text:
On Research Topic
I want to start my new research on those fields of physics which are remained as unsolved problems or remarkable suitable area specially in Quantum and Einstenian physics .
I really want to understand advantages of these fields which are remained unsolved for a long decades .
I failed to find out mostly relevant advances in physics . plese give me suggestions for this problem . I will be grateful for a good suggestion .

How to pick a research topic is something you learn by doing a PhD, and coming up with the right question is probably one of the hardest bits of a research project. If you pick the wrong question to ask then it is not clear what your end goal is, if you pick the right question then the research can be like figuring out which of the tools you already know can be used to construct a solution. In some regard, asking for a good research project can be like asking for someone's research (as a vague analogy).
Problems that have remained unsolved for a long time are often quite difficult and I would guess progress is not made on them until either 1) a new tool is developed, or 2) the question is rephrased in a better way to make it more tractable. For those reasons they aren't the best place to start doing research until you have a deep understanding of the topic and related fields. Based on one of your other questions I know that you are currently in high school, so you would likely need to learn the field better before you can make progress in these problems. Instead you should look for an advisor if you want to do research, since its both important for learning to have someone who is skilled that can critique your work, and (ideally) they can direct you towards more approachable problems.

I did not realize that he was a high-schooler :)


text:
How to choose a future work topic?
I am currently writing a paper and not sure how to choose what to include as future work opportunities. Based on our work, many other extensions in different areas could be made (which I of course cannot include all).
Is it better to have something very tightly coupled with the current paper or something much broader that offers a lot more potential, but perhaps is a lot more speculative?
Or put differently, what "size" should the future work be? Part of another paper, or more like a PhD scope?

Actually it sounds like you don't have anything planned for future work and just want to make something up. True?

I don't think mentioning future work is mandatory in a paper. Readers will probably be more interested in your present results.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to reply a Phd rejection letter with funding suggestion?
When I reached a professor for potential phd supervision, I got a reply like:"Unfortunately there are no open positions for PhD students in our lab at the moment, or in the near future. There is however always the option to apply for competitive PhD funding (4 years) with XXX (funding bodies). I suggest you take a look on the webpages of these funding bodies."
It looks like a rejection letter but with funding suggestions, how do I respond to this email?

You are right that it is a rejection letter with funding suggestions. The situation described in the response is quite common -- an academic often has some ideas they would like to explore, doesn't have the money to hire a PhD student to work specifically on that project, but would happily take on a student who has secured external funding to work on it.
Receiving a response is much better than receiving no response. The professor you mention took some time* to write that response, and has shown you a clear possibility for proceeding. It sounds like they would be open to working with you, but whether or not that happens will depend on your application to the funding bodies they have listed, and thus is mostly out of their hands.
If I were on the receiving end of that reply, I would thank the professor for taking the time to respond, maybe briefly say if one or two of the funding opportunities look particularly interesting, and promise to be back in touch if I obtained any funds from them. Then I would go ahead and apply to those funding bodies.
Of course, only you can decide whether this is an appropriate reply in your situation and bring your personality and style to your reply. All the best!
*Even if it was just the time required to select and send the appropriate templated email reply!

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


text:
Taxonomy in a review paper
I submitted a Review paper to a journal where the review committee reported

Author did not make Taxonomy of the his review

I do not understand their need. After searching the questions in this forum, I came across the question regarding ACM 2012 Taxonomy. Are the reviewers asking for this ACM 2012 Taxonomy or something else?

It is probably best to ask this question directly to the editor or associate editor that sent you the review decisions. Their interpretation of the comment is what matters most.

Right, thanks a lot.

It sounds to me like the reviewers were requesting that you include a set of “Index Terms” or “Keywords” for your paper, e.g., for IEEE, pulled from the list of IEEE Taxonomy or Standardized Keywords.
Excerpts the second link:

Help readers find your article quickly by using the right IEEE standardized keywords.
using the right keywords in your article can make your article more easily and reliably discoverable—which leads to a broader readership for your article.


text:
I want to write a blog post building upon someone else's paper, how can I properly cite/credit them?
I want to write a blog post which builds upon an author's paper.
He uses a formal notation and academic language for describing his findings, I want to rewrite the author's examples in simple and more popular programming languages, and use a more casual language to explain the same concepts. I don't know if this is a relevant detail, but this is also not the only goal of the blog post. It covers other related subjects as well.
As someone outside academia, I wonder if this is considered OK and how can I properly credit the author.
Also, is using a standard citation format and clearly indicating the source of these ideas enough?

You have two issues to deal with. If you properly cite and attribute the ideas to the original author, you avoid plagiarism issues. If you don't copy too much, but properly quote, from the paper then you avoid copyright issues.
But, ideas are free to use and to adapt. Simplifying what you find in a paper is a good thing to do.
One doesn't obtain ownership of ideas by writing a paper.
I therefore see no ethical issue at all with what you suggest.

As an example, you may be interested in the morning paper, which does exactly that daily for one paper in systems / software engineering / programming languages / AI. Notably, from the entire setup it is very clear that the author of the blog is not the one who originally did the research. The original paper and authors are very clearly named, right at the top of each entry. The blog uses direct quotations fairly freely, but always in a distinct style that makes it obvious which quotes come directly from the paper, and what is the blog author's own commentary.
Even if your setup is a bit different, I think you can learn a lot by incorporating similar principles:

Put a reference to the original authors and paper very prominently. I would be more explicit that a standard paper-style reference or link - this can get overlooked all too easily by a quick reader on the web.
Visually distinguish what comes from the original authors from your own text and thoughts.
Ideally, I would try to pack everything that you adapted from the original paper in subsection(s) of their own, with a big disclaimer at the top.
Contrary, if you extend the paper, also make sure that it is clear when specific thoughts, arguments, or extensions are your own work. You don't want to be accused of putting words into the original authors mouth.

I want to write a blog post which builds upon an author's paper...I want to rewrite the author's examples in simple and more popular programming languages, and use a more casual language...

Such activities are certainly okay and should be encouraged, you just need to properly attribute ideas to the author, which you can do with a standard citation.
You might like to consider co-authoring the blog post with the author, possibly publishing a technical report, which is perhaps more likely to be used by the wider research community.

To some extent I have taken the same approach with two articles I wrote more or less recently: https://ulvgard.se
I try to make it clear that I only repeat results from the paper and add my own interpretation where I feel the paper could be more elaborate. This is of course different for you since you want to add on top of existing work. Take a look and see if there are some elements of my style that you want to use.
Working with papers this way is a really nice way to internalize the content and forces you to process all the tricky details where the paper is less clear yourself.
Best of luck!


text:
How to interact with difficult supervisors after graduation?
I submitted my dissertation after several years of working. I will have my defense soon, and I reported what I am going to talk in the defense. However, my primary supervisor now refuses to give further advice or comments because he said he had spent a lot of time editing my dissertation. In addition to that, he also asks me to refrain from interacting with my second supervisor because the latter person also spent a lot of time for my doctoral dissertation.
I am not on good terms with my primary supervisor. He is fed up with me because it was very hard for him to supervise me. With my second supervisor I am on good terms personally, to the degree that he likes to invite me to have some coffee. However, since it seems that he is reluctant to advise any people, he might want to cut ties with me as well.
My question is, how I should interact wisely with these people, especially after my graduation. I do not need their advice for the moment because I can prepare for the defense by myself. However, I may be going to feel awkward if they will cut academic ties with me. I am not sure what exactly will make me so; however, I think I should not cut the ties because I see that most PhD holders around me still interact with their former supervisors.
For your information, I am an international student from Asia in a European country and going to work at a university in my home country after getting a doctorate. My supervisors are leading scholars in our small field in humanities. So, I will have some opportunities in which my papers will be reviewed by them.

I will still have some opportunities in which my papers will be reviewed by them. — Really? In my field, advisor-student relationships are considered serious conflicts of interest for reviewing. I cannot review my ex-PhD students’ papers.

Sounds like their issue is that they don't want to spend more time on your defense. They don't have an issue with talking to you in general. So just prepare your defense without asking for help from the supervisors which don't want to help. After you graduate, feel free to write back as you normally would. Just not about the defense.
Just as a remark, I don't get how your other supervisor wants to help you but your main supervisor doesn't want you to ask his help. Presumably the other guy is a free adult, and can make his own decisions. If he agrees to help you, why would your main supervisor object? It's not taking any of his time, and if your defense is better and makes you more likely to graduate, that's good for him too.

I think it's possible you've been asking for too much help on revisions rather than your supervisors being "difficult" per se.
It doesn't sound like your supervisor fits the standard formula for an uncaring advisor if they've already given you a lot of assistance: it sounds more like they are pushing you to be more independent and have perhaps chosen a strong message when prior gentle messages were not received. Their suggestion for you to not ask your secondary advisor for more help may just be another cue that they are pushing you to be more independent rather than cutting you off completely.
Of course neither of you are necessarily in the wrong here: it may just be that your advisor prefers students be more independent than your preference. If that's the case, but you've still managed to work together up until now and you can produce a suitable thesis for graduation, congratulations: you've overcome something that not all students will overcome.
Unless there is information missing from your question, I don't think you need to worry about losing academic contact. Focus on preparing independently for your defense.

I tend to agree that your supervisor is pushing you to finish things up independently. There is nothing wrong with that and can happen, especially when students have been wringing their hands about getting their dissertation "just right". They might be letting you know that you need to finish up and get everything over with. No more edits.
But this is hard to judge without context.
I can tell you, if you had a supervisor who was adversarial, you would definitely know it.
Also, when you finally graduate and your supervisor congratulates you, things will feel very different. The stress of graduating will be gone and you will see clearly again. There is a good chance that you will not feel what you are feeling now when you graduate.
My best advice is just to listen to your supervisor, graduate, and move forward.

My advice is to concentrate on your defense and on finishing your Ph.D.  You don't want to mess that up, want to get the process done and move on (you with your credential and them with you out of their hair).  Don't spend time now, debating post-graduation interaction policy.  Concentrate on the task at hand. The defense.
Once you are out of the nest, you (and they) can decide how to interact.  Nothing stops you from stopping to interact with an advisor that you clashed with or to interact with his colleague (if his colleague wants to).  But that will just be a future interaction for whatever it's worth.
Right now, you need to take control of the task at hand get the ball over the goal line.  Take some ownership.


text:
Can a bad grade in a class be negated by a good grade in a more advanced class?
I am an undergraduate who is expecting a mediocre grade in my optimization class this semester (roughly B-), which is in significant contrast to my near straight A transcript. Unfortunately, I want to do a PhD in machine learning and so I expect this grade to be viewed in a negative light by graduate admissions committees due to the relevance of the material and the aforementioned contrast. But I will take an advanced graduate level machine learning course this coming semester which has the optimization course as a prerequisite. Will a good performance in this  graduate level class negate my mediocre grade in my optimization class? In general, can (and will) good grades in more advanced classes negate bad grades in prerequisite classes in the context of graduate admissions? To what extent? I understand that each admissions committee will view this situation differently. I am looking for a general opinion.

Will the answer influence how much effort you put in to your next semester's course? If you want to go to graduate school (or really, to position yourself for anything else) you should do your best to represent yourself as the best student you can in everything you do. What is past is past.

No. Of course not. I made this post because I was worried I screwed up my chances at grad school; the replies below have significantly eased my concern.

In general, can (and will) good grades in more advanced classes negate bad grades in prerequisite classes in the context of graduate admissions?

Only to a very limited extent. Getting a C (or F) in calculus during Freshman year is likely to be completely ignored if you got straight As after that. Other than in such extreme examples, no, I would not expect to be able to negate past grades. But of course, each grade is only one data point, and additional data points can significantly improve your overall record.

roughly B-, which is in significant contrast to my near straight A transcript.

So, this is an outlier. Like in any other sort of data analysis, a single outlier in an otherwise homogeneous record is unlikely to have much/any effect. Sure, getting a good grade in the more advanced course could make it even more clear that this outlier was not related to the subject. But it seems like you are already on track to get put in the highest "tier" with respect to GPA, so you may want to consider investing time on the other facets of your application.

Actually, grades don't negate other grades. Your record is what it is. But people are reasonable about evaluating your history in most cases. People evaluate your application based on whether it shows indicators that you are very likely to be a success, not whether or not you are perfect in every way. Very few people can claim perfection.
A single bad grade is, in any case, very unlikely to have much if any negative effect. In any grad school application you have to make your own case that you will be successful. There are many ways to do that. GPA is only one and individual course grades matter even less, assuming that your record indicates positive outcomes.
Make sure you get good letters of recommendation, of course.

Your chances can still be good. The key thing to realize is that this happened, and to work on optimizing your other skills and accomplishments, rather than trying to fix or revisit previous events. PhD admittance is based on many characteristics, including overcoming adversity, taking initiative, and learning from mistakes.


text:
How should I email quite a few professors for PhD positions while also not 'mass emailing'?
I will be applying for PhD positions towards the end of this year and maybe early 2023. My query is specifically about cold emailing professors in Europe about possible PhD positions. Until now, I have sent out a few ~10 emails to some professors in the field I am interested in. The general format of these emails is

Who I am, and my qualifications
Their general area of work, and mentioning some publications/works that I found interesting
My interests
Questions about their research projects, and open positions.

I can't make a lot of changes to the first 1st and 4th, but I do make very significant changes to the 2nd one, and maybe a few to the 3rd to appropriately highlight my own research that relates to the professors'.
Now I recently came across a post here that linked to a BlogSpot article on how this kind of a format with "it claims to have read the recipient's work in detail, then goes on to profess an interest in a range of topics none of which related to anything I know about" are considered to be off-putting and are instantly deleted (it also doesn't help that the post talks about Indian students, and I also happen to be Indian).
The problem is...what am I supposed to do? I do need to email quite a few professors asking for PhD positions (a lot of them might know each other, but I try to not mail the same professor in the same department). And from my perspective, I am not mass emailing.
I have deliberately chosen these professors after a somewhat careful exploration of the people out there. The content about my details and interests can't change, and my queries about positions doesn't change, so the format invariably ends up looking almost the same from mail to mail. I do not have enough time either to draft different formats that talk about the same things in different words.
The only changes I make are what interests me about their work, and I can't (maybe I can) go through 10s of their papers and read them in detail to concisely summarise them in my email so that it doesn't sound like a generic email. I generally read the abstracts and end up saying something like "I was interested by your work in their field of work and especially your paper on (name of their paper)".
So my questions are:

Is this format generically ignored by professors and instantly deleted?
Could you suggest any changes to the format that might help?
Does emailing multiple professors in the same field, who know each other and maybe talk to each other, count as mass emailing?
What should be the approximate contents of my 2nd section?

That BlogSpot post has me scared that I might have upset certain professors whose research I really do like, and create an impression of a desperate candidate.

Cold emailing is usually a waste of effort.

Oh....But isn't that how you are supposed to contact potential advisors in Europe? In US I have an understanding that such emails do not help much

Please, do not use this approach to contact potential supervisors in Europe, nor indeed anywhere. Do your research. Make a list of 5-10 potential supervisors. Evaluate them and make a short list of 3-5 people. Write individual emails to each of them. Proofread. Re-read. Then send. Good luck.

At risk of sounding prejudice or stereotyping, id like to maybe comment since you mentioned that you are indian that the tone of your email can maybe make a difference. Just in my experience in grad school people from india sometimes used what came across as extremely formal greetings and sign offs in their email such as “respected prof X and ending with “thanking you, X”. And generally using overly flattering language in body of email. I think what the answer by Leitix said is good, that less is more. Over formal language can make it seem more like you are buttering them up and insincere

Your answer is in another castle. You need to apply to open positions, not send unsolicited emails. Probably via an application form, maybe by emailing an email address listed on the job ad, with reference to the job ad.

@Clumsycat Please write that in an answer rather than a comment.

If open positions exist, they will be advertised on the team's websites

Use Excel and VBA to email whoever, whenever......no hint of spam.

As somebody who has received quite a few of these emails in their lifetime (most clearly mass mailings, but occasionally also from people who seemed genuinely interested in my work), I would say your "format" is about as good as it can get (assuming that your 4 parts are a sentence or a short paragraph each, at most). The distinction between "mass emailing" and "genuinely interested" is whether these few sentences demonstrate that the candidate has read my work (at least a few of the newer pieces) and shows some clear understanding of it.
Note that this entails a lot more than randomly inserting "my lifelong dream was studying ..insert word frequently mentioned in my paper titles..", and, at least for me personally, less is often more - saying "I'm interested in X, and I like that you often use approach Y to study X" comes across a lot more authentic than "X is the most important topic of our time, and I need to study it using Y under the guidance of a famous professor ... blablabla".
However, even for the ones that seemed like they generally cared for my work, my answer always is a polite variation of "I'm sorry, I can't help you". In my university, and in most places in the Western world I believe, we do not have the option to accept students arbitrarily into the PhD program of our universities. There is a process, and it needs to be followed.
In my university in Sweden, each PhD student is an employee, and hirings on these positions need to happen through open calls. In other universities / countries, the PhD school might organize central admission rounds. In any way, it rarely is the case that professors even have the option to read your email, get excited, and then directly offer you a position (the only exception I am aware of are the German-speaking countries, where this is indeed possible).
If you are applying for PhD positions, here is what you should do:

Understand that Europe is a heterogeneous region, and different countries, sometimes different universities, have very different customs when it comes to how students enter PhD programs.
Decide which countries are most interesting to you, and find out how things work there. Most of this stuff isn't exactly secret, there are plenty of descriptions on the Internet if you know what to look for. Or you can ask - to be frank I am much more likely to answer an email that is asking for how one becomes a PhD student at my university in general than an email "application" of any form.
Adapt your approach to your target countries / universities. For instance, should you decide to apply in Sweden you can stop all your attempts to email people. Instead, you need to make sure to be registered to the right job portals or subscribe to the recruiting sites of the universities that interest you, and then you can simply apply for a project / position that is relevant to you. You'd still need to do your research and write a customized application, but at least then you know that there actually is a job.

Great answer! But please be aware that in Germany not all universities offer doctorates. It is a waste of everyone's time to write to many people at UAS, for example. Not all, so you must do your research. Also, calling a woman 'Sir' will trigger the delete button very fast.

There are cases where the standard process is not followed when hiring a PhD student, but in all cases I am aware of, the student and the professor already knew each other, e.g. through thesis work in a previous study.

Without intending to contradict your advice: it is not uncommon in Norway and Germany that a professor has a favourite candidate, and even if they can't directly affect the hiring decision they can at least help the candidate target the application to maximize chance of success, which can well make the difference. (I've heard in Sweden the process is particularly bureaucratic, so maybe not there – though on paper it seems similar enough to Norway.) As Jordi Vermeulen said, this happens most often with a known master student, but can also begin with a particularly convincing cold call.

@leftaroundabout I don't disagree with that, but that really doesn't help a foreign candidate with no existing connections. Your chances to excite somebody with a well-written email sufficiently to circumvent processes and/or create a position for you are 0+epsilon%. Not worth going through the hassle of even writing these emails. OP's best chances are going through the process - in fact, at least the Swedish processes are defined precisely so that candidates with no prior connections get a fair shot.

@xLeitix right. Just wanted to say that iff a student from abroad finds a professor whose work really is “match made in heaven” -relevant for the PhD he wants to do, then it can actually be useful to mail her. Even if the professor can't get them a position directly, she may still know other research groups with vacancies, may be able to judge where it is how likely to get accepted, and possibly collaborations can arise later on. — Of course this is in no way to endorse any sort of mass mailing, quite the opposite – one bespoke mail, honestly on topic, and with no fixed expectations.

(And anybody attempting this should carefully read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect first...)

In Canada (at least in physics) it is not uncommon at all to contact a supervisor first, and from what I know they tend to have quite a bit of sway with admissions if they want you as a student

I used to get quite a few such emails. They were long and detailed and immediately trashed without reply. It was obvious that the senders weren't really interested in what I do.
First, apply to those who have already expressed an interest, say on their web pages, that they are interested in accepting students. Make a detailed and specific reply only to those people. They will respond.
For other that you find, and that you would truly like to work with because you have seen their work and you have an interest in that subfield, send a very short and easy to reply to mail...

Professor X: Are you currently accepting doctoral students or likely to in the near future? If so, I have some background and a lot of interest in <topic> and might make a good fit. If you are interested, I'm happy to send more information.

A note like that can be read in a few seconds and would be more likely to be responded to immediately.
But make sure you do your homework first, so that you aren't just "blowing smoke" about your background and interest.

What are you trying to achieve? If your goal is to get an offer for a PhD position which suits your skills and matches your goals and expectations, you need to spend more time researching each potential lab/PI before submitting your application. This means writing fewer applications, not more.
If your goal is simply to contact more Profs with minimal effort - this is mass emailing. As Buffy correctly mentioned, this is a waste of effort on your part --- best Profs receive such messages by the dozen and will quickly ignore them. You will be left with subpar options, which is probably the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

My goal is to convince the said professor of my good enough candidacy and ask about any possible positions. The places I am trying to apply, usually require an agreement with a prospective supervisor before the applications are filled out. So I need to send out emails asking for them. The problem is, I'm unsure if the effort I am putting in is enough or in the right direction. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by "more time researching a PI"? and how could I demonstrate my effort in an email? (also I need to email more, cause last time I didn't and got rejections from everywhere)

Collect enough information about your potential Profs to make a short list of 3-5 people you really want to work with. When you have a short list, white them individual emails and make yourself available for a zoom call to discuss details.

Perhaps this is not satisfying as answer, but, when asking "how to" do a thing that is doomed, or even sometimes viewed as obnoxious, ... the genuine answer is that you can't do it that way.
Yes, this appears to be a Catch-22/paradox, namely, that students cannot connect with the people who (it seems) are exactly those they need to connect with.
But, what it is, really, is that there is no short-cut. In most cases, there will be a requirement of "open-ness" in applications for grad school department-wide (as in the U.S. these days), or other versions of "open-ness/fairness" in UK and EU.
This tends to mean that applicants have to be considered, uniformly, in the pool of all applicants. Anything jumping outside the system is not legit.
(Indeed, not so long ago, the only really successful "applications" did EXACTLY step outside the system... but this was/is reasonably interpreted as bias. I agree.)


text:
Is it alright to cold email a Professor for research opportunities?
I have completed my masters, and am currently working on a year-long project, and I am hoping that I will be accepted for a PhD position sometime by the end of this year. Although, my current project is going alright, I want to 'explore' a new field by working on some concrete research project. By explore, I mean I have a general interest and enthusiasm towards this field, but I do not know enough about it to articulate a sensible research question. Hence, I was considering cold emailing a professor in this field asking for his supervision and expertise in this matter.
Under the guidance of someone who actively works on this topic, I was hoping I could gain a more thorough understanding of this field and a hands on experience of what it is like working in this field. I do not think my enthusiasm for this topic is fickle, so I expect that if there is a project, I will not abandon it midway. I don't think I will be wasting a Professor's time (at least in this sense) if I were to work on any project of this sort. I also do not ask for any financial support from them. But my concern is that there does not seem to be any backbone for this project, as is usually there for summer projects or MS projects. I also do not have a specific research question or idea in mind, so I can't approach them by trying to discuss a particular idea or problem. Adding to all of this, I am also very unfamiliar with the world of academia, and how these things work. So I wish to ask-

Is it appropriate to contact professors (whom I have had no previous contact with previously) for any possible research opportunities, for a person in my situation? How is it generally perceived by Professors? What may be the typical response (if at all there is one)? In general, how do collaborations work?
If it is appropriate, would you have any suggestions as to how one might approach them/email them? What should be the email's contents? What should I keep in mind when writing such an email?

Thanks for reading!

That depends on the country where you want to pursue a PhD

For what its worth, thats how I got both my undergrad research project, and post-grad research assistantship that turned into my current PhD. Just make sure you've read a paper or two of the professors and tailor your email to them to express genuine interest.

Where do you want to pursue a PhD?

@Pikachu How so? As in the country? I was not considering applying for a PhD under the supervisor I had in mind in the question. My motivation was just to gain a better understanding of the field. Specifically, I am an Indian, the professor is also Indian, but I do not expect I will be doing my PhD in India, and am more likely to do it somewhere in Europe or US.

different but related, and answers may be helpful here as well: Can you contact a professor whom you have never met to inquire about a RA opportunity?

As in the comment from @xelo747, if you are going to do this, "genuine interest" is the key.  I occasionally get prospective student emails expressing admiration for my marvellous research; but since basically my whole job is teaching and my research output is 4 papers in 40 years, this is obvious nonsense.

Given all you say, I'd guess that very few people would respond other than to suggest you apply for a doctoral program. There is no incentive or payback to them for what you are suggesting. They are busy with their own duties and research. They are unlikely to take you on as a "hobby" project.
You seem to be asking them to become your teacher without offering them anything in return.
Cold emailing is unlikely to be fruitful, especially if you ask them to evaluate some long document. While there are no "rules" preventing such emails, they aren't likely to get a positive response other than "You are welcome to apply...."
However, if you want to make contact with someone who you know, from studying their own research interests, might possibly be interested, contact through an intermediary might work. If you have a former professor who thinks a lot of you, they might contact someone known to them recommending you. It is harder to ignore a request from a colleague/peer than it is from an unknown person.
I wonder why you are delaying applying for a doctoral program. The gap wouldn't be helpful for applications in the US, for example, unless your current project results in a publication in a respected journal. And that doesn't happen quickly.

Note that in Europe (some places) it is normal to contact a professor initially as part of the doctoral application process. They might be interested in you, but not necessarily in your project, as they have their own research program. But their help might be contingent on you getting accepted into the doctoral program.
In the US, such contact is rare as most (not all) applications are to a committee of a department, not to an individual.

This probably varies by discipline, but I have cold emailed professors in North America and in the UK. I always make sure that the email is tailored, specific, and exceedingly polite. Many people won't be able to respond, but sometimes it works out. I can say that every opportunity in my career so far has come out of a cold (or close to cold) email, including my fully funded graduate studies and current postdoc at top UK universities. So, I can personally vouch for this route.
That being said, I would caution against asking for a supervised project, especially at first contact. Most people just won't have the time to take a risk on such an unknown. At first, you can at least ask to have a conversation in email or an online meeting to discuss what aspects of their work interest you. Be sure to prepare your thoughts and read their work to the point that you can structure the conversation somewhat.
I can understand wanting to take some time to develop your understanding and experience if you are considering switching fields, which I have also done. In my case, I was first a Research Assistant-a role that, again, stemmed from a cold email. If you have the chance to visit or contribute to a group locally, that might be a better way to build up your CV before applying? You might be able to sit in during journal club or attend department seminars.
I'm not yet a professor, but as someone who now receives these kinds of requests, I am always interested in enthusiastic and well-researched emails from self-motivated students. This has been, in my anecdotal experience, a better indicator of a successful project than someone who just did the right degree programme on paper. Good luck!

Unfortunately, we receive too many extremely polite and flattering letters with requests for a postdoc or PhD position from people, who, when it comes to the background check, can hardly qualify for the middle school program. Normally, I ignore everything that is not substantiated either by a reference from somebody I know and respect as a professional, or by some example of previous work done in the area by the applicant. For the rest, the answer is "Read the university application rules and requirements and follow them" if I bother to answer at all.
It never hurts trying, of course, but think beforehand what cards you will be able to put on the table if the response is some polite version of "And who exactly are you that I should get interested?" and, perhaps, even throw some of them in during the initial contact. "I have read a lot of your papers" counts for nothing but "I've read [title] and discovered that [theorem] can be strengthened/proved in a simpler way/..." can raise genuine interest.
Just my two cents :-)

In my opinion (and in my experience), such e-mails are normal part of collegial relations. Several times, I myself received such e-mails -- and gladly responded to them. It also happened to me that I needed consultation and wrote to experts. You can begin your message like this:
Dear Professor N,
I saw your book "..." and your recent paper "...", and I understand that you are an expert in the field of ...
A (soon-to-be) PhD student, I would be grateful to you if you could consult me on the following topic: ....
Any advise or reference would be most appreciated.
Many thanks,
...


text:
Opinion of academics on non-peer reviewed academic blogs
I have completed my Masters, and will soon be beginning a PhD in my field of research. Recently I had an idea that I could start a blog that would explain some papers or concepts I found interesting in a more pedagogical way as compared to peer-reviewed papers or literature reviews. I do understand that a blog in no way can be a replacement for actual peer-reviewed research. However, the reason I would like to blog is so that I feel motivated to learn new topics that I find interesting. In the past, I have found that I learn best when I can 'apply' the knowledge I have learned, and a blog in my mind could be considered an 'application'.
The worry I have is that I do not know how academics perceive such informal scientific endeavors. Is the level of informality in blogs considered too unscientific and frowned upon? Or could this ruin my chances of employment in academia after a PhD in case a supervisor considered this a 'waste of time'? (or although I imagine it to be improbable, can such a blog cast a favorable impression on a supervisor?) Then there is also the issue of whether a blog is worth maintaining since it would take up significant portions of time that could have been spent on other things.
What are your opinions (and your understanding of general academic opinion) on such blogs?

There are lots of similar questions on academia.SE; e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63337/pitfalls-of-academic-blogging,https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/102163/should-i-mention-my-blog-in-a-postdoc-application, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34663/should-i-mention-my-blog-in-my-sop, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/67233/would-summarizing-peer-reviewed-articles-on-a-blog-count-as-academic-participati

It depends on the quality of the material on the blog, of course. I know of two that are of the "finest kind". One I read every morning though the author doesn't post every day. They are, however, written by people with a lot of experience in the field; CS in this case.
If you post good stuff, don't argue with people, avoid crankery and such, there shouldn't be a problem. However, they won't count for much in things like graduate admissions. That, however, is partly due to the fact that admissions systems rely on a relatively small set of criteria. Some people will look favorably on "extras" and others will ignore them.
Post PhD, however, there are unlikely to be negative issues as long as your output is useful and of good quality. Being useful to students might even be a plus.

The challenge may be "post good stuff". At this stage in your career you probably lack the insight and knowledge required to say much that is novel about a topic. Meanwhile there is plenty of opportunity to expose your own naivety or misunderstandings.

@avid, the opportunities to "expose your own naivety of misunderstandings" is also a great reason to do this! You might get some readers who know more than you who will probably have the unstoppable urge to correct you (as people on the internet usually have) and you will learn a lot that way. (And you can incorporate that new knowledge in your blog points by editing it with the proper acknowledgements).

@Kvothe, Pretty much just like this site, actually.

Sorry for writing this, but ... meh.
There are so many blogs of this kind already, and almost all of them have miserable readership. Writing is highly time-consuming - people underestimate how much effort it is to write polished text on a regular schedule - so the key reasons to write yet another blog would be 1) for your own benefit, e.g. if it helps you understand the material better, and 2) because you enjoy it. If you can genuinely say these benefits apply to you, then sure, go ahead. But it would be kind of embarrassing if after an initial burst of articles, the blog dries up. At least you can take the blog down if that happens.

It is fine to try things that won't always work out. I think this is unnecessarily discouraging. Sure there are good and bad examples. In my field there are few good such blogs but the few that are there are relatively well known and I think they are helping the author's profiles. I think these blogs can be a very useful and I wish there were more such (good) blogs.

@Kvothe it does become better if your work is widely read. Blogging becomes a social activity, which is much more interesting. But to make your blog widely read is a very challenging endeavour, involving lots of promotions, social media use, etc. For example you could actively use LinkedIn/Twitter to reach other researchers in the field, then tag them each time you publish something. It's a very time-consuming process.

Which doesn't mean you shouldn't try if it's something that appeals to you. It's just that the barrier to success is very high (especially since there are so many competitors), so it's a good idea to go in with open eyes.

@Allure I do not think a blog that dries up should be taken down. The initial posts normally keep being valuable to some degree - here even a high degree.

The internet never forgets, anything ... so why take down the few good things, like the initial blog posts of a motivated person trying to popularize some papers/ideas/concepts?
A dried up blog is not a problem, on the contrary, it can still be at least a valuable wikipedia reference ...

I would find it hard to believe that a blog is going to affect your career-- academic or otherwise-- unless it's one of the definitionally rare blogs that's three sigma off the mean in quality (in either direction.)
The right way to look at this, in my opinion, is as a career-related hobby:  If you enjoy it, if you think you derive personal benefit from it, go ahead and do it.  Just be mindful that you're unlikely to be in that three-sigma category, because you're competing with a lot of more experienced hobbyists who have already sunk a lot of time and practice into it.
For the record, I do think there is some personal benefit to be gained by this:  One of the hardest things about academia is learning to translate research-grade thoughts into polished (much less accessible) text.  Hobbies that promote that can be useful-- primarily to yourself, and if you're even one sigma on the positive side, useful to at least a few others.  And in this case, translating someone else's research quality thought into accessible text gives you more material to practice with.
Whether those benefits outweigh the disadvantage of time spent... well, that's mostly up to you to determine.  If a prospective advisor told me I was going to have to give up all of my hobbies-- all of them!-- as "wastes of time" that would be a big enough red flag that I wouldn't work with them.  They get to judge the quality and quantity of my academic output, not my hobbies or jobs on the side.  They're advisors, not parents.  And the vast majority know this.
Consider that pseudonymous blogs (and Substacks, and Medium articles, and all that stuff) are options, too.

Regardless of the quality of the blog, which is a different issue the others have mentioned, there's a lack of permanence and a lack of archiving in the scientific databases that would discourage busy researchers to seek it out.
In addition, while a stellar blog may enhance your reputation, a poorly maintained blog will hurt it.

well, if you last updated your blog 6 months ago and in your CV you write "actively blogging to popularize science" it would be someohow detrimental ... but in general a poorly mantained blog will not hurt (nor will be noticed).

@EarlGrey if you are using your real name (presumably OP would) and someone Googles you, it's conceivable they'll land on your blog even if you don't advertise it.

yes, so I can land on their instagram, or on their grinder account, or on their page at adamsmith forum or other crap ... so what? with a PhD student you need a closer relationship than with your average employee, but still way less personal than with your partner ...

@EarlGrey there are plenty of ways to have a bad blog beyond poorly maintaining it.

@ScottSeidman sure, but here we are discussing the poorly mantained one. And again, a bad blog on which level? ethical? there are people that live in strange parallel universes ... do you want to cut them off completely?


text:
PhD viva reference list mistake
I recently submitted my thesis for viva and have since noticed that by transferring from one computer to another endnote has changed my references. The end result of this is that there are 3 extra references at the beginning of the list (which throws out all the other references by 3). Is there anything I can do about this? Are my supervisors allowed to contact the examiners and make them aware? Or do I need to suck it up and face it head on at viva.

which throws out all the other references by 3 Do you mean that citation [6] in the body is citation [9] in the list of references?

Unfortunately, yes

Don't worry, it's a very minor issue. In the worst case it will be part of some minor corrections you'll have to do after the viva.
It's important that you don't contact the examiners yourself, as this might be against the rules. Instead talk to your supervisor, they will know what can be done in compliance with the institution rules; and even if they don't they will know who to ask at least.
As far as I know it's usually fine for the supervisor to contact the examiners, but rules may differ by institution, and since the PhD viva is an official examination it's crucial to do things by the book.

Whether anyone will notice/care and what, if any, the consequences are, is completely up to your institution/the examiners.
However, if your supervisors are reasonable people, it's the best to ask them. Maybe they know what can or should be done.

Everyone will notice, references [are out] by 3, e.g., [6] in the body is citation [9] in the list of references, https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130566/phd-viva-reference-list-mistake?noredirect=1#comment346868_130566


text:
For Postdoc positions seeking experts in programming language, what are the expectations and what should my strategy be suitable for those positions?
I am a 5th year PhD student in mechanical engineering. My research has been about utilising a commercial Finite Element software to model a complex phenomenon.
For my research, I had to write small python scripts for post processing, many matlab codes to implement topology optimization algorithms (available as ready-made functions). I also wrote few Fortran subroutines to implement two constitutive equations to my simulations which involved working around the syntax provided by the software guidebook.
My concern is that, none of the programming aspects of my research required any implementation of numerical methods or any high level of programming. It was just using an available inbuilt function and wrapping a program around it to serve my purpose. So, the only skill set required here was a knowledge of basic syntax, a bit of logic and an idea of the big picture.
The numerical bit of the simulation is done by the commercially available finite element (FE) code. It's not a black box to me as I know the fundamental theory behind it. But its actually just knowing which buttons to press.
However, while I was searching for some good and relevant postdoc positions, they all mentioned one thing; "Must be an expert in some high level programming language."
My question is, what is the expectation of programming knowledge in an applied work as my research area? And what should my strategy be for the next half a year to make myself suitable for those positions?

The expectation will vary depending on the position and project in question. However, do note that "high level of programming" is very different from having worked with "high level programming languages", which you have done.

It was just using an available inbuilt function and wrapping a program around it to serve my purpose.

To be honest, this sounds like the majority of programming that takes place in academia.
Obviously the exact skill requirements will be different for every position, so I can't give you any specific advice, but knowing how to link together existing functions in order to create a program that you want is a useful skill that not everyone has. Don't let your impostor syndrome get the better of you.
Your advisor or someone else in your particular field might be able to offer advice on what skills you should focus on developing.
Background: I recently finished an MA in a field where many researchers are using programming, but also many are not. I have a programming background, but many students with much less programming experience than I have were able to be successful in writing programs for their research.

Your description of your programming background doesn't seem like it makes you a good fit as an "expert" in any programming language. Those positions sound like they want some one who can do serious, perhaps large scale, implementation.
But it may be that the other parts of your skill set will seem more attractive for some positions. Sometimes an employer might be willing to give up A to get more B, but that is up to them.
Other than just focusing on what you do best and hoping, you can try to get that expertise in one of the languages you already know to some extent. You can probably do that by building something substantial and becoming thoroughly familiar with the arcane libraries of some language. Like any learning task, use practice and try to get feedback on your programs. Working with a team can help so long as the others can help you expand.


text:
Motivation letter for tenure track position
A tenure track position I'm applying to (Netherlands) asks for a "motivation letter" in addition to the research statement.  It doesn't give any details about what it should contain.  Therefore my question is in general, what kind of information should one include in a motivation letter (for a tenure track professor position), and what kind of page length should one aim for?
One thing I can think of is to talk about my current employment and why this job would be better for me.  Perhaps the purpose is to convince them that, if I was actually offered the position, that I would indeed accept it?

Have you considered asking them?

The purpose is rather to convince them why you would accecpt it and that you are the right candidate for exactly this position offered (research, teaching) and that you have the right mindset for tenure, a professorship with its possibilities and duties and that you will become a successful and happy professor at that place in the netherlands (especially if you were not born in the netherlands and are no native speaker).
Therefore I would outline and epxlain:

why you apply for exactly this position (goals (though this should be described in detail in the research statement), chances and perspectives, interdisciplinary local collaborations with colleagues and industry you see, link to your previous work)
what is your philosophy of teaching, research, team work (international corpus of students at the local university, furthering female researchers,...)
do you plan to engage in administrative work at the university, improving the strategy of the university
what do you like about this place, local culture
(what is your marital-status (not mandatory), language skill)

The last point should be covered in your CV. But based on your CV no one can judge your motivation for exactly this position! So don't underestimate the importance of the motivation letter. The lenght of this letter depends a bit on the number of applicants and you should know this number roughly and what the attention span for the letters will be. Of course it should be longer than a recommendation letter.
A cover letter is obligatory and always added for applicaton to academic positions from PhD up to tenure. A motivation letter must show and deliver arguments why apart from other candidates with similar publication record, grades, qualification you are the best match for this position.

I interpret the motivational letter as a cover letter.
Basically, tell about yourself, which positions did you hold, what degrees do you have. What did you do for research and teaching. (Preferably, of course, that your strengths fit the position description.)
Roughly translated to English and severely abridged it looks like:

Dear Madam or Sir,
herewith I apply for the position of Great Wizard of Oz at Oz University, Oz, Neverland.
I have obtained my BSc from Barnum Circus in 1999 and a PhD in the area of Levitation at Trinity College of Harvard in 2001.
  I have been working as a private military contractor at Boeing in the area of air transportation since 2002.
During my time at Boeing I have published 112 journal papers and 747 conference submissions. My research interests include flying, landing, diving, and soap bubbles. Sincle 2003 I have been teaching prospective pilots the art of landing (BSc) and turbulence mechanics (MSc).
I am looking forward to a personal meeting. If you happen to require some further
  documents or preprints of my works, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
  John Doe


text:
Switching supervisors after a first semester in Master's due to lacking supervisor expertise?
I am currently in the exact same situation as another user, but after wrapping up my first semester in a Master's degree. I initially accepted the offer because the proposed topic genuinely seemed interesting and because I didn't really have any other option. I also thought that at least one of the supervisors would have some fundamental knowledge of the proposed topic, since that one had allegedly been working on it for some time. But after a couple of meetings, two of the three openly admitted to not having any idea of what's going on (their combined expertise is useful for one small aspect of the project, or roughly 5%), while the third doesn't seem to understand that he doesn't understand the topic. In short, I feel like I'm going to have to spend two years teaching division to people who don't know what numbers are.
Now, the professor in one of my classes offered me to join his lab, thinking I am an undergraduate. With all due respect to my current supervisors, I feel like he would be an all-around upgrade due to his very solid background.
My gut tells me to switch, but I don't know how it is for other people and worry that I'm overthinking it, overdramatizing it or just being entitled. There are some other things that seem like red flags to me, but I won't divulge them out of privacy concerns.
The reason why this is not a duplicate of the post I linked (and others) is because of the different sunk cost and the different scope of the PhD/MSc programs. I don't think it would be that big of an issue if I had four years to spare, but I don't see this project bearing fruit in two years without it falling into redundancy. Especially with my supervisors being unable to clearly communicate what they're even looking for (when it turned out their proposal was way too far-fetched, I was told to redefine it myself despite, you know, not having much knowledge about the topic myself).

Actually, a closer match to your situation might be this one: Is it too early to switch advisors if I just finished my first semester as a master's student?. And the answer there, while concise, is dead on.

What domain are you in? You mention joining a lab but you make no specific mention of the sunk cost. Is this something with actual experimentation or engineering that you would have to start from scratch, or "just" theory work?

This question is similar to: Is it too early to switch advisors if I just finished my first semester as a master's student?. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

@MisterMiyagi By sunk cost I was referring to time. But yeah this is in engineering.


text:
what does this status mean please?
I submitted a paper to a journal and it was under review for 2 months but now the status changed to reviewers assigned then it became under review .. what does that mean please


text:
How to put 14-year Ph.D. on C.V.?
I took 14 years to finish my Ph.D. Mostly this was due to a health problem (now cured); partly it was because I bit off too large a research problem. It's done now, though, and I'm applying for an academic/research position.
I'm embarrassed to write 2008–2022 in the column next to the line that describes my Ph.D. And I'm wary of mentioning a health problem in a C.V. What's the best way I can frame it? Could I put only the year of completion? Mention only the last 7 years? Small type?

Similar: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112478/how-can-i-list-on-my-cv-that-i-graduated-from-college-in-3-years/112494#112494

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19698/is-listing-non-academic-interests-on-academic-cvs-important/19699#19699

PhD award over age 45 is not rare.  https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/assets/data-tables/tables/nsf22300-tab027.pdf

Mine took ten years and about three weeks.  The three weeks were a gift from the dean, who waived the "ten years and out" requirement.  I was also teaching full time, and that, of course, is also on my CV.

Congratulations on finishing your Ph.D. Being able to put a Ph.D. on your CV is a good thing, not something that needs to be apologized for.

If you're working full-time while studying, then there's no shame in any amount of time it takes to finish. Tell people you did your PhD on the side while you worked, and not a single employer on Earth would think anything of the long time.

Most people involved in academia and research will understand that there are many reasons why a PhD can be delayed. The fact that you took 14 years but still completed it speaks to patience and resilience. Brian May took 30 years to finish his and he's doing all right.

As has been mentioned a few times on this site, your CV is for facts about your career.  Health, and other things that are not very directly career related, should be left out.
I only list the completion dates of my degrees on my CV.  However, listing only a completion date does nothing to hide the duration of the degree; you did something before you started your PhD, and that should have a completion date listed.  If you had some other job during your PhD, you might list that.
In academia, your publications count far more than the length of your PhD.  Speaking from experience: I completed my PhD faster than 99% of physical science PhDs, and exactly zero academics care about that fact (it was good for my bank account).
If you are asked about the 14 year period, you can simply say "My studies were interrupted for personal reasons which are no longer relevant."  You can provide more detail if you like; while your health problem may have been rare, health problems are common and people understand they are not voluntary.  I would not want to work for an employer who would choose not to hire me because of my past health problems, both common and rare.  Regardless of the wording you use, articulate that the problem you had will not recur.

Ah, this sounds very good. For the first 11 years, I was also doing professional work, and that'll be in my C.V., too, so that should fill the gap.

@Tiger Don't lie in your CV. If your PhD took 11 years and you say it took 3 years and manage to hide the gaps, your future employer might figure it out (he's not dumb, and he might want to contact your former PhD supervisor). If your future employer figures out that you lied, you won't get a job.

@Stef Judging by what I get done besides working professionally (which is next to zero) the OP's PhD took effectively 3 yeas and a bit ;-). More seriously, it's possible that the OP realized they need to focus on the PhD in order to get it done in a way that was not possible while working, which is why they didn't work during the past three years. (I agree not to lie, of course. It was just a remark that popped up in my head. Perhaps there is a way to say "finishing the PhD" for the last 3 years or so.)

Depending on where you live (or are looking for work), some countries have laws regarding the questions that can be asked about health issues at interview.

@Stef I'm not thinking of lying. The idea is to say that I finished my Ph.D. in 2022 (true) and in the experience section to describe intermittent professional work 2008–2019 (also true). Would that be interpreted as a lie?

@Tiger No.   ....

@Tiger: in the experience section to describe intermittent professional work 2008–2019 (also true) --- There might be problem if you were formally enrolled as a Ph.D. student (or had some similar such formal connection with the program/department/supervisor that might apply) during 2008–2019.

@Tiger Not necessarily a lie, but also unnecessary obfuscation - if your CV says that you were also working from 2008 onwards, the most obvious assumption for why your PhD took from 2008 to 2022 is that you were balancing it with work.

You can just list the completion year. You will have to account somehow for what you were doing in the interim - perhaps that was a job so you could support yourself.

There's no shame in your PhD taking 14 years.
As someone who reviews CVs on a regular basis for hiring decisions, I'd actually see this as a sign that you're persistent and capable of finishing something massive even in the face of difficulties.
I don't think anyone (reasonable) would see this as a negative thing, even if it wasn't due to health reasons.
At the end of the day, a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. The actual research doesn't necessarily have to be that hard. What completing it demonstrates is persistence and the ability to gradually churn out a really good piece of work with a consistent abmount of effort over a very long period of time.

And how is a decade-plus PhD viewed for academic hiring?

@ElizabethHenning - Nobody cares, your thesis and published research should speak for itself

a PhD is a marathon, not a sprint. Well, perhaps, but finishing a marathon in 14 hours is not quite the same as finishing it in 3, is it? If you mean to suggest that the number of years that one takes to finish a PhD is a completely irrelevant number, the marathon isn’t a very good analogy to reach for.

@DanRomik - It depends really... Most people don't run marathons for the sake of actually getting the fastest time, they run them to demonstrate that they can. It might not be a perfect anology but it holds true in that nobody cares how long it takes you to finish it, it's still impressive that you did

@ScottishTapWater yes, it’s impressive that you run a marathon. But it’s clearly less impressive if you took an extremely long time to do it, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

@DanRomik What do you call the guy that takes 14 years to get his PhD (or MD)? Doctor.

@ElliottFrisch I don’t understand the question, can you clarify?

@DanRomik Getting a Doctorate makes one a Doctor. There is no qualifier as to how long it took. Marathons are 26.2 miles; a set distance to race. Dissertations aren't races. And there is no obligate length.

@ElliottFrisch sure, getting a doctorate makes one a doctor. I never suggested otherwise, so it’s not clear to me what about my previous comments you find objectionable.

@DanRomik - Are you just attacking the anology or the point I was trying to make with it?

@ScottishTapWater I wouldn’t say I was “attacking” anything, but to clarify my criticism: I just don’t see what useful information the sentiment “A PhD is a marathon not a sprint” is conveying in the context of this question. Both sprints and marathons, as well as PhDs, have the property that if a person takes an extremely long time to complete them then some people will find the achievement less impressive or even entirely unimpressive. So your analogy between PhDs and marathons, even if it is a reasonable one, just seems like a non sequitur that doesn’t help OP with their question.

I can see your point with regard to the analogy itself, but I really don't think anyone with any understanding of acadaemia or how it works considers it to be less impressive if it takes you longer to finish your PhD... Your thesis should speak for itself

@ScottishTapWater Of course they do. From an academic hiring point of view, a thesis is a predictor of future achievement. Someone who's just completed a PhD in X years will presumably be able to achieve at least as much in terms of research in the next X years. Obviously the quality of the research is important, but so is the timescale.

@EspeciallyLime That's certainly not the experience I've had or those who I've spoken to. We shouldn't be encouraging publish or perish... At the end of the day, how long it takes for some research to be produced is pretty irrelevant, the important thing is the quality of the research

Add a section on research experience and then describe the kind projects you have done during those 13 years, like

2008-2011 We carried out research on ...
2012-2015 We worked on some problem...
etc...

Likewise you can add different sections like teaching experience where you can describe the same years again that you taught (as a TA maybe).
You can also break your 13 years into two or more segments and say that first five years you worked as a project assistant or research assistant, etc..
But make sure to add as much rigor as possible for those 13 years so that it doesn't look like you have or have been wasted.

Definitely don't mention a health problem in your CV. As a general rule, health issues count against your application. It's not that universities or research institutes are full of monsters who trash every application from someone with health problems; rather, it's simply that they receive the maximum benefit from hiring the most productive person they can. This is the way the incentives are laid out. If you have two equivalently credentialed candidates applying for a job, and one has health issues, the sick one will be perceived as having less potential for productivity. Even if you assert that you are fully cured, your evaluators might wonder if you could really put a yearslong affliction behind you so easily.
As for the length of your PhD, I am less concerned about the 14 years and more concerned about the embarassed attitude you seem to have. This attutide will surely hurt you more than the mere length of your PhD. In my experience, if you make something out to be a big deal yourself, people tend to respond by treating it as a big deal. If you come off as going out of your way to conceal the length of your PhD, that looks terrible. If you come out of the gate on the defense trying to explain away the 14 years in terms of circumstances beyond your control, you will probably remain on the defense for the whole application process. These are the things you seem to be trying to do.
However, if your appliation materials make you seem like someone who wanted a faculty/reasearch job so badly that you put in the time to earn a competitive body of work, you will look like a dedicated professional. If you sound like someone who didn't want to move on until you felt mature enough to be a leader, you will sound wise and prudent. Just make sure that you carefully finesse this narrative in your application and interviews (because if you are too overt you still sound like you are making a big deal out of your PhD length).
Bear in mind that a 14-year PhD also says that your PI liked you enough to continue funding you for so long instead of pushing you out the door.

This is some good advice! Indeed my experience has given me many strengths to bring to my next job. My advisor is actually well known for interesting dissertations that people actually read as well as many-year Ph.D.s. I especially appreciate your remark about going "on defense". I'll be putting the positives front and center.

Perceiving someone with any disability--including a long-term or chronic medical condition--as having less potential for productivity is in fact ableist and illegal. Antidiscrimination laws exists especially to protect people from "rational" discrimination.

@ElizabethHenning: I seem to have been using "ableism" incorrectly, so I edited my response. Legal protections for the sick/disabled vary dramatically across countries, and even where these laws exist, they barely matter for academic/research job applications. Evaluators can conjure up countless excuses for rejecting an unhealthy applicant without mentioning illness.

@ElizabethHenning: Incidentally, I am an academic with a disability, so I am wary of conveying that my field is brimming with acceptance when I have learned the hard way that is not the case. In my experience, academia's veneer of inclusion has done little more than make people keep their prejudices about the sick and disabled to themselves. In practice, the burden often falls on the sick/disabled to prove they are equivalent to able-bodied candidates.


text:
What is the best way to teach interdisciplinary engineering topic?
After hours or even days contemplating about how engineering fields could be distinguished each others, especially on interdisciplinary topics, I am questioning about what the best way that could be done to teach interdisciplinary engineering (e.g. in bachelor degree) for students?
I'm an academia in Indonesia and watching that the bachelor programs in interdisciplinary engineering topics are most likely gravitated into a single broad engineering topic, based on the curriculum (trying not to generalizing it). Take an example, Biomedical Engineering. There's so many universities that running the program that heavily lied on the Electronic Engineering topics, but as we know, Biomedical Engineering is more than electronics. It composed by the application of engineering in material, mechanical system, and biochemical reaction. Thus, I think the curriculum is not the best way to support knowledge transfer in interdisciplinary engineering.
Is it because of the education background of the lecturers that is not various enough? So, is it better that, take an example again, Biomedical Engineering, has faculties that have various education background so the department could teach many aspect on the topics?
How could we make the program special? e.g. Biomedical Engineering and Material Engineering on Biomaterial topic. Or is it not necessary to make the topic distinguished on two different department?
I would be very pleased if you could give me the example of best Interdisciplinary Engineering education program (in your point of view) so I could do the benchmark.

"If you have an hammer, everything looks like a nail". Try to provide your students with a complete set of tools.


text:
Potential Manuscript Withdrawal Due to Extended Review Timeline?
I submitted my research paper (which I conducted under a collaboration contract between multiple institutes) to a journal with an expected timeline of 48 days from initial submission to publication. However, my paper is still listed as "awaiting reviewer assignment" even though it has been 4 months since the submission. I had assured the partner institution that the research paper would be published within the contract period, and as this period is concluding this month, I am concerned about meeting that commitment.
Due to this unexpectedly prolonged timeline, I am considering retracting my article from the submission. However, I am apprehensive about the potential impact on both my reputation and that of the other authors. Could you please advise me on how to communicate my intention to withdraw the manuscript to the journal's editor, citing these extenuating circumstances?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/88355/is-my-paper-under-review-or-similar-for-too-long-and-if-yes-how-should-i-reac Does this answer your question?

If you withdraw you are pretty much guaranteed to not meet your deadline. So, how does withdrawing improve your situation?

Have you contacted the editor to enquire what's going on. It could be your manuscript is hanging in administration loop or they're unable to find suitable reviewers.

For future reference, I would never enter into a contract where I promised to publish something. All contracts I have ever written involve a promise to SUBMIT a paper.

I have had a similar issue recently. I repeatedly contacted the handling editor who did not help much. Actually, the response always came from some staff who would say they were having a difficult time finding reviewers. When they found, the editor would take “forever” to take an action and the thing went on for a year. And this was a open access journal from a big publisher - one would expect a faster turnaround. I contacted the editor in chief and things finally got resolved. Your PI should contact the handling editor or the EIC to try to speed things up.


text:
Constructing a compelling rason for changing postdocl positions to my advisor
I am a PhD student in mathematics in the US. I am graduating next month. Last fall, I applied for many postdoctoral positions, and at that time, I only received two offers from China. In March, I felt compelled to accept one of the offers from China because I did not have any other options. It's not a bad offer, but it does have a few disadvantages, such as the absence of mentorship, which I believe is important at this stage of my career. Additionally, as a married individual with children, moving to a country where we don't know the language is undoubtedly tough.
A few days ago, I received a very good offer from the UK. When I informed my advisor about this, he was very unhappy and insisted that I must accept the offer from China; otherwise, it could reflect poorly on my professionalism and integrity. While there may be some merit to his perspective, my family and my career are my top priorities.
How should I handle this situation and respectfully decline the offer from China, while also explaining to my advisor that I cannot relocate there? Overall, we have a good relationship, and I want to maintain it in the future. However, I need to provide him with a reasonable explanation for my decision not to go to China.

Thank you for the kind offer. I’m honored but, for practical reasons, won’t be able to accept it.

@Aruralreader, Thank you for your clarification. I'm seeking advice on how to present my rationale for changing postdoctoral positions to my advisor. I value my relationship with him greatly, as maintaining positive connections in academia is crucial to me. Although he's a great mentor, he seemed a bit upset when I mentioned considering rejecting the accepted offer from China in favor of one from the UK.

@DavidWhite, thank you for the link! I know that post, but I’d say my situation is a bit different. My visa has not been issued yet, and I haven't signed any contracts yet.

Speaking as a mathematician, I think your advisor has a point, that giving the first university a verbal commitment does obligate you to take the job, at least for a year. Think about it: they planned their budget to include you, and it's very late in the season to find another good candidate to replace you. Furthermore, they probably could have hired another good candidate if you'd told them weeks/months ago when you got the position, that you were not going to take it. By now, most of the other applicants to the job you accepted will have taken other jobs.
You're not asking how to accept one place over another. You're asking how to break a commitment to the place in China because you prefer a postdoc offer that came later. Most people, after making a commitment to the first university would alert the other ones that they are no longer on the job market, to avoid wasting others' time. That's what I did once I accepted an offer when I was in your shoes. You're lucky that the first university is in China, so I'm guessing that they have not assigned courses for you to teach in the fall. Leaving them short an instructor would make this whole thing even worse.
It seems to me that the ethical thing to do would be to communicate to the university in China that you've been made another offer that works much better for your family, and ask them if they would free you from the commitment you made to them, so that you could take that other postdoc. Offer to come to China for the first year, so they know that you take your commitments seriously. Probably they would rather go back to the applicant pool and try to find someone who can stay for 2 or 3 years instead of having you for only one year. However, if they insist that, because they've already got you in the budget and it's too late to change that, then you can write to the university in the UK and ask them if you can defer your start date, explaining that you already accepted an offer in China and feel the need to keep your word.
In an ideal world, the China job will free you from your commitment, recognizing that it's important to do what's best for your family. If that happens, it'll be easy to communicate with your advisor because you'll have done things the ethically right way rather than screwing over the people at the first university.

OP has a spouse and children, has no visa yet, has not signed a contract, and we are talking about them moving continent to a country where they don't speak the language. I don't think the university in China will be quite as surprised as you suggest if OP changes his or her mind.

@toby544 Yes, and that's why I wrote that probably they will likely release him from his verbal commitment. But, the right thing to do is to explain the situation to them.

The degree to which this verbal commitment is regarded as binding probably varies by country. More broadly speaking, I think you might be underestimating the degree to which things are different in different countries - it would be interesting if someone who is familiar with the culture of universities in China could comment on this answer.

I am not assigned any teaching duties in the fall, and I have no one to work with in China. Going there for one year doesn't make any sense to me, I guess. Having a family makes all this very, very complicated.

@RFZ The point is to offer to go there for one year, because that would allow them to do a search next year and be able to find someone to replace you (instead of leaving them in the lurch now with little chance to hire). They will also probably see that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and will therefore release you from your commitment.

@DavidWhite But presumably if OP offers to go there for one year and the Chinese university says yes, then you think OP should go there for one year? And then move continent again? Also, OP has no teaching duties or people to work with in China, so withdrawing from that job will not leave the Chinese university in the lurch very badly.

@toby544. Good point. What if they say “yes”. Anyway, UK university won’t let me to postpone the starting date of my postdoc.

@toby544 Yes, I do think so. I already pointed out the budget issue. They would still be left in the lurch, and it might be harder for them to get research funding in the future, due to OP backing out late in the job cycle. If China was a non-starter, OP should not have applied, done the whole process, gotten the job, etc. Family does not need to come with for the year in China if they don't want to. But OP made a commitment and I do not understand why you and OP are pretending like there was no commitment. Advisor is right: professionalism and integrity matter.

@RFZ I cannot help but notice that you seem to be rejecting advice (mine and your advisor's) that you don't like to hear, and seeking permission to go back on your word here. Are you aware of "confirmation bias"? Might be worth interrogating whether or not you really want advice here or if you've already made up your mind.

@DavidWhite I wasn't pretending there was no commitment. My questions do hint that I disagree with you, but actually I didn't say my opinion (and in my answer I just gave a direct answer to OP's question). If budget is the main reason why they would be left in the lurch, do you know much about university funding in China? I don't think you should assume that things work in the same way as in Western countries.

Tell your advisor the truth. Your family and career are your top priorities.
You could also emphasize the issues of language and culture. China and the UK are very different countries and moving to one instead of the other is a big deal especially when you have a family.


text:
Reseach and teaching recommendation letter from the same person
I am applying for a postdoc position.

I am wondering if it's acceptable for one of my advisors to write a letter of recommendation for research and teaching? I have been TA for my advisor a couple of times. Does this look good for hiring committee?
In mathjobs, I listed the name of my advisor twice (the one who writes research and teaching letters) and 3 other people who will write letters for me (4 people in total and my advisor is counted twice). However, when applying, I see that my advisor is counted once. How to indicate him also as a person who is writing two letters?

Thank you!

That is a question for the place you are applying to. A general answer means little to nothing.

@Buffy, I am applying to many places so it's impossible to ask each of them. I'd like to hear some opinion. Also I'm interested in my second question.

No, you should not ask for two different letters from the same person, and I'm surprised your advisor didn't already tell you this.  This would be very unusual, and not make your application stand out in a good way.  (I have seen thousands of applications on mathjobs, and I don't remember ever seeing this.)
Your advisor should write a letter that focuses on your research, though it's common for that letter to also comment on your teaching.  Committees want to see an independent assessment of your teaching (advisors' letters are often biased), but for most research-oriented postdocs, they're not looking for a lot from the teaching letter, just evidence that you'll do a reasonably good job in the classroom.
Some departments have a standard person to write teaching letters for students, so that's one option.  Or if you had some sort of teaching mentor/supervisor, or TA'ed for someone else, those are other options.  If you're still at a loss, ask your advisor for suggestions.

I think the amount this matters is very position and field dependent, but in general, my gut feeling is that getting recommendations / referee letters from two people looks better than from one.
In my field (Chemistry) I have worked with a few Profs for whom good recommendations (admittedly, research ones) are key and without one you would not get a foot in the door. I have also worked in a position where the "recommendation" requirement was a formal one, used to evaluate whether anyone at all is willing to support you, because - as the head of the committee said: we're judging the quality of the candidate, not of the referee.
My suggestion would be to find someone else involved in the course you helped teach, and approach them for your teaching recommendation. Even in small departments there are often multiple people involved in a single course. I had my senior co-tutor, who was very junior faculty at the time, write one for me!


text:
How do I cite an entire published journal when discussing the journal itself?
One of the intended purposes of a citation is to help the reader locate and retrieve the information you are referring to whether they intend to substantiate it or to seek more detailed information. When you are discussing the purpose, intended audience, history, etc of an entire journal in part of your paper how would you cite the entire journal?

purpose, intended audience

Cite the journal's Aims & Scope page.

history

Not sure what you're trying to cite out of the history, but cite whatever gave you the information you are citing. E.g. if you write "the journal published 30 papers in its inaugural issue", then cite the inaugural issue. If instead the sentence is "in 1999 the journal changed editor-in-chief", cite the news article.


text:
How badly will bad grades impact future college and career life?
So, I'm currently an upcoming sophomore in undergrad and my grades during freshman year weren't the best. I got a F during my second semester which gave me an overall freshman GPA of 2.9
I'm not too worried about the GPA since I still have time to improve it.
However, the F on the transcript is really stressing me out. As of now, my school says I cannot retake and replace the F on the transcript.
Even if I increase my GPA to at least a 3.7 but still have 1 F on my transcript, how badly will if affect my chances of getting into a good grad school or getting internships?

Until you know where you will be applying, then there is no definitive answer.

Also, nonacademic internships are off topic.

DISCLAIMER: This is based on my personal opinion.
I am studying in the UK, I failed a module during the second year of my undergraduate. I couldn't re-sit the module and took it on the chin.
I eventually worked extra hard and got a First class degree.
I went onto graduate school, MSc and PhD.
The grades are important, the Professors I spoke to told me, and it seemed to be the first thing they asked about, BUT, the average always appeared much more important for admissions etc.
You're not a robot, you can have a couple of bad grades.
Just keep working hard to get that GPA up!
The honest answer is yes it will have an impact, some firms or schools only want the perfect students, but for the majority, the overall average will have a bigger impact!

Actually, I wouldn't say the "overall average", but rather the "overall record". It goes beyond mere grades.

@Buffy great addition!

Good grades help you getting accepted, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient. What you need to do to get an academic position is to convince your prospective advisor that you are up to the task and can do a good job. Having good grades is but one argument in the whole list of arguments you ought to have. It is way more important that the prospective advisor gets to see you and get a feeling whether you would be able to work together well. Hence, I would recommend, if you can, to always get an appointment with a professor before you apply for anything. Talk to him/her and get yourself known (and also get to know them!). Then, an application is much easier and you will also know what you should focus on. This way you will not only know what the professor cares for, but also whether you are able to fulfill the requirements.
TL;DR: a failed course or two don't matter, as long as you know the stuff the prospective advisor cares about.
But: After you graduated (MSc or PhD) things take largely different dynamics. Grades are then far less important than what kind of output you produced and what kind of knowledge you gained and, more importantly, retained. Grades then become only something looked at, if there is nothing else to judge someone on. But if that happens, you've lost already.


text:
Grad school hasn't responded to me two months after the results are supposed to be out
I applied to a few grad schools and my top choice school hasn't responded to me. They confirmed they received my application and all my documents. I even got in touch with a professor who said she would be happy to take me into her lab. On the website, it says we should receive their decisions by the end of March, and right now, it's almost the end of May. I've tried contacting the admissions coordinator, left him a vm and email, contacting the professor, and also the people I was in touch with regarding my documents. No answer from anyone.
Did they forget my application? What do I do? I don't think I'll be accepted at this point and I'll go to my second choice school. Can I ask for my application fee back?

In what country?

Try also the faculty member with the tile “Director or Graduate Studies.” They are likely to be able to get you an answer and if the department forgot your app somehow, this is the person who should be informed about the mistake.

It seems like a long time beyond their own deadline, but things driven by committee in universities get delayed. It is possible, though unlikely, that your application has been lost. And, it is usually the case that you hear earlier about a rejection than you will about acceptance.
It is also possible that some communication has gone astray somehow.
Don't despair yet about acceptance, but you are due some sort of explanation. If you are close enough to visit you can do that and talk to the head of the department or an admissions officer. If you can't visit, but can make a phone call, do that. You will be hard to ignore. Call any of the people with whom you communicated, but the professor would probably be a good choice.
If you have to resort to email, let them know that you have other decisions pending and need feedback.
But if they truly have lost your application, you should be able to request your application fees. But that seems the least likely scenario to me. The most likely is just the slow turning of the academic wheels.


text:
After awarding PhD, if the PhD work is not worth or scientific misconduct of experiments etc. whether Can it be challenged?
I found people getting PhD without studying the concerned subjects for the work and did not do the experiment. Pictures and results were manipulated. published in Journal and got the Ph.D (by publishing in Paid journals and bribed the external examiners)
During this case, can we challenge the PhD degree? Kindly let me know what is the procedure.

I want to say that a degree given by such an institution is worthless anyway, but unfortunately (or, if you're from the same institution, fortunately), that's not always the case. Good luck!

Is the PhD from a reputable university? Anyone can buy a PhD for $100 (with no work at all), but that "PhD" is worthless since it's not from an accredited school. If this happened at a well-regarded school, that's a different matter, and the question becomes: how much evidence do you have?

Depends highly on the university.  In the US, this would be a case to take to the dean of the graduate college, or an office of research integrity, if one exists and the problem is more systemic within a lab or group.  My university has an office that handles all allegations of research misconduct & ethics, for instance, but for issues regarding students, this is typically handled by a dean.  As Buffy says, getting a PhD revoked is probably going to be very hard, but this seems like a more systemic problem that should be brought to the attention of the school.
For the most part, US universities (perhaps with the exception of "for profit" schools) take this sort of thing very seriously.  In other parts of the world, the incentive structure is usually somewhat different and the university may not take steps to rectify the situation.
I suppose the other question you have to ask yourself is this: does this just make the students look bad, or the whole university?  It sounds like you may be a PhD student at the same university, in which case you would prefer if the university maintains a good academic integrity reputation, and hence pursing this at the institutional level might be worth it.  If you think it's just a few "bad apples", then it might not be worth your time - their misconduct won't win them any favors and will probably sort itself out.

If you're saying the work was fraudulent, then yes, you can: academic misconduct is generally sufficient reason to revoke a PhD degree. Real-life example.
As for how to go about challenging the degree, I would ask the university, starting with the Head of Department.

Challenging the work by submitting better work for publication is certainly possible and might bear on the reputation of the earlier authors and their institutions. But challenging the awarding of a degree is pretty rare and not very likely to succeed, I think. I'll guess that very few institutions have any established procedures for doing this and it would take a pretty extreme situation for them to consider it.
But fraud in grants or clear misconduct might be enough if it can be proved. Emphasis on proved.
But the "procedure" would be to raise the issue either publicly or with the institution directly.
Of course, certain claims will leave you open to charges of slander, so proceed cautiously.
The safest "procedure" for responding to poor work is better work rather than direct confrontation.


text:
How can I run a keyword search that targets only papers resulted from industry or industry-sponsored research?
I want to know -- if there is a way -- how I could customize my keyword searches to target research papers or other research artifacts generated by industry or industry-sponsored research?
In particular I am interested in Software Engineering. I have access to Google Scholar, Web Of Science, and Scopus so if there's a way to do this in either of these systems that I would love to hear it.

Your criteria aren't really very sharp. Much "industry" research is fundamental (in my field of computer science, much groundbreaking research was done e.g. at Bell Labs --part of AT&T-- or at IBM, or assorted other sites, not always for more or less short-term use). in Germany it is common that university research is directly funded by industry. On the other hand, "pure" non-industry research has also turned out to have very direct practical uses (just think of the private tinkering by a physicist to disseminate work-in-progress by coleages that became what today is WWW). And there is work wi

I am interested to access research done cohesively and systematically in pursuit of a technological development vision. Much of the academic research on the topic I am interested on is comprised of one-off works that are neither here nor there. Maybe the criteria is not the best, but all I am interested in at the moment is the how. How would I do such a search?

Search patents?

A proxy would be to search by affiliation (link to Scopus doc, probably feasible with other tools). List companies working in the topic and search papers with at least one author affiliated to them, or possibly with the company name in text (acknowledgements).
This will miss companies you did not think about and those with weird affiliations (for instance if "Foobar Inc." has a research division "FB new stuff", the affiliation does not include the string "foobar").