said himself.  " Also, the PI explicitly mentioned that my friend was the best professional colleague he had and that he found new passion for his field as a result of the contributions he helped spur, content he couldn't think of alone." To you?

@PeteL.Clark To a group of us, including my friend, when we stopped by his office to just talk during office hours. Then he went on a tangent and it was mentioned.

Well, that's truly remarkable.  I do not have any analogous experience.  What field is this?

Excuse me for asking, but: what's a PI?

@Oliphaunt: Principal Investigator (i.e., head of the laboratory). A professor who controls a lab and has postdocs and graduate students working under his direction in his lab.

@CharlesStaats Is this chiefly US terminology? I'm not sure there's a similar term in a European/Dutch setting and suspect we'd simply say "full professor" (which ~always implies "head of a research group). But I may well be mistaken.

@CharlesStaats  And I assume a PI needn't be a full professor.

@Oliphaunt: it's also in use in Europe; here is an example from UCL. In countries where English is not the first language, this might be different; but in the linked field, researchers in other such countries are certainly familiar with the term. So it's probably an expression not used in your field.

Be careful. Interesting conjectures, new ideas are a dime a dozen. The hard work of proving (or disproving) conjectures, and working out the implications of new ideas to see if they turn out useful or are just ephemeral fireworks are the real center of any science.
Just go search in e.g. Wikipedia for conjectures, there are many famous ones (and literally hundreds of less well known ones).

I agree, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" still applies. I used to think that coming up with ideas is easy and it turns out it is; proving/disproving and putting in the work to actually be able to judge whether it's a good idea is the hard part.

I would recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that your friend try to remain with his current PI, at least until he has some significant papers with his name on them.
There are tons of analytical people who have good ideas and know how to ask good questions. It is difficult for most people, even near the top of the academic ladder, to tell the difference between a good question/idea and a great one. The people whose questions get listened to are those who either (a) have the power to investigate their own questions, or (b) have such a high record of success that investigators will choose that person's questions over their own. Your friend has managed to achieve (b), in the eyes of your professor, without going through (a). This situation is incredibly rare, and he will not likely find it with another professor. Instead, he may end up trying to investigate his new PI's (less interesting) questions until he can prove his competency; and if this never happens, his voice might be lost to science, indistinguishable from that of a myriad of crackpots (in spite of his new institution's pedigree). If his question-asking ability is as exceptional as you say, this would be a great pity.
Important caveat: This all hinges on the assumption that your description of your friend's situation is entirely accurate. If your professor has been exaggerating your friend's contributions to encourage him, for instance, or if your friend has deceived himself about his own importance, then all bets are off. In fact, this is likely what other PIs will assume has happened if your friend tells them his story the way you have, which is a good reason for staying with the PI who already values him.

I think this is a good answer.  If you accept all the premises, then the OP's friend is very special and should be encouraged to continue to make academic contributions.  However a lot of people will have difficulty believing the story, and if the OP's friend is dropped into a different academic environment it is much less likely that all the factors of the present one will combine to ensure his success.

This is a beautiful question. I will focus on generalities since I am a pure mathematician myself with no experience in the practical aspects of your field. I believe science has much need for people like your friend, and he can and clearly already does bring a lot of value to the scientific enterprise. The key for him is to be in an environment where he can collaborate with others who have skills complementary to his, as in the current situation. I think the history of science probably offers some famous examples of collaborations that achieved some fantastic breakthrough when one of the collaborators was a great thinker and a poor doer, and the other was the opposite. (I admit I can't think of any specific ones right now, but the idea sounds familiar and maybe others can comment with such examples).
As for your friend's lack of practical skills and "doer" mentality, given that he is only an undergraduate it is probably too soon to get concerned. He has plenty of time to continue working on improving these areas of weakness. Researchers mature with age and experience and sometimes become surprisingly good at things at which they used to be quite bad.
So: can your friend survive graduate school? That seems impossible to predict; I think the possibilities are that he may have a really hard time because of his practical clueslessness; he may be able to make up for it with his theoretical brilliance and strategic collaboration with others; or he may be able to work on his limitations to the point of completely overcoming them.

A PhD student needs to "do" massive amounts of work, but it's the analysis work that needs to be done personally, not the lab work.  He may be expected to do lab work personally, or have trouble finding someone willing to do it, but if he does find a team like the one he is in now, having help from technicians won't bar him from theorizing, analyzing lab results, and presenting an effective thesis.  (Naturally credit should be given, the student should not claim to have mixed reagents if he did not).
Really, it's the role currently served by the PI (proposing solutions) where your friend desperately needs to develop skills in order to successfully complete doctoral studies.  Of course, this does require familiarity with lab procedure -- some things aren't possible, and things that go wrong need to be accounted for when evaluating results.
But you already knew this -- your question title focuses on the "problem solver" aspect, not lab technique.

authors: สามารถ นาสมหมาย


text:
How does one determine priority, prominence, and impact with regard to books, rather than articles?
My background is in physics where almost 100% of the scholarly work is reported in peer-reviewed publications. Within that framework, I understand how to determine who has priority regarding ideas, how influential a paper is, how prolific an author is, etc. at a glance by looking at publication dates, citations, impact factors, etc. Usually, the only books which are written are textbooks or those aimed at a popular audience.
My experience, though, is that not all fields are this heavily skewed toward peer-reviewed articles.
Question:

In fields that rely significantly on scholarly books, how can someone quickly determine the impact, reliability, etc. of scholarly books and scholars whose work appears primarily in books?

@ff524 Okay, cool. I have the first question just because I'm not sure my anecdotal experience is representative. But I suppose if I'm wrong someone will tell me off. I'll get rid of that bit and split the 3rd and 4th questions to separate posts.

(I think this confirms your anecdotal experience :))

You can still check how widely the book is cited in academic literature (no matter, books, papers, reports, or conference papers) with the use of Google Scholar.
Warning. Google Scholar may be misleading sometimes because it indexes virtually anything that is claimed to be academic even if it doesn't belong there. Sometimes you may come across academic crooks. See for example this guy. More than a thousand citations. But if you check him in Scopus, you will find that he is only cited 5 (five!) times by papers in journals of some quality. So, be careful.


text:
Am I wasting my research time?
I am dividing the question in to two parts.
I will first tell about my experiences, (in this first part of my question), at different levels of my academics and the reason for selection of a particular path.
I generally use to spend very less time on studying during all my courses after schooling. Even if I spend time, I use to understand the subject in a (faulty) way I use to understand. After hearing lectures from some universities online, I aced many exams and my colleagues didn't able to achieve it because of the reason that they use to spend time on the lectures by my own college professors. But, it is not due to improvement from my side. I can say that it happened alone due to the way of teaching by online professors. Later, when I joined research, I realized that the way I learn the subjects is not good. I use to remember concepts, formulae etc., with out going to the deep intuition, Now, I think I know the way of learning things. I know atleast the fact that subject should be experienced by me. Complex facts of a subject has underlying simple intuition. But getting the complete intuition from the textbook is not easy. It may take a lot of time, interest, patience. Currently, I am spending the time and studying on my own. And I can experience the change in my life.  I am confident about my future (life).
In this second part, I will tell about the issue I am facing
Since I am into research course, my mentor asks for research progress once in a while. Initially I use to say that I am spending time in understanding fundamentals properly. But over time, mentor is not accepting the answer and hence I am stopped saying that. But, secretly doing the same. When mentor asks about progress, I use to manage things. Since I am becoming strong at fundamentals, I am personally happy. But I cannot able to concentrate on the research task in parallel. Because when I start studying a research paper, I came to know about my issues in fundamentals and stop studying papers till I am perfectly okay with fundamentals. And I think it may take atleast six more months to complete all the fundamentals required for my research work (as per expert suggestions in my domain). I am thinking that although my research progress is zero now, it will boost up in future. But many times, I heard from mentors of different colleagues that writing papers, communicating research with journals, conferences is important. I have atleast couple of years from now. Most of the other students got few papers published in journals, conferences etc., I am no where in that. Didn't even study research papers.
Am I wasting my research time?

I think what you are describing is perfectly normal.   I do that too for any new areas.   For every new concept I encounter, I need to read up on the concept.  However, it's important to learn how deep you should go.  Many papers only require a working knowledge; e.g., let's say I need a theorem/lemma to establish some other results.  I don't necessarily need to understand its proof.  I just focus on constructing my own proof.  Basically, for a given concept, I extract only the necessary info that allows me to 'follow' a paper.

Also it is important to read a paper with purpose.  If you are only reading for the hypothesis of a paper, there is no point to read the entire paper - in my area, you will encounter many solution approaches -- each one will probably take 6 months to learn.
so it's impossible to read every paper fully.


text:
Is it okay to reproduce the work as a teaching assistant?
Next week, I need to give a lecture on a topic (say T).
I surveyed over the internet and found excellent video lectures by a professor (Say P).
I learned T thoroughly. I can able to answer any question. I can able to clarify any doubt.
But I may undergo the following problem:

I may end up in reproducing the same content in all aspects (lecturing
flow, motivations, examples, notations,...). If any of my students watch the lecture
series of P after my lecture, they can easily realize that I reproduced the
same.

Is it a problem or is it normal?
I am feeling it as a problem because of the reason that I feel that my lecture is a subset of the lecture by P. And there is no contribution of mine other than reproducing.

I guess you tell the students that you reproduce a lecture by P. So why  do you think it should be a problem to them? (I am not saying it is not a problem, I just want to know what exactly you worry about.)

It looks so because you have found that in the Internet. But a lot of lectures are given every seconds worldwide based on emulation. This is how it works. Don't overthink.

I agree with user11388 that it would be good to "cite" the video you used, but otherwise I wouldn't worry much about this. Truth be told that most of us in academia, in the early part of our teaching career, "emulated" the teaching of our own teachers, especially the ones we most admired. Over time you learn to be more spontaneous, but at the start you try to follow a good model. It is partly what mentoring is about.
However, you will "add value" to the lecture just by being there to answer questions that might arise and to (hopefully) watch the student's reactions so that you can notice difficulties of comprehension.