text:
European style PhD in the US

I'm wondering are there any PhD programs (specifically in machine learning) in the US that are structured more like the European ones, i.e. where you immediately start doing research and don't spend your first two years or so on something very similar to Masters' program (lots of coursework, less research).
I have already a Master's degree and research experience and would like to start working on my thesis from the start.
Also I'm wondering are there any non-university research institutions in the US that grant PhDs? (For example, something like German Max Planck research institutes)

Thank you!

To address your first question: if you already have your Master's degree, many programs require very few classes for your PhD, and I know people who have completed them in a year and considered them noise compared to their research progress.

MPG (Max Planck Society) doesn't grant degrees per se as far as I know? When you do your PhD with an MPG institute (MPI) your degree will be granted by an affiliated university -- again as far as I am aware. HHMI's in the states might be similar to MPI's in Germany.

I think it's a formality -- as far as I know you may apply directly to the research group at MPI and you don't need to be a student of an affiliated university.

http://phd.eb.tuebingen.mpg.de/phd-students/phd-degree-from-the-university-of-tuebingen.html

It seems students get admitted simultaneously to MPI and affiliated university

Max Planck Institutes have affiliated programs with associated universities that actually grant the degrees. The MPI's themselves do not award doctoral degrees.

Many graduate programs in the US allow you to either waive coursework by claiming prior credits, or waive coursework by taking a series of examinations. If that's a primary concern, you should look into programs that offer such a format for what's usually called the "breadth" or "comprehensive" requirement.
In answer to your second question, the Toyota Technical Institute in Chicago is a non-university research institute that offers a Ph.D program in Machine Learning.

It should be noted that the reason for the difference between the US and European style programs is primarily philosophical, and has to do with the way master's degrees are considered.
In Europe (or at least those countries part of the Bologna treaty), master's degrees "follow on" from the bachelor's degree program, and usually programs are designed so that students who complete the bachelor's degree will continue on to the master's at the same institution before beginning a doctoral program.
By contrast, in the United States, the master's degree is very weakly coupled to the bachelor's program. Instead, in many places, it's viewed either as a separate degree in its own right, or as a stepping stone to doing a doctoral degree. Moreover, because the bachelor's degree program is only four years, while the European bachelor's-master's system includes five years of coursework, there is a bit of a discrepancy between the coursework a bachelor's degree holder in the US would have, versus that of a master's holder in Europe. Consequently, most schools tend to require roughly a year of coursework for students entering a doctoral program, as it acts as completing the master's program at a European university.
Also, because graduate admissions are almost always organized at the departmental level in the US, rather than the research group level, there is usually a "qualification" procedure which must be completed at American universities that aren't found in European universities. The coursework phase of the doctoral degree often figures into the material tested in the qualifying exam, and therefore schools often are reluctant to waive these coursework requirements.
However, reluctance is not necessarily the same as refusal. If you have questions about how things work, and whether a particular department would be willing to waive some of the requirements for you, you should contact them. If you can demonstrate that you have most of the work already in place, they may be able to let you skip some of the classes, or at least replace them with other electives (which may be of benefit—you shouldn't assume you're done with classes and learning just because you have a master's or even a doctoral degree!).

In the UK, we have 1 year masters. The bachelor is just 3 years. IMHO the courses taken during the masters is similar to what a 4th year USA undergrad would/could take. I suppose the 4th year of a USA undergrad would be different from the 2 years of PhD coursework?

OK, my comment referred to "Bologna" countries with the five year bachelor's-master's program. But yes, the senior-year coursework is distinct from the PhD coursework. (But typically it's only one year; there are relatively few PhD programs with two full years of coursework required.)


text:
CS graduate admissions for masters level
For people applying from unknown schools where one's senior has never hit that department before, what is the evaluation metric for graduate admissions ? Probably all schools are not equal, but what if the applicant's school is unknown or a newly established one without a reputed faculty who are unknown to the researchers in the field.
How do you judge if the candidate is good enough ? What is the value of GRE Subject Test especially in these situations ? How does top 10 programs approach such candiates, do they spot reject them ?
My question is about MS level admissions, please answer considering that fact.

Most schools are unknown schools; there are just too many for the admissions committee members to have an idea of the quality of all of them.
So the standard approach is to de-emphasize the GPA and make the decision based more strongly upon the other parts of the application.  If the GPA would be troubling if it were from a good school, then it's still troubling; otherwise, it's more of a threshold ("Well, that's good enough--let's look at the rest of the application.").
(This is generic advice for all academic fields; there's nothing special about CS in this regard.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When citing a personal corespondence, is the full name always mentioned?
If you're citing a personal correspondence, e.g.:
"Cats are vicious" (Bill Bobson, personal correspondence, March 12, 2012)
and you continue to use this personal correspondence with a cat expert, do you refer to them simply as Bobson, or Bill Bobson?

I have seen some papers put it once and as a footnote (i.e. based on personal communication with XXX).

I usually cite personal correspondence just like any other source.

Continuously referring to personal correspondence sounds like a bad idea… if many parts of the discussion come from unpublished comments from your correspondent, he should probably be a co-author rather than simply cited. Otherwise, you can quote the personal correspondence once and explain its context at first point of use. Something like:

Many of ideas developed in this paragraph were inspired by a series of discussion with cat expert Bill Bobson, over the spring of 2002. In particular, he drew our attention to the viciousness of cats and their unwillingness to comply to their master's will.

I think "continue" should be thought of as "later on in the paper."

In addition to @F'x' good points, depending on the nature of the communication, if it is "preservable" (an email, a PDF, or a conversation for which you have a transcript) it may merit a bibliographic entry [Bobson~2012] or Bobson (2012) depending on your style. Certainly do give a date or dates, and the disposition of the records, such as they may be. That is, as in other situations, being honest and helpful to the reader is a good guide.

If you can't document it, then you can't cite it, unless you're aiming for publication in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

I think every style is going to be different. APA doesn't add it to the references at the end. It also only uses initials and not the full name in text. Additional reference to the same communication would still include the initials.
The key thing to remember is to be consistent and let the copy editor enfore the style rule. Nobody is going to reject your work because of slight stylistic deviations,

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


text:
Advice on postgraduate study in experimental/theoretical physics for a 3rd year Mathematics student
Firstly I hope this question is appropriate to ask here. I am a third year studying Mathematics at the University of Oxford, with plans to continue to 4th year to complete the masters course.
I have been considering many paths to take so far this year, I started off by looking into finance, this I found however incredibly unintellectuality stimulating. My passions have always been for Maths and Physics, this year I will be studying quantum theory, quantum computing, special relativity and fluid dynamics, which I will continue on into 4th year with the addition of general relativity, theoretical physics and other more general applied courses.
I'm very interested in applying for a PhD after 4th year, mainly because i've never been more fascinated by the subjects i'm currently learning, Quantum theory in particular is amazing and has really changed the way I look at the universe.
Unfortunately I'm only getting a mid 2.1, however it is from Oxford so I hope that this may carry some weight, but because of this I will be mainly focusing on applying to universities other than Oxford and Cambridge.
What I'm wondering is is there any point in following this dream? I'm extremely motivated but I feel not having a first might have ruined it for me. Can anyone recommend any strategies I can use to make myself more competitive?
Currently i'm planning on applying to universities for summer research assistant placements, paid/unpaid. I'm also reading the Feynman lectures to boost my background knowledge of physics, to help bridge the gap between physics courses and my mathematics course. Can anyone recommend any other books/ideas that could help me be able to apply for experimental physics? Also universities with departments that would be good to approach.
To sum up my long and laboured question, i'm extremely passionate about mathematical physics and the idea of stopping learning about it, and say going into a deskjob is sort of horrifying. Any advice anyone can give me I would greatly appreciate.

Why do you want to go into experimental physics if your heart beats for mathematical physics?

Do you know why you only got 2.1? Being able to learn from past mistakes is one of the most successful strategies for reaching one's goals - besides having clear goals, which is even more important as it limits the number of options that need exploration.

Don't go to graduate school in physics, at least immediately.  The best case scenario is a five year program, followed by three years of postdocs, and then THAT will be followed by five years of tenure review, and THEN you might have a chance at having a stable life.  All of this happens with a tremendous amount of competition.
Use that Oxford degree to find a job somewhere for a few years, and see if you still really want to do physics at the end of that.  If you must absolutely go to school, find a terminal masters program, and learn about research some.  If you don't know whether to prefer experiment or theory, you're going to have a horrible time picking a school that has a compatible advisor, and you want to be looking for compatible future advisors far more than you want to be looking for the Platonic "quality physics programs."  So, you'll be better suited to start a PhD program effectively (and getting a masters on the way doesn't really slow you down--you are better prepared to start research after that, and the first couple of years between your quals and really starting research is where grad students flounder most frequently).  Additionally, if you are in your current situation, this will enable you to rehabilitate your academic record.  Finally, if you do your two years and don't like physics, you can find something else to do.  As someone who has finished a doctorate, I strongly recommend against immediately entering a doctoral program straight out of college.
EDIT: Additionally, as you go through school, keep some sort of exit plan--sign up for those numerical projects and learn programming.  Take the sensor analysis class and learn how to align a laser.  Learn the basics of data analysis.  There are all sorts of skills that physicists have that are wanted not just in academia, but also in the private sector or government.  Make sure that you have the skills to go out and do something enjoyable, even if it is not academic physics.  Because the odds are really, REALLY against anyone making it in academic physics (and none of these things will hurt your physics career, to say the least).

Excellent answer, even after removing the phrase "in physics" from the first sentence.

Thank you very much for this answer, I will think hard about what you have said :)

"There are all sorts of skills that physicists have that are wanted out in the private sector, but the private sector or government." Could not quite parse the latter part of this sentence.


text:
Doubts about writing research paper?
I am writing my first research paper in field of computer applications and artificial intelligence. I have following doubts, please answer them to help me out..
a) When explaining my research, do I need to include the whole code or just algorithms ?
b) Do I have to upload my code somewhere so that people can verify my research and give link of that code in my paper ?
c) I don't know any professor very well. Is it required to get it read by somebody because I am still an undergraduate ?
Any other suggestion from your experience ??

You are asking very important questions. However, for this site it's better when questions are separated. Could you separate a)b) from c)?

OK, sure. For this site it is the best when questions are split, i.e. one question per one question thread. Otherwise it may be hard to answer, or one can know answer only to one question. Is such cases you edit your question post to contain one question and create another question post with the other one (e.g. even copying and pasting). But not worries, it didn't sound rude to me... rather - humorous. :)

Ok, Got it. Next time I would take care about it.

I am assuming this is for a conference or a joural? Or is it a final "paper" for a class?

@drN It is for research journal.

Definitely not the whole code.
It is a conference-specific and depends on the conference area. If the
paper is more data related (which is the case in Data Mining field
for instance) you are required at least to comment on the data usage
and from where you get it. If your paper is about a new web
system usually referring to it in the text will be
helpful.
It is not required but highly recommended since they will be able to
provide a constructive criticism for your work. You do not need to know them very well and usually they will be happy to help students.

Generally, students (specially undergraduates) publish papers with the help of a faculty member in the school. This said, there is nothing limit them to publish by their own. It is just more helpful to you to be attached to one of the faculty members and do research under his/her guidance.

+1 I would recommend getting a supervisor, I could not imagine myself writing anything close to a good paper when I was an undergraduate. But that might be just me...

And the supervisor will pay the fees if they are any.

a) When explaining my research, do I need to include the whole code or just algorithms ?

The complete verbose code wouldn't fit into the paper anyway, or would it?
Seriously, what you need to ensure is that

you clearly communicate your ideas and the contribution to the state of the art you claim to have made;
the evaluation that your proposals are feasible and really as good as you claim is plausibly reproducible. In the simplest form, that means that you describe all the conditions and steps which when repeated should yield the same results as you obtained.

b) Do I have to upload my code somewhere so that people can verify my research and give link of that code in my paper ?

You don't have to, most of the time it is not being done. However, myself, I strongly believe it is beneficial and I hope the field will turn more towards this practice. For ideas about this see also the Science code manifesto, as well as Matt Might's CRAPL license.
BTW, think the same about your datasets you used for the evaluation in your paperr.

c) I don't know any professor very well. Is it required to get it read by somebody because I am still an undergraduate ?

It is not required, but very much advisable. If you feel ideas are worth anything, try to approach somebody in the field (e.g., an author of one of the most prominent references your work builds upon) and give them time to digest. You might get some good feedback. But even if not, try to submit to a conference/workshop where it would fit, you'll get plenty of feedback in reviews.


text:
What are the potential pitfalls of putting a PhD on hold to be employed by the university?
I am a PhD student in an applied science subject at a UK university, part way through my first year. I have two supervisors: 'A' is a senior professor, and 'B' is a PDRA. Most of my work is centred around a large multi-university project. A is the PI on this project, and most of B's time is spent on it. B and I often work together on the same problems.
B has recently informed us that she is pregnant and will be going on maternity leave next year. By that point I will be a few months into year 2 of my PhD.
A has told me that that there is a possibility that, if I am willing, my PhD could be put on hold for the duration of A's maternity leave, and I could be employed as a RA to cover the work that she would have been doing.
My initial thought is that if this comes to pass, it would be a win/win: It would provide continuity for the project, and give me more experience and more time around the subject before my funding runs out. While the work that I would be doing would be slightly different to my PhD topic, it would be relevant and closely related.
My question is: What potential pitfalls are there here? What questions should I ask if this is formally proposed? What pros & cons can you see?

Great opportunity.  Should take it if you are planning to enter academia.  Of course if money is what you're after then check the payment options with them first.

Do you have a part-time job, or work as a TA? If so, you could consider doing some part-time Research Associate work instead (which may also assist in your thesis). Along with the other answers, I'm in the boat that says you shouldn't delay your thesis for this.

I don't know your field, so my answer might be wrong.
It seems to me that taking this opportunity runs the risk of a small lifetime earnings hit (since there's a good chance that it means you would spend an extra year at PD salary rather than TT or industry salary), but that beyond that it would only help you career-wise.  Especially since this year wouldn't count against your clock.  That is, compared to your peers graduating at the same time as you, you'll have more experience, more publications, and experience with more projects.

Yes this is a slippery slope you are mounting!
It would be better for you to keep on your PhD on track, taking a year out to do other research may end up being a complete waste of time for your PhD. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a 6 month absence but a year is a long time to be dropping your tools. I did my PhD full-time over 4 years in Computer Eng. and I needed those full 4 years to get the job done.
I'd ask if you can continue on your PhD track and get your supervisor A to take full charge for the year - just coordinate your plan with supervisor B before she leaves.
That said if your fairly young and can afford to spend a full year on a different subject matter then good for you! Personally I'd try to finish your PhD research goals ASAP

Well, I don't know if it would be a full year - B hasn't decided how long she's taking yet. It could be only 6 months or less.

I disagree with this answer. A PhD is just a starting point, not the goal. Taking an extra year to do other research means that when your PhD is done, you will have done more research, which can only help you.

I'd be interested if DeadlyDee, or others who agree with this answer, could explain why they think this. I get that it risks delaying my completion for a few months, but why do you consider this a bad thing?

Pros:

More experience. Remember, experience is almost always a benefit. You'll instantly be more recruitable.
You'll get paid. This should help with the student debt and/or living expenses in the future.
You'll get in the good graces of the university. You never know when this might come in handy.

Cons:

You will graduate later than your peers.
It may take awhile before B comes back from her maternity leave.

If I were you, I would first check to see how long B will be gone. If it's less than a year, I would go for it. Over a year, and it'll be up to you. Good luck!

You might like to check the date on things like this before responding - B has returned to work, and gone for another baby, and returned to work, now. And I have my PhD ;-)

Having been in a similar situation at least once before, I would say the following:

Your priority should be the rapid completion of your PhD;
The family circumstances of colleagues or machinations of your dept's internal labour market are irrelevant to your career;
Don't be flattered into "helping out" by the temporary prestige of a salaried RAship;
Universities are infamous for their exploitation of PhD students and are ruthless in the substitution of permanent salaried posts with FTCs (fixed term contracts).
Be aware that your supervisor may attach a higher priority to delivering a project they are contractually responsible for as PI, than to facilitating the early completion of your PhD and thus your exit to an independent career;
The early completion of your PhD will give you mobility in the job market, rendering the internal labour market irrelevant;
If you aspire to a career in UK academia, now is the time to strategize and position yourself for REF2020. Unless some dramatic shift in hiring practices takes place, your next employer will only be interested in your PhD (tick), publication history and REF-ability for 2020.

I apologise if any of what I say sounds miserably pessimistic; but academia has become ruthlessly competitive and I would advise putting self-preservation ahead of any internal loyalties.

Prestige? Have you seen a RA salary? ;-) (but, some fair points in there, thanks)

Interesting, as an american I had forgotten that graduation year mod 6 is important in the UK.  But surely that means that the answer is that for certain years mod 6 taking an extra year is a career positive, while for other years mod 6 taking an extra year is a career negative.  Which years mod 6 are which?  That is, is the goal to time finishing a postdoc with the last moment of eligibility for REF2020?


text:
Refer to arxiv version?
Am I breaking some kind of rule if I'm adding the arxiv link to the bibitem for an article that's published in a journal? I thought obviously not until I noticed that (link to arxiv) and (page number in journal) are quite mutually exclusive.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3050/why-are-some-sources-cited-twice-in-a-bibliography-once-with-doi-and-once-with

No.  I think giving the arxiv link is fine.  One alternative is to have two bibitem entries, one for the journal version and another for the arxiv version.  I find it valuable to include the journal reference, because that shows that the article has been refereed (so its claims gain legitimacy).  But I also see the value of including the arxiv version, particularly if the journal is hard to access.

Many copy editors will remove arXiv links to published papers, but usually they'll put them back in if you insist.

Technically, an arxiv version of a paper is different from a journal version. This can be a problem if you (for example) cite a particular theorem or lemma in a math paper that has a different number (or doesn't exist) in the arxiv version.
You didn't mention why you're adding the arxiv link. If you wish to add a link to a freely accessible document, then you could add a note in the text to that effect and cite the arxiv version in addition to the journal version. Otherwise, if you merely want a link to an online version, then you should be using the DOI link for the journal.

One adds the arxiv link to illustrate where the paper is freely available to everyone.


text:
How to properly reference a source when almost exact copy?
I am currently writing a piece of work, mainly studying some theory developed in a particular article. I did my best to be clear whether it was one of my own comment concerning the subject or material, eventually rephrased, coming from the article.
But now, I need to copy a large section from the article. There is no point in modifying the section, it is actually a list of hypothesis written in a mathematical fashion, and rephrasing it would be unclear. So well, maybe I changed a bit the formulation of a few things, or changed the order of the list to fit the way I present the things, but really cosmetic changes.
How should I cite that ? I guess (as it is not exactly copy/paste) no "", but then what ? I already mentioned that the whole work was closely related to the article, but I feel uncomfortable copying the section without knowing how to reference it.

You likely will need to check the copyright requirements of the journal, and contact the publisher and/or author. Very often, quoting or copying more than a few sentences or one or two figures will require direct permission.
Permission may not be necessary, but you don't want to open a big bag of trouble by publishing something that violates copyright - better safe than sorry.

Good idea. I checked the copyright requirements for this article, and I am allowed to copy part of the article, provided that it is clearly referenced. Thanks !

Copying is of course not good. But, it is always possible to use a quote. This can be done by either use quotes or in your case to state that you are providing a copy of the list provided by the author.. In your case I think you can easily say something like "Following "cited author" (yyyy) we can define the problem as ..." and then follow up by rewriting the list you mention. It should then be very clear that what you write follows what the cited author has written. The exact phrasing might be slightly different but along the lines I outlined.


text:
When a research statement of a fixed page length is required, are references counted in the page length?
On mathjobs.org, a few jobs request a research statement of no more than 3 pages. Are reference pages typically counted for such requirements in the United States?

I would think you would need to ask the individual departments about this. However, I also suspect that departments don't want to limit the amount of room in such an important document based on the number of references you have. So I'd guess that you have three full pages of text (references shouldn't count).

Just for reference, in the EU the references are included in the limit, at least some of the time.

Unlike the NSF, where references often do not count towards page limits, I would assume that references do count as part of the 3-page limit for a research statement in a job application.
At the same time, few research statements I have seen in mathematics are as thoroughly referenced as an NSF proposal. The main goal of a research statement when applying for a job is to describe your own research and to demonstrate that you will be able to meet the research expectations of the job. As such, you want to keep the research statement relatively brief.
If you really need more than 3 pages including references, you should email the chair of the search committee to find out if it is acceptable.

Generally speaking, no.  Two reasons:

Nobody reads the references.
It is unethical to penalize the author for giving credit where it is due.

That said, an HR staffer may not know about academic practices.

Nobody reads the references — False. I read the references.

It is unethical to penalize the author for giving credit where it is due — This is a red herring.  The constraint is not "don't give credit" but "keep your entire document under 3 pages".

authors: Амир Алимбеков


text:
Theoretical CS research having a math undergrad
I am currently finishing my undergraduate math studies, and I am really interested in computer science (especially theoretical). However, I realize that most CS departments expect their applicants to have a CS major or at least a significant amount of coursework in CS. I have taken a couple of programming courses and a course in data structures, languages and machines, and design of algorithms, but all very basic (so I would probably be rejected because of insufficient background). Therefore, I have been looking for math departments that do theoretical CS research, but I have found very few.
Is is possible for a mathematician to successfully enter a program of theoretical computer science with few previous experience in CS?

I thought this question was asked and answered before, but I couldn't find it. In any case, people with a strong math background can do very well in TCS. The only stumbling block might be the breadth of CS material (including things like architecture, compilers and operating systems) that might be required of a CS grad student.
However there are certain programs (CMU/Georgia Tech/Waterloo) in which TCS is a separate discipline: if you applied to one of these programs, you might be able to to circumvent core CS requirements that you don't have.

Many people in Theoretical Computer Science have undergraduate (and sometimes graduate) degrees in Mathematics, and some do not know how to program at all: do not be afraid and go on. Having a solid background of both mathematics and computers is an asset.
The only warning: be ready to learn by yourself, especially as you might be asked to TA or teach courses you never took (e.g.  I had to learn a lot for teaching Operating Systems, or Networking, as this was never taught in my undergraduate degree in Mathematics). But if you go to Academia, you should be ready to learn by yourself anyway...


text:
"and" in section title: "Apple and Pear" or "Apple & Pear"?
In the main text of scientific papers, one should use and and avoid using &.
I wonder if it still holds true in section titles.
Is

Apple and Pear

or

Apple & Pear

more appropriate as a title?

Generally speaking, the style guide you're using should specify this. Are you using APA, or Chicago, or AMS, or ...?

I've always seen "and" spelled out.  In the absence of specific guidance from your journal, that seems safest.

Many journals specifically state what they expect, or often it can be ascertained by looking at their previous issues.

In general, the modern usage of the ampersand ("&") is restricted to collective proper nouns. While it was much more common to see people use the ampersand during the 18th and early 19th centuries, this has fallen out of fashion.
In formal writing, the use of the ampersand has largely disappeared except for collective nouns in a title, and in situations like table and graph legends, where normal rules of written English do not necessarily apply. For instance, "Crate & Barrel" or "McKinsey & Co." In standard running text, you would not use an ampersand in place of a traditional "and": for instance, you would write

Mozart visited Vienna and Prague.

not

Mozart visited Vienna & Prague.

However, in the legend of a graph, you could write either "(1 M NaCl & 1 M KOH)" or "(1 M NaCl and 1 M KOH)"; in many instances, the former might actually be preferable, because it's more compact.
This is also supported by many writing style manuals. For instance, the only mention the ACS Style Guide makes of ampersands is with respect to web addresses (where one would in any case not replace "&" with "and").

Following on Volodya's answer, you probably don't need to worry about this too much if you're planning to submit to a peer-reviewed journal - they'll just change it to their preference during the proof stage.

In addition to other good points made... On one hand, obviously it doesn't matter toooooo much, being understandable either way. A relatively superficial criterion is some mandatory style, which is presumably dictated externally: just do it. If there were any "real" criterion, it would be about scan-ability: is it more scan-able with Amper's "and", or with "and"? I tend to think that, given that everyone these days has more practice reading "prose" without symbolic abbreviations (somewhat in contrast to earlier times...!?!), a plain text "and" is "easier", if only due to habit "in these times". But/and the latter is what I consider, actually.


text:
Caption or title: which should I use?
I have a figure in my paper. If there is much to say about the figure, I will have a brief title and a descriptive caption for it.
What about the figure about which I have not much too say? Do I replicate what I have written in the title in the caption?
Since caption is also used for reference, it must exist. Can I then remove the figure title and use the caption only?

What is your paper for? I think figures (for example in journal articles or thesis) usuaully have a caption below them, in addition to their number:

Figure 1.  Cumulative food intake in rats during intragastric treatment

But typically there is no "title", unless you have a "list of figures" somewhere in the beginning of the document: then it is ok to use the same phrase as caption and title, because they are not written at the same place.

+1 for typically there is no "title". Indeed so. Seems that everything in caption is a convention and also space-saving!

I've seen titles used in figures. Often it's a bad habit inherited by those who generate their graphs in Matlab, save the raw image and then insert it in a document as an image. Since Matlab has a title("something") command, some people think it is good to use it in their plots before exporting them as pictures. Or, more often, they use the same code to draw the graph onscreen and to generate the image.

My preferred format is
No title in the figure
in the caption
small title. very extended caption describing the figure and a small summary of the results addressed by the figure


text:
Cite a developed version of an algorithm (citation chain)?
My work is based on algorithm A that is actually a developed version of algorithm B. When I cite algorithm A, should I also cite algorithm B?
Due to the conference page limit, I prefer not to cite algorithm B, as A has already cited B and I do have cited A. Does my this "citation chain" work?
Another dilemma to me is when algorithm C incorporates (not develops) algorithm B, given the fact that I have to cite C anyway and actually I have used algorithm B, can I choose to only cite C without B? (again, to save space)

There are better ways to save space.

Space savings aside, your choice in this must be guided by two factors: help the readers understand what your work is built upon, and acknowledge scientific contributions of your predecessors.
With those principles in mind, I would say the choice depends on the relationship between A and B, and whether either (or both) are well-known. Let's take two simple cases to illustrate:

if algorithm B is world-famous, and algorithm A is a not-so-well-known extension (e.g., because it is specially optimized for a specific type of data): you will have to cite both, as you cannot assume that all readers are familiar with algorithm A.

Herein we highlight an extension of the Abersmith algorithm,[ref A] which is itself based on the Borodin sort algorithm with specific improvements for the handling of p-adic input.

if algorithm A is very well known in your field, and algorithm B was an earlier algorithm that was almost completely superseded by A and little used nowadays (except for historical considerations): it is not useful to cite B.

So your case 1 is my case. My work is a direct application of algorithm A that is based on world-famous B. I will definitely have to cite A, since I directly adopt the method with some minor modifications. I also must cite the world-famous B?

Yes, you have to give (even in a few words) the reader a short introduction to A, which means you have to introduce B (and cite it)


text:
Is it better to write "Related Work" at the start or in the end?
As per title, which one is a better way to go:
to write the Related Work part right after Introduction and before System Architecture
OR
to write the System Architecture right after Introduction and dump Related Work in the end just before the Conclusion?
In my field, I have read both ways. I personally find Related Work a bit unnecessary and I usually skip them while reading a paper. It is reasonable in the sense that a researcher would have already read nearly all the related work within his or her field. So he or she may not bother to read those sections of the similar papers.
In this sense, I prefer to adopt the latter that dumps this part at the end. However, I see most of the papers that I have read adopted the former.
What are the pros and cons of these two approaches? How do I choose wisely?
I am in EECS field, but any generic advice is also very much welcomed

Do whatever the papers you cite do.

@JeffE  The thing is the papers I cite are a mixture of these 2 styles. >.<

The main advantage of putting related work near the beginning is that it allows you to very clearly define what is new in your approach.  I like to do that when I'm attacking a very well-defined problem and my contribution is closely related to what has gone before; e.g., if I've modified algorithm X so that it runs twice as fast, then I must review prior work on algorithm X.  I try to work the review into the flow of an expository structure -- i.e., introduce prior work as you move naturally through the introductory and motivational concepts.
The disadvantage of putting related work near the beginning is that the reader must wade through it before getting to the important part of the paper -- your contribution.  It also may interrupt the flow of exposition.  So I put the related work nearer the end when possible; for instance, if I'm solving a problem nobody has considered before, or exploring some newly discovered phenomenon.


text:
Submission procedure for letters of recommendation
I intend to study for a Master Program in the US. I'm from foreign country, so I don't know what's the procedure to submit letters of recommendation.
My initial guess is, the ones who write the letters for me have to submit it (otherwise it would be meaningless to submit it myself). But I wonder, do I have to create separate accounts for sending the letters, or I have to send my application account to my writers? If so, can I create accounts for them, because they are very busy? Finally, is it possible to submit same letters to multiple universities?

Consult the application page of the school you are applying to. Most institutions make it pretty clear how letters of recommendation are to be submitted. From an ethical standpoint, the letters should never pass through your hands, just as your transcript should be mailed directly from your undergraduate institution without going through you.
If the application process is completed online, as most are these days, you will have to provide email contacts for your references. They will receive emails from the application system on how to proceed. Their access to the system should be generated automatically. Neither you nor they should have to create accounts for them.
If the institution is insistent on using snail mail as the means of submitting information, then provide each of your letter writers with an envelope that is already addresses and has proper postage. That way your letter writers can seal the envelope themselves and drop the letter in the mail.
It is possible to submit the same letter to another institution. I have read some letters that were clearly done that way (e.g., addressed to a different institution, describing the candidate's aptitude for an unrelated position, photocopied, or dated five years ago). I would not do this. Submitting identical letters to multiple institutions (and it is usually obvious, because a good letter is tailored to that institution), implies three bad things about you:

You are too lazy to ask for new letters of recommendation.
Your letter writes did not know about the second application, so their comments are not relevant.
You didn't trust your letter writers to write you a good letter for that position.

Just ask your letter writers to write new letters to each institution. This second letter will not be written from scratch, so it won't be as much work for them. Likely, they will edit a letter they wrote about you previously to create a new letter specific to the new institution or position.

When applying by snail mail, it's customary to use an envelope and paper with the logo of the university, department, or some such (if it exists).


text:
Publishing work in areas you're no longer interested in
If one obtains results in one area of a field (say during an MSc thesis) before deciding that one is not interested in making a career in that area, should one take the time (as a PhD student) to get make those results publishable, or is it better to focus on the new area?

It depends.
Some questions might help guide you to an answer:

how important is the work you've done ? If it's not yet publishable does this mean it's not complete yet ?
Since you're not in the area, do you even know if the topic/solutions are still relevant ?
Are you proud of this work, to the point where you'd be annoyed if someone else came up with the same ideas and published them ?
How much effort will it take to make the work publishable, and how does this interfere with current work that you're doing ? I.e are you in the initial stages of a Ph.D and can spend time on this, or are you deep into your own research where the context switching might prove distracting ?

It's all about marginal utility, in other words cost/utility ratio. How much time/money/effort/coffee/.. will it take to get the stuff published vs how much you think it will benefit you? It's generally hard to estimate how much different investments will pay off in the future, but it can't really hurt you to have published articles in multiple fields. On the contrary it's generally good to show diversity in intellectual capacity and output.
Now that said, you should also consider whether or not you can work on something else during your phD. I mean maybe your supervisor is not OK with you "wasting time" on something that will not be a part of your thesis. It is actually very likely that s/he will not be very positive towards the idea. After all you are burning his/her grant money ;)

In my opinion, during a PhD it is equally important to stay focused on the main track as it is to prove, you as a student can be multidisciplinary.
Being multidisciplinary will make you sometimes more attractive on job markets.
That is not always true, though, as some employers will look for more goal oriented individuals.
If however you your major is biology and your interesting findings are in physics, maybe you should let it go.


text:
Tutoring, student does not pay
I work as a post-doc and do 1-2 hours of tutoring each week (approved by the university), to keep on top on my mathematical and pedagogical skills. Usually, students pay me after each session, but one of my recent students did not pay me the first, or even second session. After that, I have not managed to get in touch with the student again (via email).
Of course, something could have happened, but I believe I am being cheated. What is proper action here? Should I contact the professor for the course, or perhaps the students main department? Or just forget about it?

If the agreement is just between you and the student, you should manage it by yourself, and your question is not really about academia (a plumber can have exactly the same problem).

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not specific to academia.

This is a private business transaction between you and the student.  Neither the university nor the professor was a party to that transaction, so they'll have no interest in interfering, and it would be inappropriate to try to involve them.
Anyone who provides services to clients for money will eventually find that some of them don't pay.  You can see many examples, and suggestions for ways to collect, on Freelancing.SE.  To say more here would be off-topic, I think.  I'd just keep in mind that pursuing your non-paying client will require more of your valuable time - make sure it doesn't become disproportionate to the amount of money at stake.  At some point, the most cost-effective approach may be to just let it go.

I generally agree with the first paragraph, but there are some cases in which the university might intervene in some way.  For example, this behavior seems to me to violate the Caltech honor code, so the Conduct Review Committee might take up the case if both people were members of the Caltech community.  Whether this is true at other universities can vary (and I would expect the university would generally not get involved).

authors: way怎么读音发音壮志凌云_day怎么读精忠报国

authors: 在日本火的中国艺人众矢之的_日本艺人松子落花流水

authors: 天国姐弟4在线播放影院_动漫姐弟4无删减在线播放

authors: 孙姓女孩名字任重道远_鸟谷幽香照片丹凤朝阳

authors: 日本艺人鸟谷幽香电影在线观看门可罗雀_日本大桶谷粉墨登场


text:
Present math for non-mathematicians
I am a graduate student in mathematics, and I recently got the question why there isn't a press release to the general public whenever we publish a paper (to advertise mathematics and increase interest).
Now, every paper is a bit extreme, but forced me to ask several questions:
Would arxiv be a good place to put math text aimed to the general public?
(I am currently trying to explain an article in a very metaphorical, but accessible to non-mathematicians).
Would it be considered strange to explain research for non-mathematicians either in a separate abstract in a paper, or also writing a shorter non-math version?
(I fear that this is considered slightly odd,
and metaphors sometimes dumbs down the problem so that the question seems very silly. Also, will professors think it is a waste of time?).
A partial goal is to be able to explain what I've done the last five years to my family at the dissertation, but also get some experience in explaining math for grant applications. It would be nice if news from the world of mathematics appeared more often in the news, (local news for smaller achievements, explanations etc).

Posting "general audience" math papers to the arxiv would be reasonable, but I'm not sure if you'd reach much of your target audience.  How many non-mathematicians do you know who have ever visited that site?

Well, putting it on arxiv and linking to it, would attract non-mathematicians to the site, and some might be curious on how other articles look like. This gives a glimpse in the world of math, as arxiv is a central piece in the research process, imho. Also, it is more permanent than a personal web page at an institution.

Would arxiv be a good place to put math text aimed to the general public? — Speaking as an ArXiv moderator: Yes!

I would recommend blogging. This seems like the standard procedure for explaining your papers both to the lay audience and to other mathematicians (potentially ones that don't work on your specific problem). The blog format is preferable over arXiv or journal publications for reaching the lay audience because it is more accessible. Links to blogs are easier to share and faster to read than journals (which might be behind paywall!) or pdfs from arXiv. A blog setting also allows you to interact with your audience through the comments, this is the best way to help guide them through any confusion.
A blog setting can also be used to provide casual tours through proofs for experts and graduate students. This has recently started in TCS. Since this is aimed at the slightly technical audience, it is more appropriate to put on the ArXiv, although I would still advocate blogs.

+1 I do some version of this myself, but I write my summaries mostly for non-expert mathematicians rather than non-mathematicians.

I highly recommend blogging if you have time for it. ArXiv is not the best place for it as few non-academic know of the site, but if you blog about it in plain language and provide a link to the original article, it might be the best of both worlds. If you don't want to set up a blog yourself, then see if you have friends who have a blog on relevant topics and would not mind letting you do a guest post.

This is a great idea, and it does happen.  For years, Martin Gardner wrote a column in Scientific American called "Mathematical Games".  He took interesting mathematical ideas and made them accessible to a wide audience.  Another example is Keith Devlin, who is known as the Math Guy on NPR (National Public Radio) in the U.S.  A third example is Ian Stewart.  His book "Letters to a Young Mathematician" explains a typical mathematical career arc to a general audience in a fun and engaging way.  Along the way, he touches on many important mathematical ideas.
So why don't we see more of this?  The short answer is because it's really hard to do well.  You have to really understand the math, and you have to be very good at explaining to people who think very differently from the way you've spent the last 15 years or more being trained to think.
Furthermore, much of the general public doesn't really want to know more about math.  Another reason is that this type of writing is typically not well-rewarded at research schools.  The culture of research mathematics tends to say that exposition is fine, but it's not really hard, like research.  So it shouldn't be rewarded at the same level.
I agree with you, that the world would be better off if more people understood what we (research mathematicians) do.  The problem is, I don't know how to make it happen.

To add to this, not only is it hard to do, the audience is vanishingly small as the topics become more specific.

@eykanal So true.  It's hard to get many mathematicians to read most math papers (even when they have all the needed background).

The culture of research mathematics tends to say that exposition is fine, but it's not really hard, like research. — Unfortunately spot on.

Would it be considered strange to explain research for non-mathematicians either in a separate abstract in a paper, or also writing a shorter non-math version?

It would come across as strange to include a separate abstract for non-mathematicians in a math research paper, partly because it's unconventional and partly because it might be interpreted as an assertion that this paper was likely to be of unusual interest for the general public.  That's not to say it's a bad idea, but I'd recommend that grad students not try it, since you don't want readers to focus on this instead of your research contributions.
Writing a companion piece aimed at a general audience is less likely to attract any negative attention, especially if it's in the form of a blog post (as Artem suggests) rather than a formal paper.  If you spend too much time on this, you risk having it look like a distraction from your research, but that's not likely to come up except in fairly extreme cases.

Also, will professors think it is a waste of time?

Some will, but others won't.  I'd recommend not focusing just on your own papers: if you advertise other people's work as well to a general audience, they may or may not think it is worthwhile, but they are likely to feel flattered, and it will avoid the risk that this could come across as self-promotion on your part.  Once again, you don't want to let this overshadow your scholarly accomplishments, but it can be a nice counterpoint to them.

It would be nice if news from the world of mathematics appeared more often in the news, (local news for smaller achievements, explanations etc).

Certainly.  If you are a decent writer, it may not be too difficult to get your local newspaper to publish periodically about math news (this would require going well beyond your own work, of course).  That would be a service for the community and an interesting line on your CV.


text:
How to initiate an application of a research attachment fellowship directly with the potential advisor?
I am currently trying to seek a summer research attachment in the US institutions. CalTech offers a really attractive program, SURF, to the undergraduates.
However, in order to apply for the attachment fellowship, CalTech requires the applicants to contact a faculty member first and proceed with other admin stuff only after receiving the endorsement from the faculty.
As a non-CalTech student, I have no academic network that spreads to any professor in CalTech. In such a situation, can I directly email the professors that I am interested in working with?
Of course, I can do it, but my concern is that a professor will normally ignore this type of email, especially when he/she is currently not short of people in the lab.
How to initiate such a research proposal effectively so that the professor will not overlook my email and actually think about taking me in?

For the record, while this is an undergraduate problem, it's one asking about one of the first steps toward a research career, and not a question that's outside the scope of some graduate student concerns as well. I think it isn't off topic.

If they expect you to get in touch with faculty first, and they widely accept students from beyond CalTech, then they're expecting you to reach out - no undergraduate has a particularly robust academic network beyond their institution (beyond a few edge cases).
Generally speaking, the best way to do this, in my view, is to email the professor, give them a brief introduction about yourself, your research interests, that you're applying for the SURF program, and that you'd like to work in their lab. Link this to the work they do.
I'd consider doing this for several professors, unless there's just one whose work matches your own. Worst case, they'll ignore it, but professors often at least read these, especially if they're from institutions they recognize, have concrete information, and are in coherent English.
For the record, this is how I got my first undergraduate research position, and ended up with a wonderful colleague I work with to this day.


text:
Should a undergraduate rely on PhD students to publish papers or do it individually?
I am a undergraduate student who is trying to publish something so as to facilitate my PhD applications in the future.
I have a few seniors who help out in the lab and have been included as non-1st authors in some publications. Basically, what they do is helping the PhD's do some implementations. Thus, actually there is not much real research involved. But at least in the end, they are the authors, although not 1st authors, of some publications. It is quite nice for undergraduates to have such publications.
As for me, I am currently working on an individual project under a supervisor, who is extremely busy every day. Instead of being a helper, I am actually initiating the research all the way. I am also working towards publishing a paper to present the work.
Nice as it may sound, I am facing a lot of difficulties. As a undergraduate, my knowledge is so limited, and meanwhile I have to attend lectures. My time is also very limited. So I am really afraid I can publish nothing at the end of the research.
Since I have already started the research, no matter the decision to initiate one project my self is wise or not, I have to fight to the very end.
Could anybody help give some suggestions to make my work get published more likely?

To the down-voters: This question is about research and therefore precisely on-topic.

@JeffE Thank you so much for the clarification. Now there are a lot of blind down-voters just somehow down vote all around.

One alternate strategy that could help is to see about trying to present a poster of your work at a conference. Even if that doesn't have quite the same prestige as a paper in a journal or an accepted paper at a conference (if you're in CS), it still is a sign of doing significant amounts of research. An especially good sign would be if you could win a "best student poster" or "best student talk"-type award.
However, the important thing for you will be to be able to discuss what you have done with authority in your statement of purpose to graduate schools, and to get a good letter of recommendation from your advisor that clearly outlines your contributions to your project. Having a publication is nice, but it's not an essential component for graduate school admissions.

+1; I'd go so far as to say that, while the OP may be jealous of his friends' "easy publications," such papers actually paint a target on the student when they come for interviews, or at least set a high bar for their statement of purpose. The junior-vacuum-seal-manager who tells everyone about "his" paper in Nature but cannot explain to anyone what's in it might as well have no papers at all.

As some people have suggested, it may be worth your time to see if you can get the research into a conference - while in some fields they're less prestigious than a paper no one is going to scoff at undergraduate research that ends up there.
That being said, I did author several papers as an undergrad, and it was immensely beneficial both to my job prospects and my outlook on research. It's tough, but if you want to do it you can - and no, you shouldn't rely on PhD students to get you a few papers with your name buried in the middle.

I think working on your own project is a very good thing to get started with research, and it is a good basis for publishing something. But when you have little experience with the research and publishing process, it is important to have someone with more experience who is able to invest some time in advising you. As your supervisor seems to be very busy, he probably cannot take that role.
My advice would be to get someone senior, like a PhD student or, even better, post-doc with related research interests on board. It's probably best to get someone from your supervisor's group. You should also discuss this with your supervisor first, maybe he/she can even recommend someone. This would of course mean that you add someone else as coauthor, but it should allow you to learn much more about the research and publishing process than when you do it on your own.

I have also thought about it. But the thing is that there is no such candidate to "pull in". Really worried about the future.

This may not be a magic solution but I would suggest focusing on a project than involves more applications and simulations than theoretical results. You would also need to find a suitable, likely small, journal that replies fast. Note that top journals may take years to get back to you with a first review or even an automatic rejection.
P.S. I got some interesting results after googling your profile picture.

I am aiming at a few conferences so as to get a prompt decision reply. For the profile pic, I love Angelina Jolie!

Yeah, um, that's not Angelina Jolie.

@JeffE  oops... just tried googling this.. I made a mistake! they seem so alike omg. changed my pic


text:
Can I cite an unpublished Master Thesis?
As title above.
This thesis is only available at the author's blog, though it is indeed a formal Master thesis. If I can cite it, how may I fill in all the blanks?
My concern is even if I cite it, the readers may be still unable to find it, if it is somewhat removed from his blog.

In addition to the previous answer I would like to mention that there are two types of works: 1. Internationally reviewed
2. Locally Reviewed And Master thesis falls into second category. And it can be cited as shown in example above.

Sitenote: biblatex has the type "unpublished" for this job...

Just because it's not published doesn't preclude being able to cite it. You can't not cite the thesis if you're taking information from it!
The degree-granting institution should perpetually retain copies in its library, and most universities these days store PDF copies as well. A copy may be harder to track down, but a determined reader should have no enormous difficulty in getting a copy of the thesis.

Example:
Smith B. (2013), General Relativity, MSc thesis, University of
  Cambridge, UK.

+1.  Citing unpublished theses/dissertations is quite common.  It is vital that you include the university to which the thesis was submitted, since that will be the place to look for obtaining a copy.  Also you can potentially include in the citation something like "also available at http://www.theauthor.com/mythesis.pdf".


text:
Do IEEE transactions allow for any "co-first authors"?
I, personally, have never see any authors in IEEE transactions listed as "co-first" authors, as such
John Smith†, Bill Lee†, and Boss James
...
† These two authors contribute equally to the work.

Is this allowed in IEEE transactions?

Some people use alphabetic sorting of authors.
Assuming that the first author contributed "most" is a very fragile and questionable approach.
This is not even consistent within a field. It's largely the personal preference of the supervisor, usually.

This is very much field dependent.

Not even that. Even within a field, and within a single journal, you will find this. Author ordering often is a personal preference of the authors. So don't rely on it.

I have never seen co-first authors either ... you can use alphabetic ordering to indicate more-or-less equal contributions, or you can use partial alphabetic ordering (the first group is alphabetically ordered and the last group is not), or non-alphabetic to indicate that the first author contributed the most.
Ultimately, the system only works when co-authors are honest to the public about their contribution.  If you're worried that co-authors will cheat you out of credit, you probably should not be working with them.

No, I am not worried about that. We are working together perfectly and agree that we should be co-first authors. We cannot follow the alphabetical order, either, because the correspondence author is the PI.

(-1) this does not answer the question, and is IMHO rather a comment.

@FarticlePilter Correspondence author is usually specifically indicated, and usually is the person with the most stable position, be or not the main contributor to the paper.


text:
Doing all the simulations and plotting, do I deserve an authorship?
I, an electrical engineering undergraduate, am currently involved in a research project, wherein I help write all the codes, run all the simulations, and plot all the graphs.
The paper is about to be submitted soon. I am hesitating whether to mention my desire to be listed as a co-author to my advisor.
Admittedly, I have no contributions to the idea and the theoretical analysis, as those are a bit too complicated for an undergraduate, or at least for me myself.
However, I have done all the implementations of the ideas and plotted all the resulting graphs, which, I believe, will be put into the paper.
In such a case, do I deserve an authorship (maybe 3rd or 4th)? Or it is reasonable to just acknowledge me in the Acknowledgement paragraph at the end of the paper?
If I deserve one, should I bring this up now or wait until I have done all my work?

Never allow people to take advantage of you. People like to take things for granted and not to appreciate others work. If you have done substantial work, take credit for it. And also, having your name in thank you part is basically nothing.

@SalvadorDali Thanks for the comment. It is just so ambiguous that I am acknowledged. Being acknowledged, I am indeed thanked for my work. On the other hand, that means nearly nothing to my future PhD applications. But in such a case, if they refuse to list me as an author, I cannot argue being acknowledged to be nothing. That would be so rude.

Having 'thank you' sometimes is not enough for huge amount of coding/running simulations, and plotting. Work of such sort costs some money, so if your professor thinks that it is really that easy, he can try to find himself a guy to do this for him and pay him money. Definitely you can not argue with his decision (but ff524 has a lot of valid points how to start this conversation). This can be a nice/sad experience to speak about what you will get in the future.

So @FarticlePilter - did you talk to your advisor? What was the outcome? (Just curious :))

@ff524 Talked to one of them. He said definitely I would be one co-author in his view. Will update you once I finish talking with the second advisor. :) Thanks a lot for the care!

I am hesitating whether to mention my desire to be listed as a co-author to my advisor.

Please mention it to your advisor right away.
They may say, "You're right, you should be a co-author." Or, "Given your specific contributions, it wouldn't be appropriate to list you as a co-author, but you will be listed in the acknowledgements." Or they may say, "Given your current contributions you can't be a co-author, but if you also do XYZ for the paper before it is finished, then it would be appropriate for you to be 3rd author."
You may agree or disagree with their answer.
We can't really tell you definitely whether or not you should be a co-author. (We don't know enough about the content of the paper, or your contribution, and it wouldn't be appropriate for you to give that level of detail here.)
But, you should definitely talk to your advisor about it (preferably right away, and definitely before the paper is submitted).
Edit: The OP made the following comment -

After digging out some info about the previous undergraduate students, I find all of them are not listed as authors. But they are indeed acknowledged in the paper.

If you think for some reason your advisor will be reluctant to include you as an author, you can do some preparation for your talk with them as follows. Then, if your advisor's first reaction is "I've never given authorship to an undergrad before," you are prepared to politely and non-combatively make a case to your advisor for why you think you merit authorship.

Check if your university or department has any formal policy on authorship. For example, here are three different policies.
If you have no university-specific guidelines, you can refer to the IEEE rules.
In either case, identify to yourself things you have done that you think qualify you for authorship according to the guidelines.

Then, if your advisor's first response is "No" and you disagree (after listening to the reasoning), you can present your side (which your advisor may or may not agree with).
Also, if your advisor's assessment is "No, you haven't done enough to warrant authorship," you can ask  "What else I can do before paper submission that will 'bump' my contribution up to authorship level?" I have had students in the past whose contribution to a paper didn't warrant authorship. In those cases, I told them: "Your current contributions do not merit authorship (only acknowledgement), but if you also do X, Y, Z, you will be an author."
(Note: I'm not advising any kind of escalation at this point - you don't even know yet what your advisor will say! But you may feel more comfortable with some kind of plan in mind for how to explain your contributions (as you understand them) to your advisor if advisor says "No" and you don't think advisor fully understands your side.)
In any event, talk to your advisor as soon as you can.

to add, while I don't know EE that well, I'm in a related area (CS) and I'd find it very odd if you didn't get at least some position on the author list. So please do ask your advisor and don't be shy about it.

To add to what I think is one of the better authorship answers I have seen, in the future it is best to have this conversation at the outset and then periodically during the research and writing phases.

@Suresh After digging out some info about the previous undergraduate students, I find all of them are not listed as authors. But they are indeed acknowledged in the paper.

I see. Yes as @StrongBad says this should be made clear up front before the work even starts.

The first part is great, but I am not sure about the second part related to legal actions. First, being told "I've never given authorship to an undergrad before" is unlikely. Second, policies are unlikely to give student a strong standing (both because of power imbalance and lack of sense of what is considered a "significant enough contribution"). On the other hand, in case of differing opinions, asking a trusted professor, especially from the same department, may help a lot. (Expert + neutral arbiter + power.)

@PiotrMigdal I'm not advising legal action - just suggesting that if the OP thinks (as OP seems to) that prof has a history of not giving authorship to undergrads, OP can prepare to (non-combatively) make a case for authorship to advisor and see what advisor says. I don't think OP is anywhere close to requiring neutral arbiter yet - OP doesn't even know what advisor will say!

@ff524 Sure, everything else after talking with advisor.

@PiotrMigdal hopefully advisor will say "of course you are an author!" and the rest becomes unnecessary :)

You do not have to have formed a solid opinion about whether your contributions merit coauthorship in order to ask the question of your advisor.  In fact I think that every young person doing work which is being used in any way in a published academic paper would do well to ask this question.  If you like, you can frame it not as your trying to suss out whether you have been unfairly denied coauthorship but that you are looking to learn more about the research process itself and inquiring into what sort of research contributions merit coauthorship.  (Even if you are seeking to do such a sussing out, framing it as a teachable moment is probably a better way to get a helpful, unguarded response.)
In my experience, things go smoothly if the issue of coauthorship is raised earlier in the collaborative process rather than later.  It is hard for me to think of a situation in which it is "too soon" to ask this question, although if you ask it early enough the answer may not be definitive.  It is not good to be working on something and wondering whether one will wind up as a coauthor or not.  That's needlessly stressful.
Also in my experience, undergraduates often have unrealistic expectations about what sort of work merits publication and/or coauthorship.  It seems, especially on this site, that a lot of undergraduates are hoping that their undergraduate research can be published.  In some cases it can, and how feasible this is must be highly field-dependent, but here is an inherent feature of undergraduate research: it is research done by someone who has much less subject-area knowledge and insight than she will herself have later on, assuming she continues in the discipline.
(If you don't continue in the discipline then you should ask yourself seriously why you want to be published in it.  Getting anything published anywhere sounds neat to any suitably bookish young person -- and it sounds neat to me too, and I am a published author -- but the reality of it is that academic publication takes a lot of time and work over and beyond the work that was done to write the paper.  If you are a 20-year old who has written an electrical engineering paper and then decided to go on to some other career, please think seriously about just putting that paper on your webpage and spending the time that it would take to get your paper published learning to play the guitar, or watching Lars von Trier films, or finding a cute boyfriend/girlfriend, or...almost anything else, really.  If you don't continue on in the discipline, then having a published academic paper is worth essentially nothing beyond the neat feeling you get by being published.  It does not convey the real life advantages that, say, being able to talk knowledgeably about Dogme95 would.)
Note well: I am not saying that undergraduates cannot do good research.  They can: in rare but extant circumstances, undergraduates have done research which is better than what most other people in the field can do.  What I am saying is that almost every undergraduate who does research will do significantly better research a little later on, to the extent that I cannot think of a situation in which someone's undergraduate research became a big part of their professional profile.
Added: I did not mean to create the impression that I feel that in this particular case the OP's contributions do not merit coauthorship.  I can't know without knowing the details of the situation, and I wouldn't be a good judge anyway because I work in a field -- mathematics -- where the standards for what constitutes coauthorship are very different from in EE.  Let me reiterate the points that I did make:
(i) The advisor is much better equipped to understand whether the student's work merits coauthorship than the student.  So statistically speaking, if a student is unsure about this, asks the advisor, and the advisor says the student has not done enough for coauthorship, the advisor is probably right.  Of course this unequal expertise and authority sets things up perfectly for a predatory advisor to exploit his undergraduate workers.  My answer is mostly directed towards the higher probability event that the advisor is acting honorably.  The main thing I advised the OP to do was to talk to his advisor about the standards for coauthorship.  I feel very strongly that this is the correct first step (and should have been taken before, in fact, since the OP has some anxiety about the situation).  If what the OP hears in this conversation is very unsatisfactory to him, then we can further discuss the situation.  I don't want to assume that will happen.
(ii) The line between getting acknowledged and getting coauthorship is certainly a gray area, even among adult academics.   For example, in the last few months alone I was invited to be a coauthor on two different papers.  I had to think about each one.  In the end, I turned down one request -- which came from two graduate students in my own department, including one of my own advisees -- and accepted the other after doing more work so that I felt like my coauthorship was justified.  Both of these could have gone either way.  When I think about whether to include myself or someone else as a coauthor, first I weight intellectual contributions (in a way which may not generalize so well outside of mathematics, which is something I have recently learned by discussion with other members of the site) and second I think in terms of the professional implications of putting on or leaving off a certain person's name.  The paper that I left my name off of was the third paper coming out of a graduate research seminar organized and led by me [I was a coauthor on the first two], and the results obtained were ones that I specifically asked for.  Nevertheless the work done on this paper was by the students and not by me* -- my own direct contribution to this work was positive but indubitably of a smaller order than theirs -- and the advantage to each of these students of having a paper which does not have a faculty coauthor is considerable.  For me, having one more publication of a similar sort as the other two is not a big advantage to me.  In fact, by not putting my name on the paper I am in fact claiming a sort of academic seniority: I'm showing that I've reached a certain point in my career where I can successfully inspire and direct projects that I am not directly involved with.  So my answers come from the perspective of a faculty advisor who thinks carefully about which names to put on or leave off a paper...including his own.  This behavior does not make me an unusually virtuous member of my academic community: it seems like business as usual.  So I would like to extend the benefit of the doubt to the OP's academic advisor and assume that he is acting honorably until specific information comes up to the contrary.
*: In fact this third work involved computations that were so substantial that although I am, I suppose, capable of having done them, in practice I would not have been willing to devote the time and enthusiasm that my students did, and it would certainly have taken me longer to write a much kludgier version of the code than what my student came up with fairly quickly.

I think this is very field-specific - in EE (which is my field), it is not uncommon for an undergrad to make a very major and useful contribution to a collaborative research effort.

@ff524: That's good to know; my field (mathematics) is rather the opposite: many future research mathematicians don't know what the objects of their future research are as undergraduates.  But I'll bet it's still true that EE undergrads who do useful research do even better research as grad students and beyond.  Something which didn't quite make it into my long answer is the idea that the advisor is in a much better position to evaluate the merits of the work than the undergrad, and probably also than some outside university official.  Is it common for undergrads to be "exploited" by faculty?

I wouldn't say it's common or uncommon for undergrads to be exploited. It does happen, though. If the OP's advisor says "I never credit undergrads as authors," then the OP should push back and show how his contributions merit authorship. If the OP's advisor says, "You don't merit authorship because your part doesn't meet the criteria for a significant intellectual contribution in this field," then it's worth considering that the advisor may have judged correctly.

@ff524: "I never credit undergrads as authors" would raise alarm bells, yes.  The field-specificity is probably coloring my take on the whole situation, I must admit: in mathematics 99.9% of the time when undergraduates get involved in "research", it is really a training exercise for them.  I have never had an undergraduate do any calculations for me or anything remotely like that (recently I asked my own PhD student to do this -- he is a computer whiz, and I am not -- and even that was new territory for me).

let us continue this discussion in chat

@PeteL.Clark In applied computer science (and likely many other fields closer to engineering), much of the day-to-day work of research is programming, tool-building, doing rather straight-forward experiments and evaluations etc. It is not that I couldn't do it myself (in some but not all cases faster and/or better than the student), it is just that my work day only has so many hours which might be better spent differently. OTOH, it would feel really wrong to me to not have a student that spend many, many hours on the research project as a co-author of a resulting paper.

@xLeitix: Thanks.  The way undergraduates contribute to research in mathematics seems to be an extreme point of the academic spectrum.  I am always happy to learn how others do things.  Since undergraduates in math rarely do significant work jointly with faculty, in writing my answer I just imagined a math student who is actually a bit older (a graduate student or postdoc).  I tried to keep math-specific extremities out of the answer.  Let me know if you see how I could do this better.

@PeteL. Clark In mathematics entry barrier is way higher that in most other academic disciplines (but (or: because of) there is less room for technical work). I do know at least one situation, where an undergrad was exploited. Moreover, in this case advisor is not a neutral arbiter, but a side of this (potential) conflict. And "doing all the simulations" (unless there are NOT included in the publication in any form) does sound like a serious contribution (no matter if in principle they could have hired a programmer or anything).  Of course it is hard to tell more without knowing details.

@Piotr: Yes, the advisor is not a neutral arbiter.  However, he has so much more experience with these matters than an undergraduate that trying to get the advisor "overruled" sounds like a low percentage play.  The OP is getting acknowledged for his work.  If he expected more, he should talk to his advisor about it, but I don't see how he can "force" coauthorship.  It may well be that after talking with the advisor the OP decides that upon clarification the conditions of the research are not acceptable to him, in which case he can stop and still get a good recommendation from the advisor.

@PeteL.Clark OP has no power of overruling advisor's decision. And sure, the advisor is knowledgeable about the discipline - but yet, it does not mean he is fair with the student (and student may have hard time to decide, as well - he is new to the field and it is hard for him to compare his expectations). I don't think that claiming that he is not right because he is a student is true, let alone - a good advice. Sure, most likely it is not a contribution "better than what most other people in the field can do" and it's only OP's first step. But it is irrelevant wrt to the authorship.

@Piotr: "I don't think that claiming that he is not right because he is a student is true, let alone - a good advice."  I agree.  Did I say anything like that?  I hope not.  The comments about comparing it to later work are just to try to put this whole thing in perspective: let's assume that the student's work does merit coauthorship, at least according to some reasonable neutral party.  Still, letting it go might be the best practical decision for the student, unless the work is so good that looking back at it from later on in his career, the student will feel significantly shot-changed.

@Piotr: Also, the advisor is not just (almost certainly) more knowledgeable about the discipline: he is (certainly) more knowledgeable about the standards and practices of the discipline than any undergraduate.  I hope the advisor is not treating undergraduates in a predatory way -- again, my own field essentially prevents me from having firsthand experience with faculty exploiting undergraduates in a research context, so I don't know how widespread this might be in other fields; I'd like to hope not very -- but if he is, then he knows better how to "get away with it" than the student does.

So -- even assuming that the student's work merit coauthorship -- the practical reality of going up against the advisor is that it is overwhelmingly likely to work out badly for the student.  Perhaps the student should keep in mind bringing to light his advisor's exploitative practices as a long-term goal (better pursued after the student has moved on to the next stage of his career).  But that's a different matter than securing coauthorship on this paper.

There are some professors who are reluctant to credit an undergrad as author, even if they would credit a grad student who did the same work.  The OP certainly shouldn't assume anything before talking to advisor, but if advisor seems like this type (based on history of not giving undergrads authorship, according to OP), it's wise for OP to do some homework on authorship standards in the field and prepare a (polite, measured) response in case advisor says "No" and OP disagrees.

@ff524: I have to think that "authorship standards in the field" will be so widely variable and existing more completely in the minds of the workers of the field rather than what is written down somewhere that it would be unlikely that the OP will find something that clearly indicates that he has been wronged.  If he does find this, then he has uncovered an ethical violation on the part of department personnel...in which case he should proceed with extreme caution.  I would advise an undergraduate to wait until he has moved on to the next institution before pursuing such a charge.

I'm not advocating pursuing disciplinary actions - just preparing a sensible response in case the advisor's first reaction is "No, I don't give authorship to undergrads"!

In the meantime, it is probably a good idea to talk to other department personnel: undergraduates, graduate students, and (trusted) faculty members.  If there is a problem of systematic exploitation of undergraduate students, surely someone else will have noticed it and be willing to act with the OP in exposing it?

@ff524: The response "I don't give authorship to undergrads" seems to be a conversation-stopper.  To me that does sound like an admission of an unethical research practice, and as I said, I would advise an undergraduate to proceed carefully upon uncovering such a thing. I am looking at things from the perspective of what is best for the OP.  As is, he is probably in a position to get a strong recommendation from his advisor and go on to a successful graduate career.  To me that is such a desirable outcome that I would be wary of taking actions that could jeopardize that...practically speaking.

I would see it more as an expression of "I've never given authorship to an undergrad before so my first reaction is no," in which case, if the OP can non-combatively make a reasonable case for authorship, the advisor might reconsider without much fuss.

@ff524: OK, sure.  The key word is "non-combatively".  To me the OP's tone already comes off as his strongly suspecting that he's been wronged (and maybe he has).  I am also imagining an in-person conversation rather than an email exchange, so if the advisor looks at all tentative or open to change then the OP can try to explore that.  Anyway, I really just don't want him to screw up his future career.  To me, that's the primary worry, although others may see the lack of coauthorship as being a more serious problem.

Hmm, I don't hear that in OP's tone at all :) Given that the paper is still being written, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question: "Am I going to be an author on this paper we are drafting?" and if no, "Here is why I think maybe I should be"

@ff524: Well, maybe I am wrong; it doesn't really matter in what I am suggesting.  With regard to whether it's reasonable to ask the question: well, sure, in the beginning of my answer I strongly advise the OP to ask this question.  Your phrasing "Here is why I think maybe I should be" is also pretty much identical to what I am recommending: the "maybe" makes it almost a question, which is I think is the right way to go.  So in other words, I think we agree.


text:
Can I put my accepted-but-not-yet-on-IEEEXplore paper online?
I am currently hunting for research internships and going to apply for several positions. To make the admission officers accessible to my stories and experiences in further detail, I have created a personal Google Site showing those details and added the link into my CV.
Now it comes to my research part. I have one paper that is just informed to be accepted by a conference. However, since the conference is not held yet, the paper isn't available online.
I wish to make the paper accessible to the admission committee. How should I do that without harming my and my co-authors' interest?
Can I upload it to arXiv? Can I upload it to my own Google Site? Should I inform my co-authors of this? Does it really matter to them?

You should definitely do this if possible.  Check the conference's publication rules and your copyright agreement to make sure this is allowed.  You should also check with your co-authors, but it seems unlikely they'd object.

I would not urge as much caution as the other answer/comment. Of course, checking with your co-authors and publishing agreement won't do any harm but ...
... I would strongly urge you to put the pre-print of the paper online and add a link in the CV since the folks handling your application may want to see the paper but may not be bothered to email you for it ... they will have a long list of CVs to get through, esp. in the initial phases where a confirmed publication could really make you stand out.
I emphasise this because I've seen lots of CVs for research internships and they often try to conncoct publications, mentioning "paper communicated to XYZ", or mentioning internal technical reports, etc. Having a link to a full-text will show them that it is not a vapour-paper and will let them get an idea of the quality of the work. Better still if you can add a link to the list of accepted papers for the conference with your paper in it.
As for contravening a publishing agreement ... any decent CS/EE publisher will, at the very least, allow you to put the pre-print -- the version you submit to them -- online on a personal homepage. If for some reason they don't, you shouldn't publish your work with them. Putting papers on homepages is a common practice that should be strongly encouraged.
If the publisher is IEEE themselves, then it's for sure no problem.

Risk of putting your paper online on your personal page: a 0.000001% chance of getting a cease and desist letter from your publisher asking you to take it offline, in which case you take the paper offline and never submit to that publisher ever again.
Risk of not putting your paper online on your personal page: a small but significantly greater than 0.000001% chance of the folks handling your application not taking the publication into account and you not getting a job offer as a result.

As the comment from  Nate Eldredge said: read your copyright agreement and ask co-authors.
You can definitely list the paper in your publications if you mark it as "accepted for...". If the admission committee is interested in reading it (often it is just interested in the title, unless this is the summary of your previous work), they can ask for it.

From my own submissions at IEEE conferences and journals, I remember the following points:

you are allowed to put a pre-print online if it is mandatory in your institution. I believe the sentence did also mention that it should happen on your institution pre-print server, so the extension of this notion to Arxiv needs to be worked out (though it is common practice, as far as I have seen);
you are not allowed to publish online the final version of a paper. The final version is the one with the manuscript number, journal issue and so on;
be careful when it comes to anonymous submissions (like some IEEE conferences). You have to wait until the official publication of the acceptance list.


text:
Low-quality paper or no paper - which is better for an undergraduate in PhD admission?
As everybody knows, research experience helps in one undergraduate's admission to a PhD program. It would be even better, if the undergraduate has a publication out of his or her research experience.
However, for a full-time undergraduate, it is quite difficult to devote too much time to research since one still has the school work to deal with. (Maintaining a high GPA is also important, isn't it?) Given the time limitation by this or other reasons, the undergraduate may face the following dilemma.
The quality of work is low, but the undergraduate has no time to improve it.
Should the undergraduate publish it to a random and low-tier conference to at least have a publication?
OR
Should he or she just make it a technical report instead of publishing it?
In other words, during the PhD admission, how do the admission committees or professors view a low-quality conference paper? Do they take it as an advantage in the sense that most of the undergraduates have none. Or do they start suspecting the student's research potentials? Does a low-quality "1" win a "0" in this case?
FYI, the field of interest is EECS, but any generic comments are also very much appreciated!

Making it a technical report is publishing it.

IMHO a technical report is the best option, because it could be expanded or improved and become part of a "real" publication. I would consider doing that with a low-tier conference as salami publishing, even if a technical report is publishing (as @JeffE points) I see a difference in both. But that may be just me.

@JeffE Sorry for the confusion. What I mean by that is to make it non-public report that logs what I have done.

what do you mean by: "The quality of work is low"?

@Trylks  Sorry for the confusion caused! I mean the experimental data fail to show that the result is promising.

Sound and disappointing conclusions are not bad conclusions. Look at Gödel. Research is not about what is good, but about what is true.

@Trylks But it turns that my method does not even perform as well as a very naive one.. it is really disappointing. Then is it still worth it?

IMHO yes, if someone finds that homeopathy performs even worse than the placebo effect, would you consider that publishing that is important?

See this related question of mine asked from the other side of the table http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7908/value-of-light-to-none-peer-reviewed-pay-to-publish-articles

@DanielE.Shub Thanks for the link, It is really related. So the professors do have doubt about this kind of thing. I guess I am gradually reaching the conclusion that a bad 1 is actually worse than 0.

If the quality of the work is low, the student should neither publish it in a lower tier conference nor publish it as a technical report.  They should either make the time to improve it or toss it in the trash.  A bad publication, no matter what venue it's published in, is worse than no publication at all.
Similarly, a "publication" listed in a CV or described in a statement of purpose that isn't retrievable via google (unlike most technical reports, which are googlable) is also worse than no publication at all, because we can't tell if the applicant is lying.  (Sadly, some applicants are lying.)

I'm not sure we have the same concept of a "bad" publication. For me a bad publication is not wrong, it's simply not very relevant, maybe relatively obvious, maybe a small improvement over the state of the art. If it is well written and correct, I don't see how could that be worse than no-publication. Could you elaborate that?

Thanks a lot! Your opinion on this issue is is really valuable, because 1. same field 2. you must be in the phd admission committee. I originally thought 1 was better than 0, since most of the undergrads have non.

@Trylks What you're describing doesn't fit the OP's description "The quality of the work is low...".

I'm not sure we have the same concept of quality. Asked for clarification ;)

I have a different opinion:
I think you should push it forward for publication in a national conference, not international  (because quality is low)
The weightage for this will definitely be less, But it leaves a different impression if you have some published work.


text:
Recommendation letter for college applicant sent via their high school
Background: This summer I was the instructor for a course in which many of my students were in high school, and were enrolled in my course as part of a 'pre-college' program at my university. This was a regular course, in no way modified for the pre-college students, and there were undergraduates enrolled simultaneously in the course.
I agreed to write a letter of recommendation for a few of the pre-college students for their university applications. The students' high schools seem to have differing levels of involvement in their college applications. One of them said their school is managing their application, and that I should send my letter of recommendation to the school who will then put it in their applications. I'd prefer to keep my part of their application separate, since I'm not affiliated with their school and don't want to run the risk of my letter being edited.
Question: Should I refuse to submit a letter to their high school?

Refusing to submit a letter harms your students. If the school is dishonest, they could fake the letters from the top to the bottom anyway.

If you're uncomfortable, you could simply tell the student "I'd prefer to submit my letter directly to the colleges.  Please give me a list of the addresses."

I'd send the letter in paper in an envelope signed (over the flap) by you. Perhaps offer sending several copies for every student, if they apply to several schools.
That is standard procedure for such letters (or was, pre e-everyting days).

I believe the applications are electronic - most of them use Common App and I'd definitely like not to have to post anything!

If you want to send an electronic letter that has no chance of being tampered with, there are a number of ways to sign and certify electronic documents (see, for example, the methods Adobe provides).
If you want to prevent the student from seeing the recommendation, you've really got no good alternative besides either trusting the high school staff or whatever "seek outside recommendation" methods that the electronic submission systems offer.