text:
Why don't PhD students work in pairs?
I will speak from my experience as an integrated-Masters graduate in Physics in UK, but I think this is applicable to any discipline.
Universities got it right when it comes to laboratory experiments or research projects during the degree: they make students work in pairs. I loved my final year research project because being able to brainstorm and bounce ideas back-and-forth with my MPhys partner took away most of the daunting nature of research. Having someone right next to you working on exactly the same project can prevent students from feeling deeply disoriented and aimless. You support each other when you're feeling lost, and given you're both on the same boat, it takes away the natural response of procrastinating and losing motivation that comes with being alone in such situations. Thinking about things together as loosely as needed can give you a natural sense of motivation somehow and allows you to be a lot more productive and effective.

More productive because together you are able to come up with a lot more ideas, and you motivate each other to keep thinking for longer periods of time without giving up.
More effective because the ideas coming from you and from your partner build on top of each other, and gain strength to penetrate into the unknown. When you are on your own, it's more likely that your ideas will stack up at the bottom, not having the same penetration potential.

A study in the UK reported that 46% of researchers feel lonely at work, which increases to 64% for PhD students. I believe the loneliness of independent research is the real root of the problem with Academia, the reason behind the mental-health isues such as impostor syndrome, anxiety and depression.
I looked up on Google 'Why don't PhD students work in pairs' and there are no results at all. Why have we normalised that research should be done alone? Yes, you have your supervisor to discuss things with maybe more than once a week if you are lucky, and yes, you have other PhD students around you to socialise and discuss ideas with, but this is not the type of loneliness I am referring to. It is the loneliness of independent research, where you get to your 3rd, 4th year of PhD, and being so advanced in your project means nobody understands the nits-and-grits of it like you do and hence no one can really help you anymore.

Now, I can think of a couple of issues with pairing PhDs up:

Money. Universities don't want to pay twice the money for a single project. Say you have the same number of PhD students, but they're all paired up. The pyramidal scheme of Academia wouldn't want to halve the number of projects for the same amount of money. That is less publication potential so nah. They are increasingly putting up more Mental Health support services, but I think they are not tackling the root of the cause, just the symptoms.

However, the fact that putting students in pairs could make them a lot happier, more productive and effective, means this could be turned around and it could actually end up being benefitial for the research output.

How do you match pairs up? Pairings students up randomly could go wrong if they don't end up getting along well. And some students might even prefer just working on their PhD on their own.

Just make it a normal part of a PhD offer to let the student decide if they want to undertake their PhD alone or with a partner. And put some formal procedure in place in case a pair of students really did not manage to get along. The procedure could just involve splitting the directions of research of the pair so they can carry on alone, or join someone else's project (as long as it's sufficiently related) who might have been split from their previous partner but would still want to work in pairs.

PhD is preparation for independent research. PhDs who manage to finish the programme on their own show they are prepared to be successfull in climbing up in Academia, in case they choose to apply for a Postdoctoral research assistant job.

If PhDs could hugely benefit from working in pairs, the same idea could be extended to Postdocs. I understand once you get to positions higher up in Academia, especially after tenure, one gets so many responsibilities (meetings, lectures, tutorials, supervisions, etc) that having a pair to do your research with becomes unfeasable. But still, given you have a fixed office in a department, nothing prevents you from having a collaborator who you work with as closely as you want.

Are there any other reasons I have missed which makes this unfeasable? Am I think about it wrong? If University knows pairing students up during their undergraduate is benefitial, why discontinue that afterwards?

Closely related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19444/collective-phd-by-a-research-group

Here is one - very rare - example of a joint PhD thesis: https://cth.altocumulus.org/~hallgren/Thesis/

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please see this FAQ before adding another comment.

Note, importantly, that the OP does not suggest that pairing be forced on anyone, but is asking whether it should be permitted. Some of the answers below seem to have missed this point. Forced pairing for a dissertation has a completely different and more serious set of issues.

The only reason I passed Physics is because of my lab partner. Should I be designing nuclear reactors?

In the labs I have worked in, graduate students discuss their projects with everyone else in the lab: other grad students, post docs, technicians and other specialist staff, undergraduate students, their advisor, other collaborating professors and people from their labs. They do this at every stage of their project: not just years 1 and 2.
The lab I am in right now currently has just one graduate student; she works closely with our lab manager who has over a decade of experience doing the sorts of experiments required for her thesis project, and she co-supervises three undergraduate students. She also has a co-supervisor who has two other graduate students and the three of them work in tandem, though they all have their own personal niches and projects. If you had her working in a "pair" instead of this whole research community, she'd be losing a ton of interactions with others, not gaining any.
Not all labs are like this of course, and I'm sure things vary a bit by field. Biology is a pretty communal research field compared to, say, pure mathematics. Working collaboratively isn't for everyone, and causes all sorts of problems: who does what, who gets the "credit", who makes decisions when there is disagreement. That isn't to say that collaboration isn't a good thing, but it seems like projects work best when there is someone who has ultimate responsibility for that project. In  industry you will find people with a project manager role; in academia, there are no such project managers, so everyone needs to manage their own project to some extent. It's a skill that will be required eventually if a student is going to stay on the academic track; I don't see why they should wait until later to learn it rather than to start as a PhD student.

I don't see why they'd lose interaction with others if they were assigned projects in pairs. They would still be immersed in the research atmosphere, only they'd have their pair next to them whenever they want to focus on their individual project or niche. I understand what you mean though, the hands-on nature of research labs where a larger group is using the same apparatus and discussing their projects all together may diminish the problem I'm raising in the question. That's not to say PhDs are challenging enough that having a "lab partner" wouldn't be benefitial.

Regarding the "credit" issue, why can't credit be assigned to pairs rather than individuals? This is not an uncommon thing in science where collaborations sometimes take the place of individual people's names.

Regarding the making of decisions when there is disagreement, I believe the ability to come to agreements when there is joint responsibility is so essential in life that it is not an issue but rather a necessary part of it. If the disagreement was of a deeper nature, such as related to what direction they want the research to take, the pair should be allowed to diverge (possibly temporarily) directions, to then come back together or just end up working alone. It can be a flexible scheme

@Luismi98 1) I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about losing interaction: my point was that in the labs I am familiar with people are working with far more than just one other person, nothing like the lonely single researcher your question implies. 2) When someone wants to hire an individual but all of their work was done in a close pairing, how do they know that individual is capable of doing that work without their partner? There are certainly occasional papers with "joint first authorship" but likely each other has their own individual papers as well.

@Luismi98 3) Going different directions and working on separate things is the current status quo. Your question asked why students aren't assigned in pairs; the answers so far are because there are a bunch of problems with this that seem best resolved by not working in pairs. The benefits of working in pairs seem best served by the existing status quo of collaborative working groups. It may be that some students are stuck in a situation where they have none of this support; it seems the solution is for them to be in a more collaborative lab, which is already a thing that exists.

@Luismi98 credit can be assigned to pairs, however, when evaluating your individual contribution in order to evaluate that you're capable of independent research (an essential qualification of PhD) for any shared work you'd be generally be required to specifically identify what is your individual contribution (essentially, explicitly "unshare" any credit) and only those parts would be evaluated. If you have a "50% contribution" in some published work where you did X and your pair did Y, that works, but if you just "did X together", that's not your individual contribution and does not count.

@Peteris I'm still not quite sure if any of us in these answers has got to the nub of why being capable of independent research is an essential qualification of PhD.

One particular issue of the proposal is with the matching up part. It can be hard enough to recruit one capable PhD student. Finding two capable PhD students with similar backgrounds and interests that can work together sounds like a nightmare. Sure you might succeed sometimes, but doing so consistently over all PhD hires sounds near impossible.
And even you have managed to match a pair at start of their PhD, that does not mean it will work out for 4 years. Since PhD projects are pursuing novel research, they evolve overtime. A large part of this evolution is based on the candidates interests and strengths (which should also be evolving over time). Since people are different, the evolution for a pair of PhD candidates is bound to diverge leading to problems. (Or more likely the evolution is going to be dominated be the needs of one of the pair, impairing the potential for growth in their partner).
This leads me to the interpersonal problems this model is likely to cause. Four years is a long time for two people to put up with each other (many marriages don't manage to last this long!). If you are essentially binding two people at the hip, many pairings will develop issues overtime. You will probably end up have to send many to couple's counseling.
One particular issue that might come up: What happens if one of a pair decides they want to quit after a year? Is their partner going to be left as a single? Is this person going to be guilted into staying in a position in which they are unhappy?
In short, I am not convinced that this proposal would actually lead to happier, more productive PhD students in general. It might work for some, but I will great misery for others. This is not say that there are not a lot of bad practices in supervising PhD students. I'm just not convinced that this proposal would be a solution.

I agree that "forced" pairing is a terrible idea. But that isn't the only option.

@Buffy - well, with the limited size of groups, and the limited arrival rate of new students, there will not be many options for pairing at any given time. In general, the pairing would be 'forced' by circumstance, not intent.

@JonCuster, actually, I would only permit it if a pair of students specifically request it. Not a general practice, but potentially a permitted one.

@Buffy if pairing is useful research training for a particular subject, then forced pairing ought to be better as we generally don't get to choose who we work with in the workplace and we would be required to maintain a professional working relationship for the duration of the project.  But it would be very risky, so probably not worth doing this way.  It is an important (and sometimes difficult) skill for students to learn (and their supervisors are sometimes not that great at it either! ;o)

You also have to ensure that the funding matches this - and not two slightly different projects with funds for one PhD student each.

This is an interesting thought experiment.
I think your last point is the main issue - a PhD is a training course in becoming an independent researcher. Sure, you could move the point at which you become independent up a few notches, but that just means you'll have to learn things you would otherwise have learned as a PhD student later.
You compare this to a final year project in an integrated Master's course (effectively an extended Bachelor's degree and taught in a similar way). That's fundamentally different from the way that a PhD or research Master's works - you aren't being taught about existing research by replicating it in controlled conditions, you're conducting wholly new research. That involves demonstrating that you - yes, you, not your research partner - can come up with, conduct and defend well-conducted research. How would you disentangle each partner's contributions to a thesis?
As you identify, money is important too - when you get to postdoc level and above you're spending large sums on doubling up each post. Staff costs are (at least in my field) the vast majority of grant costs so you'd have to drastically increase your grant income (this is more the problem than a university being cheap - you have to show that this is value for money for a funder).

Doctoral students don't work in an isolation chamber with no outside contact at all. There can be lots of assistance and not only from advisors.

That's true, but I think there's a difference between saying "in this chapter I worked with these people and was responsible for x, y and z" (as I did in my own thesis defence) and doubling up through the whole process. That said, the process described in the question is so different from academic practice that you could imagine it working in many ways!

Yes, and one of the biggest holdbacks is fear of the unknown. Not very admirable in an academic, actually.

"... conducting wholly new research. That involves demonstrating that you - yes, you, not your research partner - can come up with, conduct and defend well-conducted research. How would you disentangle each partner's contributions to a thesis?"

@Buffy Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment - do you mean that I'm reacting to this proposal out of fear of the unknown? I don't think that's the case, though I accept that I could be wrong.

The research project in my final year MPhys was actually wholly new, we did not replicate something that had been done before. But even then I don't know how that changes anything. Why do you need to disentangle the contributions? If it is very benefitial to do it together, I don't see why you'd need that.

@Luismi98 Making a measurable independent contribution to research is a key (perhaps the key) element of a PhD. That's how you measure it. You'd have to redefine what a PhD is if you didn't want to do that, and then you have all sorts of other problems.

No, it wasn't a comment about you or your answer at all. It was a general statement about academia.

That's my point, see my comment below the question. You guys are thinking about the PhD in the traditional sense, and I am pointing out that there is a big issue with this definition of a PhD. It leads to unhappy people and a lot more unproductive research.

@Luismi98 - the purpose of a PhD is to teach students and produce scientists, it is not to be productive and get research done. If we wanted to get research done, we'd hire postdocs or research assistants.

@IanSudbery "the purpose of a PhD is to teach students and produce scientists". Is this in your view incompatible with having PhD projects be completed in pairs?

@Luismi98 "producing scientists" in my view is essentially preparing people who are capable of identifying and pursuing a novel research goal, either individually or as principal investigators supervising their own research teams. PhD thesis is essentially a requirement to prove that you can do this by doing a limited project like that. If you're good at executing tasks in a team, that's very valuable and useful work but that just demonstrates that you're qualified to be a scientific assistant to others but not sufficient to show that you've become ready to be a "full scientist" and get a PhD.

@Luismi98 Its not that is necessarily incompatible, but rather that although an empirical argument can be made that output is higher when people work in pairs, and therefore it seems like a "no-brainer", maximizing output isn't the goal. The argument over whether paired working is as an effective way of creating, creative, free-thinking, critical scientists is less clear. I'm not saying it is definitely not, I'm just saying is not so cut-and-dry. My personal feeling is that the most effective configuration is people working on related things, but with their own responsibilities.

@Luismi98 I think in theory I'd agree with you, but in practice it's just not how Ph.D. works.  Not for the better, I don't feel, but it's the reality of academia (and why my wife left it) - they don't aim to teach you all of the things necessary to be a good researcher, or to produce the best research; they aim to put you in the environment and let you show you can do it.  Not the same, and unfortunately not effective for a LOT of smart people, but it is reality, at least right now.

@Peteris Some people really benefit from having a research partner who to discuss things with in the day-to-day, and I'd argue it actually empowers them to develop the mentality to be a "full scientist" as you say. First of all because (full) scientists rarely work on their own, so it's not clear to me why you'd need to show you can complete a whole PhD of independent research. If working with a pair allows people to enjoy their PhD a lot more, and hence be more productive and effective in their thinking, they can end up even better prepared to take on new research projects after their PhD

@Peteris The PhD after all is about developing the mentality and skills to be able to tackle complex problems that nobody has encountered before, and bring a research project to a standard that extends human knowledge. If you work with a PhD partner you can develop that mentality and skills, and I would say more effectively than being on your own, since having a partner can make you a lot more confident and avoid things like impostor syndrome, which demotivates people. This is not necessarily true for everyone, and that's why I'm saying being paired up should be a choice.

This is from the standpoint of someone who has extensive experience and writings with "Agile Processes" including pairing in both computing and management. I've supervised a few doctoral students and would have been open to considering a "joint" project by a pair of students. I've thought about the issue, but it never actually happened. I've also done quite a lot of "pair teaching" in graduate programs.
However, pairing is a step beyond collaboration. In particular, it doesn't mean dividing up a problem into parts on which people work independently, even if they try to bring it together at the end. That "dividing" happens now in large scientific labs where an overall goal can be attacked with smaller, independent, goals, and doctoral students taking responsibility for one of them. The answer of Ian Sudbery explains this collaboration process very well.
In pair teaching, for example, both professors are present for all lectures and participate in all teaching activities. One of us would have the "floor" at a time while the other observed and made comments as necessary, perhaps also responding to some student questions independent of the "lecturer" of the day - though we didn't actually do a lot of what you can call "lecturing". But that is another matter. In any case, collaboration (team teaching) is much easier to arrange than pairing.

Why it doesn't happen

One reason that it doesn't happen is that there is no tradition for it and, hence, some fear of the unknown. There is a rational basis for that, actually. As an advisor, I take on some responsibility for the future career of my students and I don't really have evidence that if I stray too far from traditional practice that it won't reflect badly on the students. I can't put them at risk.
Moreover, the two students in a pair are unlikely to be hired together to continue their work. I think that would be so rare as to be impossible to measure.
First, for it to truly be called "pairing" both students would need to be actively engaged in all practices all the time. Dividing up a project in to two projects isn't pairing, though it can be collaboration. I'll stick with that more strict concept. A "dissertation" with two authors would need to pass a quite strict filter. First, the university would need to agree that it is acceptable, and award two degrees for one dissertation. More important, there would need to be some evidence, hard to obtain, that the participants don't suffer in the academic marketplace.
I think the above reasons are far more important obstacles than money or the "matching" problem. The latter is trivial. Permit it only when two students request it themselves. If they come to me with a proposal, then I'll consider it (with suitable caveats and warnings, of course).

How it might happen

If two students came to me (past tense, as I'm retired), with a proposal for a paired project toward their dissertation, I would consider both the students and the nature of the project. This wouldn't have been a big surprise, since I integrated this sort of thing into teaching and much of their other doctoral studies was done in a team environment. They were used to working with one another and sharing things.
I wouldn't worry too much about "equal work" since the environment let me keep a close eye on what was going on, and peer evaluation was used as appropriate (not peer grading). We had very good 24/7 communication facilities.
But the nature of the project would be key in my view. It isn't that the project would have "parts" but that it would have "aspects" that might develop in to distinct dissertations based on their paired work. Sorry, but I don't have a good explanation of "aspects" since I don't have an example in mind. But technical vs managerial aspects might have been able to pass the test. Or, perhaps theoretical vs applied.
And note, that I'd still be wanting to see two dissertations, probably cross cited in many places, but enough independence that the university doesn't need to be involved and potential employers wouldn't worry about hiring either of the students.
All of this suggests that it might be possible to manage this, but I think it would be rare in the short term. If some evidence of success would arise from it, then it might expand.

I like the idea of pair teaching, I'll have to mention that to the other lecturers who I work with ;o)  Software engineering ought to be a good test for the idea of pair projects.

@DikranMarsupial, pair teaching is not without cost, of course. In my case, each of us was assigned one of two courses and we just decided to pair-teach them both. So, the cost was "on us" not the university. It was a successful "experiment" so we kept at it for years. The only thing that needed support was scheduling that made it possible.

I liked your answer the most because you understood my point, suggested an alternative insider view different from everyone else's, and provided a possible way that pairing could happen. I took away the accepted answer tickmark because I don't want the attention to the issue that I presented to just fade away so quickly. If the question shows as having an accepted answer it is probably less inviting for new people to click and read the question. At some point in the near future I might tick it back. Thanks Dr Buffy.

TL;DR: people are different and you cannot apply one mold to everyone.

Universities got it right when it comes to laboratory experiments or research projects during the degree: they make students work in pairs.

I studied physics and we worked in pairs. The real reason for that is that when you have X students and X/2 experimental setups, you have to pair people together.
I paired with a friend and it was fantastic: one week he would do the whole work, and the other week it would be me. (The TA was fine with that.)
Why? Because we hated to actually work in pairs. It was much more productive to do the whole work yourself because it was easy for us and we did not need to discuss the outcome (the experimental part was extraordinarily easy compared to the theoretical one where we often discussed the topics to try to understand).
I simply cannot imagine doing my PhD with someone else on the same topic. We would literally stomp on each other feet, or be constantly diverged from our thoughts by the other person. Discussing the progress is fantastic, once every few weeks or so.
Please note that this has little to do with being good or not. It is rather a personality trait.
I will also add that one dinner with a friend during my PhD completely changed its track because she suggested me something I did not think of, and it was revolutionary (for my thesis and a tiny little bit for the niche field I was working in). I praised her in the thesis even before my supervisor.

Fast forward to yesterday, 20-30 years later. I am now in industry and was working with one of my directors to remodel his team. One of the questions I individually asked the three best people in that team was "do you want to work together (as in "at the same time") on a problem, or do you prefer to work on it by yourself?"
The answer from each of them was a clear and sound "by myself". I asked why and they said that they genuinely like the other two (which is true), that they know that they are excellent (they are) but that they would be more productive concentrating on the problem by themselves and discussing/being challenged afterward.

It depends on the type of work. I myself strongly prefer being on my own when doing things like writing a report, or when programming. My point is that when specifically doing research, I think it's very benefitial (and I'd say needed) for everyone to have a partner next to them who to discuss things with in the day-to-day. If someone doesn't share this, then they can choose to not be paired-up (as I described below point 2 in the question)

In my day-to-day of my MPhys project, me and my MPhys partner would chat about all the investigative nature aspects of the project, and once we knew the best way to go forward, we'd stop talking and start programming or analysing data each on their own. What I was trying to convey in the question is that people would really benefit from having a partner when it comes to the investigative aspects of research.

@Luismi98: this is a PhD, these people are adults. If they want a buddy to discuss daily their progress - why not. But having this imposed (like at the uni) is counterproductive

Not to discuss the progress, but to discuss the ideas. I won't describe this again since you can go back to the question to understand what I mean. And I am not saying the pairing scheme should be imposed, I am saying it should be allowed. Again read below point 2 in the question.

Also I don't know what you mean with these people are adults. They are adults with mental-health issues: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03489-1

@Luismi98: I honestly do not understand your point (and I read closely your question). You can have someone to discuss your ideas (if there is such someone, i.e. if they have a similar area of research). I do not see how formally pairing people can help. I had peopel I discussed my ideas with, from time to time, when there was a reason to do so. This is completely natural during a PhD (you usually have seminars to encourage that).

@Luismi98: They are adults with mental-health issues ohhhh, some have problems, some don't. I did a PhD in physics, not the simplest subject as you can imagine, and we had the time of our lives during that time (one of the best of my life). By adults I mean that you do not need to hold them by the hand - these people are supposed to build the research of tomorrow.

My point is that despite having people around you to discuss ideas with, nobody understands the nits-and-grits of your project like you do, and this is what leads to people ending up feeling lonely and overwhelmed. Sharing the mental-power and responsability with someone in the same boat as you can be really benefitial to the mental wellbeing of PhDs and in consequence for the research itself too

@Luismi98 Sharing the mental-power and responsibility with someone This is a PhD. Something where you are supposed to do research on your own. There is no shared responsibility - you are responsible. At some point, this is a choice of life and lifestyle.

"They are adults with mental-health issues ohhhh, some have problems, some don't. I did a PhD in physics, not the simplest subject as you can imagine, and we had the time of our lives during that time (one of the best of my life)." The literal title of this nature article is The mental health of PhD researchers demands urgent attention and you choose to mock it because you had a nice time during your PhD? Honestly good for you but try to look beyond your personal experience

"This is a PhD. Something where you are supposed to do research on your own. There is no shared responsibility - you are responsible. At some point, this is a choice of life and lifestyle.". If it is a choice then let people choose. Benefitting from having a partner to discuss ideas with in the day-to-day of a PhD does not make you less capable.

@Luismi98 you choose to mock it - I do not mock anything. People have mental problems everywhere, and putting them in pairs is not the solution, that's all. If you have nobody to talk to, for any reason, the fact that you will be paired will not solve anything. You need to address the core issue (depresssion, overwork, ...). I am not even touching the topic of research which is an individual task for a PhD student. Is some telling you not to find a work buddy? Forcing you to be alone? No? So simply go for it. (by "you" I mean the general you)

Your answer can be summarised to "Some people prefer to work on their own" (correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't think you've answered my question so as to claim putting them in pairs is not the solution, that's all.

@Luismi98  If it is a choice then let people choose: EXACTLY. Go for it! Do not expect that the university will set pairs. Why not triplets or quintuplets then? Again - PhD students are adults. They make choices, including the one to choose someone to daily discuss their work or not.

@Luismi98: I don't think you've answered my question my answer to your question is: pairing people is not a solution to research. It can work for some, not for some others. You are free to choose the way you want without the uni holding your hand. There is no need to formalize this.

This is quite field specific. In biology it is very common for research to be a team undertaking. For example, the new project we are just starting has a team of 2 postdocs and 2 PhD students. Now, in general this isn't complete pairing, in that a given experiment will probably only be done by one person, and certainly one person at a time, but if things go well, this team will discuss things on at least a daily basis, if not more frequently.
Indeed, such is strength of this team attitude that one of the main roles of a thesis committee is to make sure a student has sufficient material they can call theirs that they can write a thesis that is based on their own work - in the end, in order to certify someone is a capable researcher, you need to know what they did, and what others did, and what were their ideas, and what someone elses. One cannot keep working with a pair forever - there is a reason that companies only have one CEO, or even one team leader.
There is also the credit issue - if things are done in a team, who comes first on the authorship list (as even where contributions are marked as "equal" or "co-first", people often distinguish between first-first and second-first).
I had assumed that this was also the case in physics, where paper authorships can run into the hundreds.
One distorted version of this is when two people put on the same project end up competing, rather than collaborating. This could be due to their personalities, but there are also stories of supervisors setting two people the same problem and saying "the first to solve it get the publication/grant". Giving people related projects, or specified parts of a whole, avoids this.
I have to say that far from loneliness, the team spirit and "lab families" I have encountered in science is one of the things I find most appealing about the job.

In addition to what others have said about collaboration within the broader research group being more important:

Ad-hoc pairing on a sub-project can be really useful and get results.  I've got several co-authorships that way, including my most highly cited paper, and another that actually involved 3 postgrads from 2 groups working rather closely together.
Forming these ad-hoc pairings (whether with other postgrads or postdocs) is a skill to learn in itself.
Two postgrads, even if they can be recruited at the same time, are rarely working on such similar material that they can both work as a pair and get sufficient results for two PhD theses.
Funding: even with a plentiful supply of willing students, getting PhD positions funded is hard to very hard for the PI/head of group.

This is largely from a physical sciences point of view, but informed by conversations I've had with other early career researchers across fields

While it might be viable as an option, if you can figure out how to deal with problems such as one member doing the lion's share of the work, it wouldn't work for everyone.
First, and fairly obviously, is your university, department, and research lab large enough that there are likely to be two people at the same level who want to work on the same idea?
Second, perhaps not so obviously, is that not all people are alike.  Even the statistics you quote show that: there are plenty of people who DON'T experience those symptoms of loneliness, anxiety, & depression, or at least aren't bothered by them.  By the same token, there are people who very much dislike working closely with others.  Force those people to do so, and odds are they'll soon be the ones reporting psychological problems.

There is another aspect to this: Lack of a functioning research group...
As a result you find a topic "dumped" on you as some funding was available and you get to pick up the pieces trying to figure out what to do... Then once you finish your PhD, you leave and with you all the knowledge you had. The person who comes along a few years later once again has to start from scratch...
I think pairing up people can also be difficult with respect to making sure that your PhD is your work as well as with respect to "ownership" on publications, even more so given how some people seem to be most intent to just profit for themselves rather than truly share/collaborate...
However this can easily be resolved by having multiple people work on different aspects of the same niche as then these people can bounce ideas off each other while not being in direct competition and in fact benefiting even more as they bring different backgrounds and thus ideas to the topic.
(This is possibly more a comment than a real answer, but it is another, let me say experience...)

I think there is no proper reason and the scientific community loses many opportunities by sticking to this concept of letting PhD students mainly do their research on their own.
Of course, there is no doubt, that working in a team can be hard and challenging. And sometimes you have to make compromises and even admit that you were wrong and your collaborator had just better ideas.
But for the personal development, this - in my opinion - can only be beneficial as the PhD students learn how to collaborate, how to support each other and how you can benefit from specific skills of each of the team members.

Some of the previous answers argue that it will be difficult to decide in the end who is more responsible for the results, or who really made the work.
I think, as long as you do a good job, the people in your lab will notice, and they will see that you are dedicated to do your job, and that you are interested in doing research.
Moreover, the underlying assumption at this point is that science is rather competitive than collaborative.
As there is always a tension between competition and collaboration, the former one usually goes with separation as the latter one will lead to community. And as long-time separation is a breeding ground for anxiety and depression, having a strong community leads to security and a general well-being. (Admittedly, this is an assumption, but in my opinion a well-thought one.)

I, personally, was during my post-graduate studies in a working group with ~10 team members, where almost none of the PhD students could really talk with any of their colleagues as the topics of each of them were simply too far apart. Needless to say, that the atmosphere was kind of depressive. And most of them actually did not advise me to do a PhD for exactly that reason.
In essence, I think we only grew faster, personally and mentally, when we collaborate and encourage PhD students to do so.

This seems to be about more general collaboration, not pairing as such.

@Buffy Yes, it covers both, indeed

@Buffy I would even improve my comment and say that pairing is a part of collaboration

Actually, at that time I was working in a Computational Sciences Institute. And we did not have seperate offices, usually there were 3-4 people in each office. - The personal relationships were actually quite good, I would say. More difficult were the scientific relationships: The research topics of each of the members were just so far apart from each other that it was often more sensible to talk about the weather than about each others research findings. At least as much as I know - I was just a post-graduate student at that time...

I'll summarize my answer with: A PhD is not the moment for that.
Groupwork in undergraduate is extremely important because for those who do not follow academic careers it might be much more important to have social rather than technical skills. This is often said about many professions that are not highly technical, and at high-level management positions, technical knowledge is often of lesser importance compared to other skills, with great attention to managing and communicating with people.
During a Master's degree I'd expect someone to interact a lot with his/her advisor, co-advisor, and lab colleagues, maybe naturally find someone akin to what you describe as a research partner. Because at that moment the goal is to learn well all the stuff required to reach the edge of knowledge, to understand the state of the art, to learn how to stand on the shoulders of giants. So getting help and giving help within this context is good for everyone, as long as your master thesis remains, well yours. Some of this should still take place during a PhD, but some level of independence should also surface at this point.
I understand that a PhD is also a gateway that separates people who find research interesting in principle but are simply not fit for it (I find bodybuilding very interesting but have absolutely no place being a professional bodybuilder). It is a one-shot opportunity of demonstrating your capabilities to master the state of the art in a scientific subject, develop a rather complex project, execute it, make a verified contribution to the state of the Art, and last but not least take credit for it. You may disagree with this, but a lot of regulations in my country seem centered around those principles, such as you cannot ask for funding in a public agency unless you have a PhD (because the government does not trust you to conduct research with their money unless you have a PhD).
Once you've done it, society recognizes that you've shown yourself capable of:

Understanding the state of the art in a scientific field
Reviewing the scientific literature of your field
Advising other students
Managing research
Reviewing proposed research articles

Now, you are eligible for several jobs in academia and in the industry where those skills are required, and guess what? You are in general not allowed to have a partner in all of those activities. The same way that the CEO position is very rarely shared between two or more people, any pure research or R&D project with grants, liabilities, and staff to manage require that one person to be ultimately responsible for some decision making, even if there is a group of people one can ask for guidance.
If your university forced or strongly incentivized students to pair up for PhD programs, can you really be sure that each member of every pair has demonstrated all such skills? I mean, if you feel at lost when you're not sure what to do with your research, you'll feel the same when you are no longer able to pay for a researcher's stipend because your project lost its grant, or if you have to fire an employee because the R&D project got canceled or a budget cut. The feeling is natural and not a problem, but handling the situation is the required skill.
To be clear, I'm not saying a PhD degree is the ultimate absolute proof of any of that, but it should be distinguished as a very strong indication of such.
Thinking back, I've seen many group projects in grad school where out of five students, one would do absolutely nothing, I've seen students who would often get help from one of the class top students and literally claim that they owed their (undergrad) degrees to that student. I've also worked with a guy in a company who was basically unable to do anything meaningful on his own.That guy enrolled in a Master's program and failed to deliver a thesis. Which was no surprise, as he always needed someone else to bridge gaps in his knowledge, plan things for him or review his ideas (preferably also correcting mistakes) and give him suggestions. When his advisor refused to hold his hand and act as a partner such as what you described, he just could not deliver. Do these descriptions paint him as someone who is really knowledgeable in his field, and thus able to manage research, advise students and review other people's work?  Maybe you'd like to have a guy like this as a partner, but surely I'd prefer not to have him as an advisor or as a research manager. Let alone as a researcher in your university.
All that being said, once the PhD is finished, and this minimal demonstration of individual capacity is performed I'd see no problem in pairing up with another researcher for future work, no matter if for post-grads or tenured professors. Whatever is better than the sum of parts seems welcome if you ask me. However, once again, if either member of the duo decides to quit for a better position, gets hit by a bus or if the relationship sours, the remaining person is still expected in real life to be able to perform as an individual.

There seem to have been many good answers already and (sorry!) I haven't gone through all of them.
In my mind, you hit the nail on the head right at the beginning when you said, "they make students work in pairs. I loved my final year research project".  In undergraduate work, you work in pairs, but usually in your third or final year...  Paired work usually comes at the end of your undergraduate studies.
PhD is at the beginning of independent research.  You're looking at it as if it comes after your final year of undergraduate studies.  So if you did paired work then, then surely the next step should be more paired work or even group work.  But PhD is (IMHO) the first step of another journey and not the continuation of your previous journey.
After you obtain your PhD, you'll have ample opportunities as a post-doctoral fellow and beyond to work in pairs or groups.  Quite literally, if you choose to remain in academia then for the rest of your life, you'll work with others so much you'll get sick of it...  The PhD is the beginning of this journey and it's this brief part when yes, you work alone.
(Of course, not every PhD program is like this.  It varies from university-to-university and country-to-country.  From personal experience, once you open up "group work" right at the beginning of a PhD, many people will abuse it.  Sure -- perhaps you're a good person and you wouldn't dream of it...but many, sadly, would.  It would be like allowing paired work and open book exams in first year of your undergraduate studies.)
Lastly, we should separate the PhD degree from the ability to do research.  Anyone can do research without a PhD degree.  So, two people (i.e., A and B) who have been brought into a lab to work together can be hired as research assistants (well, the term varies from country to country...but basically, the only qualification needed is an undergraduate degree) and produce a unit of research as a research publication with join co-authorship.  So, no university (AFAIK) is stopping joint, collaborative work...

"if you choose to remain in academia then for the rest of your life, you'll work with others so much you'll get sick of it... The PhD is the beginning of this journey and it's this brief part when yes, you work alone". This is what I was referring to in point 3 in the question: if you're going to work collaboratively after your PhD, and assumming you'd benefit from doing your PhD with a pair (again this should be an allowed choice), why make people do the PhD research on their own?

No...not in my opinion.  Because you need to be able to work by yourself before you can work with other people.  You're making research different from other occupations and it isn't.  Clearly, no one can build a bridge or a building by themselves -- they work in a team.  But no one would disagree that the first years of an undergraduate engineering degree in construction would involve lots of solitary work.  Not building bridges, but of independent exercises.  This is what the PhD is about...it's this period of preparation of what's to come.

Also, you do work as a pair...you're supposed to be working with your PhD adviser throughout.  You're not really alone; I never was.  If you think you are working alone, then it sounds like you have an issue with your PhD studies arrangement.  That's a completely separate question from what you're asking.

"Because you need to be able to work by yourself before you can work with other people". If someone can do their best work when they are working with a "PhD partner", and it leads to happier PhD students who feel more confident and motivated (again not necessarily applicable to everyone), then why do they need to show they can work on their own if they will later work with other people?

Regarding the PhD adviser being your pair, this is clearly not what I mean in the question. The question concerns people who really benefit from having a person next to them in the day-to-day working on the same project.

I'm sorry but this might seem harsh, but what you're describing isn't a PhD program and various people here have been trying to explain that to you.  Yes, happiness is important.  But you can do research with lots of people.  No one is stopping you from doing that.  You just don't get the "PhD" title to your name, which to me, represents the demonstration of independent research as a foundation of what's to come.  Perhaps some university will create the "PhD" program you describe, but then it shouldn't be called a "PhD"...it should have a new name to it to distinguish itself from a PhD.

I was able to discuss with my PhD adviser as well as members of his lab on a regular basis.  If you need day-to-day interactions in order to do research, then that's ok.  That's you.  But that's not a PhD program and I fear you signed up for something without knowing exactly what it is.  (You aren't the first person to have such criticism.)  Rather than complain about the PhD, I think it's more fruitful to ask why society "requires" a PhD to demonstrate research ability.  Then, somone who works the way you work can do so while bypassing the "lack of happiness" of a PhD.

Some answers agree with you some don't. Why exactly does it have to be a proof of independent research? If having a pair empowers some to make the most of their research experience and be the most productive and effective researchers they can be, they will end up equally (or arguably better) prepared than someone who did it alone.


text:
Can I mention the names of three professors in my Statement of Purpose even if I don't get any response from them?
I am going to apply to the US universities for the fall, 2022 for PhD. I have decided to include the names and research interests of three professors in my SOP with whom I would like to work, if I get admitted to their university. I have tried to contact them but haven't got any response. Therefore, I don't know whether they have any funding to take new graduate students in their labs in the fall, 2022 or not.
So, my question is, if I mention their names in my SOP as a prospective student, will it harm my chance of getting admitted or will it be a wise decision to include their names and research interests in my SOP?
Thanks in advance.

@RamPadmanabhan sorry, I disagree. I think it hits the sweet spot between casting too wide a net that it comes across as indecisive (name-dropping 5-6 profs) and narrowing down too much, which could kill your chances, especially when, as OP's situation here suggests, one does not know if the one or two profs are not interested or not taking students that year.

The answer to this may be field specific. Mentioning possible advisers in math would be completely natural in this context. But you mention "labs" which suggest you are in another field. It may be best to actually ask someone in your undergrad department (possibly someone writing a rec letter) what the norm is in your field.

@JoshuaZ actually I am from biological sciences and I will pursue my PhD in either biochemistry or physiology. In my field, what I have heard so far, that the students who apply to the US, are not necessarily required to manage professors. But mentioning the names and their research in the SOP will give some evidence that one has done some homework before applying. Normally, in the US, a professor owns his own lab and research team.

Assuming you do not want to work with any of the other faculty, there is no downside to identifying the three faculty you want to work with.  If you are rejected because those three faculty do not want you, then you saved some time.
The advantages of demonstrating that you thought out what you wanted will always outweigh the risk of naming the faculty you want to work with.

Unless you are in a field where the PI hires doctoral students directly into their lab, you aren't likely to get a response from anyone prior to admission. This is especially true if you are applying with only a bachelors.
But, in any case, most universities have a requirement that you pass a set of preliminary/qualifying/comprehensive exams before you get very serious about doctoral research. This is to assure that you have a broad knowledge of your general field and may require some advanced coursework to pass them.
Since you haven't gotten a reply, then I'll assume that this is the situation at this university.
I don't think that mentioning three professors is necessarily bad, but it isn't really necessary either. If all of them are in a fairly narrow subfield that interests you, it might be enough just to name that subfield.
However, don't overly focus your SoP on these people, or spend too many words on this particular thing. You want to convey your future goals and plans both for your studies and thereafter. Some specificity is needed for this so that you don't appear to be unfocused.
The advantage of the US system, with admissions handled by committee and advisors chosen rather late, is that you get to meet potential advisors before you make a choice. There is more to consider in choosing an advisor to assure that you find someone who is both compatible and who will also provide the appropriate level of support. You might even be able to take a class with a potential advisor and establish some rapport. If you have to choose only based on their field, it is possible to make a serious mistake.
So, naming three is a bit of overkill, but not bad, as long as you use the available space in the SoP to say all that needs to be said.

It depends on the regulation, some Univ. must have confirmation by the advisor, since they offer you the position to work. Others are just a make sure checklist that proved you did doing some visiting and conversation with faculty.
You might need to contact the office of your department.
If this is just a checklist procedure, then it would be fine you can mention whoever's name on the list.

Thank you, but I think you haven't understood my question. I am going to apply to a university for PhD, lets say Emory University, now the program where I am going to apply has 5-6 professors with whom I would like to work during my PhD. I have tried to contact them but none of them answered, so I do not know whether they have any funding to take new students. So, can I mention their names in my SOP as a prospective student even if they do not respond?

Yes, this is just a checklist procedure and the intended university does not require managing professors before application. I just want to put their names in SOP to showcase that I have made some research on their university. Thank you very much btw for your suggestion.

I think the most important thing is you find the best candidates matching your research interest, and rank them after you interviewed them. In my case, I studied electronic engineering Ph.D. , if my ideal profs didn't accept me(all of them), then I would give up and search for another univ. One of my friends studied bio. Ph.D. , his advisor is just not the candidate on the checklist for the procedure. Last year he finish his degree and continues to stay there as a Postdoc.

The statement of purpose should be a succinct statement for specific reasons why you have chosen the institution.
What do you value, specifically, about the University, and how does its resources specifically parallel to your scholarly pursuits.
Mentioning professors in this statement in my opinion would not be appropriate. Instead, it is a statement to “sell yourself, to the institution— tell him why you are better than the other applicant to be admitted.
What truly exceptional qualities do you possess to be admitted at the institution specifically.
When preparing the statement for graduate study, universities are specifically looking for scholars that have the same interests as professors at the University currently has on staff
You need the state, why specifically, a specific professor within the department in which you were interested possesses a interest that you wish to pursue scholarly pursuits during your time, and how specifically those pursuits would create significant change or creative findings within that field… that are exceptional.

Most PhD students are not exceptional.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
About detemining the time of interview
I have been asked for a faculty position interview. Regarding the time, in their email they have only asked me about my availability for two days without a specific time. I want to know that in my confirmation reply, should I provide a specific time for interview or I just determine the day?

One should ask them specifically. It may be an all-day (or two-day) process. A one-hour interview for a faculty position seems unlikely.

I think an accurate answer to this question requires us to know exactly what they've asked. If they've asked "Could you confirm your availability for 1st & 2nd June", the expected answer is probably along the lines of "I'm available all day on the 1st, and any time after 1pm on the 2nd". Once they've collected this information from everyone they'll schedule the interviews accordingly.

You must ask them. Or read their email very carefully to see whether it is implied. Even if it is implied, emailing them to confirm doesn't cost anything. For what it's worth, I'd guess they're asking you to specify two full days during which you'll be available...

My interpretation would be that they want to know what times you would be free on those two days, perhaps for a one hour interview.
I'm assuming that they've named the days.
If so, give them several options if possible. Send them an email with open times that work for you.

If it's a job you want, either clear your calendar for the two days they are proposing, or propose two days when you are free all day.  It's not clear from your question if they are proposing the days or asking you to propose them.

They told me that they are in the stage of arranging interviews and mentioned that about my availablity for two days.

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


text:
Sending email to two supervisors
I found an open postdoc position which is a project with two supervisors. I sent an inquiry email to one of supervisors 5 days ago about the position, but I have not received a reply from her yet. Is it Ok to send same email to another supervisor ( and I mention that I have sent an email to his colleague) in order to ask my questions?

I would say that 5 days is not much (especially if it includes the weekend, even tho academic tend to consider weekends as workdays). I would wait a bit more, they may have just not processed your message (if the deadline is very close, then maybe you can send an email to the other supervisor)

In this period of the year, researchers may have conferences/seminars. So, 5 days are ok.

Five days isn’t long in academic time, especially now(June). But you can send mail to the second person.
It would probably have been better to send mail to both initially but it is too late for that now.
Mention in the email that you have already contacted the first person.


text:
A mistake in revised version
I have already submitted a revised version of my manuscript after considering the referees' reports. The paper is now in the final stage of reviewing by associated editor. I noticed that there is a mistake in the reference list and one reference has been repeated twice. What is the proper way in this stage that I can do?

I have already submitted a revised version of my manuscript after considering the referees' reports. The paper is now in the final stage of reviewing by associated editor.

You either fix it during the next round of revisions or during proofs. There is no need to contact anyone. The journal may even catch the mistakes, depending on what they are.


text:
What is the meaning of "To appear" for submitted papers
In some C.V. I see the statement "To appear in X Journal" in front of some papers. What is the exact meaning of that? Does it mean that the paper has been submitted to X journal?

Based upon the context, I would treat to appear as a synonym to accepted or in press. This article means has been accepted, but not yet published. Most journals have a lag between acceptance and online publication (conversely, others journals now post the accepted manuscript almost immediately after acceptance). This lag can be due to a backlog of other articles ahead of yours, copy editing, formatting, or other procedural delays. Before online early access, articles could spend months or longer in this status (e.g., an article was accepted for quarterly publication and had to wait multiple quarters to be published).
Another question asks about how article status is evaluated by search committees.
I would also add that you likely have no way of verifying to appear other than waiting. I have heard about search committees and tenure/promotion committees asking for copies of acceptance letters, however.

"I would also add that you likely have no way of verifying to appear other than waiting."  You could write to the editor to inquire about it.  I don't see why that would be treated as confidential information: on the contrary, many journals now post lists of accepted papers online.

It probably means more than that - it indicates that the paper has been accepted. If it's just been submitted, there's a nontrivial chance of rejection, so it might not appear; however after a paper's been accepted it's very rare for the paper not to be published, so one can say "to appear".


text:
Asking about the results of interview
I had an interview for a position in a math department. At the end of interview, is it necessary to ask them about the approximate time of releasing result?

It's not necessary to ask this question, but it's a perfectly normal to do so. I don't see any negative repercussions from asking. The information is useful if you are having another interview or waiting to hear the outcome of another application, as it can help you work out when you will have to make a decision on which to accept (if you get another offer). The interviewers may even ask you if you have any such deadlines.
I also find it helpful to ask this type of question because it helps me manage the stress of waiting for a result: if I know I won't find out for two weeks, then I won't be checking my emails daily expecting to hear. You may find the information helpful in the same way.


text:
To whom the follow up email must be sent?
I interviewed for a Math faculty position including with four persons. I want to know about follow up email. Should I send the follow up email for each an every body in the interview board?

What "follow up email" are you asking about? A reply to something from them, or just a thank you? Something else?

@Buffy I sent a thank you email in the day of interview. Now it is almost one week after interview and I want to send a follow up email to ask them about any result.

@user40491 Unless you were the very last person, there is a 0% chance they've made a decision in less than a week. If you were the last person, it increases to <1%.

I was in many hiring committees in math. If it was the last of several interviews for the position, the decision was likely made during the same day. If so there is no need in any follow up letter. If it was not the last interview, then it is too early for any follow up letter. In any case if the decision is positive you will hear from the hiring committee soon after it is made.


text:
Redrawing a schematic diagram/image/schematic circuits to avoid Copyright infringement in publication
From other discussion in Academia SE and other source, I got an impression that redrawing is to avoid Copyright infringement. link1 link2 link3 not from SE link4 link5
I cannot comment there to ask doubt because lack of reputation.
My post here is about redrawing schematic diagram/schematic circuit/3D visualization, not (re-)plotting data.
My question:

Do I still need permission from the original paper/author if I redraw schematic diagram/schematic circuit/3D visualization?
Why rotating 3D graph is considered OK ? link4.  I am not sure about "OK" here, is OK=no need for permission?
The author in link1 found a better drawing than his/her own that describes same idea. in the comment section, he/she was planning to use his own drawing if the author could not get permission or did not want to pay licence. From here, I got an impression that redrawing is a work around if we do not want to deal with permission/licence. But, is it legit?
How about citation? Do I need to cite after redrawing?

assume:

"fair use" does not apply here.
asking legal permission from publisher is not free.

I am writing a technical report for a research project, a project before master thesis.

In general, there is no "default" legit -- you can cite another paper by copying text/image from there, and if the copyright holder brings you to the court, it's up to a judge to decide whether it was proper citation or infringement. Is asking the orginal author for a permission not an option (just to be on the safe side)?

copy/paste without permission is against the law. I checked it online, the permission is not free.

As was asked in the first comment, ask the original author for permission. Remember, plagiarism is also taking ideas... so just moving a couple of components won’t cut it...

@Codelearner777 Citing someone is also "copy&paste". In most books they say explicitly that "no part of this book can be reproduced", and yet we cite them, i.e. reproduce. My point is that I personally believe that copying a picture might constitute legitimate citation, but there is no "default" rule -- they bring you to the court, and then the judge will decide whether it was appropriate. Not the best perspective, of course. In your case I would simply refer the reader to the image in a particular paper without providing the image (given that it is just a tech report).

Question 1
Since you have asked us to assume that fair use does not apply (a big assumption!), your question hinges on "copyrightability." In the United States, one requirement for copyright protection is that the material have "at least a modicum of creativity." (That comes from Feist, a Supreme Court case about the uncopyrightability of the white pages of a phone book.) The standard line is that facts aren't copyrightable, only expression. Relatedly, the scènes à faire doctrine eliminates copyright protection for tropes and conventions, and the merger doctrine eliminates copyright for very simple expressions of facts. A selection or arrangement of uncopyrightable components is copyrightable, so long as there is creativity in that selection or arrangement.
Here's an example from the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (2017):

The Office may register a work comprised of rocks that are selected, coordinated, arranged, and fixed in such a way as to result in a sculptural work. Likewise, the Office may register a photograph of a rock, a drawing of a hand-tool, or a written expression of an idea. However, the Office cannot register a mere “compilation of ideas,” a mere “selection and arrangement of hand-tools,” or a mere “compilation of rocks,” because ideas, handtools, and rocks do not constitute copyrightable subject matter under Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act.

If you use only uncopyrightable components of the original and do not copy a creative arrangement of those components, then you do not need permission (nor do you need to rely on fair use). This is simply something copyright permits, without permission from the rightsholder in the original work.
I've based my answer on U.S. law, which is my expertise, but this concept of copyrightability has equivalents in every copyright regime. The details, including the threshold of copyrightability, do vary significantly. For a slightly more international perspective, you might want to check out Copyright for Librarians, Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law.
So, the answer to question 1 is, "it depends." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (A lawyer's answer, I know. Sorry!)
Question 2
As for question 2, rotating a 3D graph, I disagree with the assessment that that's "OK," but perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Certainly reproducing a 2D graph with a 90 degree transformation would implicate the reproduction right. Perhaps what is meant with the 3D graph is such a rotation as to require creation of new material (e.g., showing only the side that wasn't visible).
Question 3
Certainly it is "legit" if it doesn't involve copying copyrightable material.
Question 4
Whether to cite the original depends on what your version looks like, as well as the norms within your discipline. In the U.S., citation is not a matter of copyright law. In countries with stronger moral rights regimes (virtually all other countries), attribution can be a matter of copyright law, but if your new figure only uses uncopyrightable components, that still shouldn't be an issue.
Expertise: I am a U.S. lawyer who works in an academic library teaching faculty, staff, and students about copyright law.

(Not an expert on this topic, just wrestled with the same questions)
I think what you ask is largely covered in the accepted answer to this question you linked. In particular,

The new plot [schematic in your case] needs to do one of two things:

present materially different content relative to the old image
present the same material in a different context.

So:

If this is a schematic of a fundamental concept (e.g., Gauss's Law) and you redraw it in a way that is substantively different (e.g., not identical with trivial recoloring, etc.) then you are fine.

If the schematic is of proprietary technology (e.g., an Intel E6590 chip) and you redraw it in essentially the same way with the same context, then it is copyright infringement.

In practice, you are likely somewhere between these extremes, but the specifics matter a lot -- it is hard to define what is "reasonable" and what is not; it comes down to what a judge decides.

As for citing, that really has nothing to do with copyright infringement. In the first case, you wouldn't need to cite since you are presenting fundamental information in a new way. In the second case, citing would not be enough (saying thank you as you steal someone's IP does not help). After you are clear on the copyright, you can decide if you have (legally) used enough content that citation is justified.


text:
What kind of citing permission do I need for a research project (not a master thesis) report that I am writing?
In my master program, there is a so called Research Project worth 20 credits.
This is done before the Master Thesis.
Not all the publisher website provide "reuse for technical report" option for using their pictures and tables when we want to ask for the permission.
IEEE have "reuse for report" but I found it that I need to pay for reusing the picture.
Should I just use "reuse for thesis/dissertation" option?
Or is there any more correct or better option for this usage?

Is this report going to be published?

@J-Kun, it will not be published.

I think you are mixing two issues up with each other: Copyright and Referencing/Citing sources. The first one is a primarily legal topic whereas the other one comes from scientific integrity and proper work.
Copyright prevents you from directly using material without permission. For example, I cannot simply take an arbitrary figure from another paper or the Internet and publish it in my own paper. Therefore I need to get permission to reuse such a figure in a publication. But mostly not for personal use and stuff which will not get published or spread around.
Referencing and Citing is required in science. This means that you have to give the source of any ideas, equations, figures, ...  which you have not developed and created on your own. Even if you were allowed to reuse material from another paper, you still have to cite it correctly.
For your research project, you should talk to your supervisor. Since it does not get published I assume this is far less critical from a copyright point of view. For example, if I collect information for an internal summary on a topic, e.g., by summarizing the work of other researchers, I do not obtain a permission for these figures since this is way over the top and takes away to much time and resources. Copyright is most important if you want to publish your work. I do not think that your research project requires this, but talk to your supervisor.
Nevertheless, you WILL have to cite all your sources correctly independently from how you decide to handle the copyright.


text:
University Tuition Fee Loans in UK
The UCAS student finances page that the undergraduate tuition fee loan is paid directly to the insititution.

Tuition fee loans, to cover the full cost of your course, are paid directly to the course provider, and you won’t have to pay it back until after your course, when you’re earning above a certain level.

And that you do not have to have a confirmed offer before applying for the loan.

Applications for courses starting in 2021 will open early 2021, for a loan to cover tuition fees (paid directly to the university) and maintenance costs (paid directly into your bank account at the start of term). This is available wherever you choose to study in the UK, and is repayable. You don’t need to have a confirmed offer of a place at uni to start the process.

How does this work in practice? As a student I have a first and second choice institution, both offers are grade dependent. Do I apply for two separate loans for each institution and wait to see which offer I accept?

I applied in 2013 so this is testing my memory a bit, but I think you only need to apply for one loan, which will then be paid to whichever university you eventually go to (as tuition fees are virtually the same everywhere). However, things might have changed, so you could always email UCAS or Student Finance England to check.

You apply for a student loan for yourself, not in relation to any particular course.
Once you register for the course at the university where you have a confirmed place it triggers the release of your loan and maintenance payment. It is normal for students to have a first choice and second choice university through UCAS. That is how it works.
If you do not get a place or do not start a university course then no loan money is paid to you or the university.
Yes: you do need a confirmed offer to start the process, but that does not need to be the university you eventually go to, as you may go elsewhere through clearing.
So:

Apply to several universities and courses of your choice through UCAS
Hopefully get some offers back
Choose an offer as first choice and one as second choice
Apply for a student loan
Wait for the exam results (if applicable)
If rejected by your first and second choice, apply to clearing
When a university place is found, await their student registration process
Register and get your student card
Your loan is activated

If a confirmed offer is not required, then step 4 happens after step 1, otherwise no different!
Hopefully that is clearer?

I am familiar with the process for postgraduate taught degres. For that case if you wanted the tuition fees to be directly paid to the university you would have to have secured the loan and finished the actual process before being officially enrolled, but accepted an offer. Then the funds would be directly paid to the university. As a result, it would require that you have an offer and a UK bank account at most by August.
However, tuition fee loans can also be paid to your personal account and then you can transfer the money to the university by using the payment methods they provide.
The admissions office of your university could provide further info and are generally really helpful (from personal experience).

This is for an undergraduate course, so it is likely to be a bit different, but thanks for the suggestion of the admissions office.


text:
How to demonstrate your ability to publish in high-impact venues? (Application form)
I was applying for a postdoc position and I came across this sentence.

Please provide examples of when you have demonstrated your ability to publish in high-impact venues

This one is confusing and a bit redundant because they previously asked me about my experience in fields X and Y. So, I don't know how to address this question without mentioning (again) my experience in the fields X and Y. All I did, is deliberately avoid, in the previous question, talking about my publications in journals and conferences. Any ideas about this? Do the examples they're talking about are: my publications in journal A and a conference B?

The phrasing of their sentence seems a bit odd. I don't see how one could answer that question without giving examples of published papers in high-impact venues, and at this point they could just ask for a list of papers in high-impact venues.

That's exactly what I am thinking. I think that these sentences are automatically generated from the job description or something. There other sentences that also ask for the same thing.

The ideal way to "demonstrate your ability" is by stating that you've successfully done it. So, an optimal answer to this question would be along the lines of:

I have published 12 papers in top-tier journals and conferences, including the Annals of Mathematics, Physical Review Letters, and the International Conference on Machine Learning. My h-index is 65 and 4 of my papers have been cited over 1000 times each. I am already pursuing many additional lines of research that will let me continue this rate of publication.

Now if your publication record is less impressive, you might not be able to give a strong answer like the above, but you'll still have to make the best case possible that you will be able to produce several top-tier publications if they hire you. This is different than the previous questions, which focused more generally on your skills, interests, and experience.

... And I have a number of potentially productive relationships going with collaborators.

Mmm interesting, unfortunately I don't have an impressive publication record like that, I just defended my PhD... But that gave me an idea about how to write my answer..


text:
Should postdocs give fewer (or otherwise different) status updates than PhD students?
This question is a bit weird to ask because generally speaking, a normal answer will be "the same way you used to work as a PhD student" but I am not sure if I picked a "bad" habit from my previous experience.
Context:
As a first task as a postdoc, I have received a short abstract with an expected research outcome (a detailed technical report) and some sub steps to achieve the research outcome. These sub-steps are important tasks on their own and will need some research and time, I understand that. So, here is what I did, I read articles in the first week and I prepared a small draft (one page) highlighting key ideas that will help me achieve the first sub-task. The issue, is that I needed some further clarification about the abstract as this will help me decide which direction I should follow next, but at the same time, I wanted to send something to the PI in the first week and not "disappear" after receiving the research abstract, but I haven't received a response in 3 days and I don't know if I created a good impression.
Now I am wondering, how does a postdoc work in the first place (research methodology)? am I expected to have big results every-time I reach out to the PI? When I was a phd student, I used to send weekly (sometimes 2 weeks) updates to my supervisors. These updates were either progress status or problems I was stuck at! Is this approach acceptable for a postdoc?

Interesting question...I suggested a more precise version of the title, the original was very broad...feel free to revise as needed

No, this title is perfect, I spend some time thinking of a representative title and I didn't find a good one.. thank you!

Three days for a reply is very (very) short. A nanosecond in academic time.

I'd wager that both 1) the variance in expectations among PIs and 2) the variance in communication styles among graduate students or post docs far exceed the average distinctions between grad students and post docs.
Many labs will have regular group meetings, perhaps weekly. One would expect both grad students and post docs to attend and give regular updates at these meetings. This was my own experience. In some fields, both grad students and post docs may need more "every day" training in the beginning to get up to speed, which might mean more frequent check-ins during that time.
Other labs, and in fields where work is more independent, grad students may mainly check in when they have either produced something worth sharing or are stuck. Perhaps in this context, post docs will check in less often if they have gotten better at solving their own issues. Alternatively, professors may be more proactive in checking in with their graduate students to make sure they aren't wandering off into the woods.
I'd recommend anyone starting in a new position (graduate student, post doc, or employee of any sort; within or outside of academia) have an early conversation with their supervisor to compare expectations and preferences about communication, including frequency (ideally, this would occur in some form before even taking a position, but it's good to revisit once starting, too). This sort of direct conversation is going to be a lot more productive than trying to divinate expectations from the latency or content of email responses, norms experienced by others in other positions, or ones own past experiences. You can start the conversation with how you've interacted with supervisors in the past, if you'd like, and share how you thought that worked well or didn't work for you. Your supervisor may have other ideas. I'd suggest finding a working compromise between the two.

As a post-doc some eons ago, I considered it important to model the expected behavior to the students. That meant giving updates like they did (but hopefully better!). I got lots of good comments on my work, and in turn gave good comments to the students.

@JonCuster I'd definitely agree with that approach, and I think most PIs would appreciate it as well.

@JonCluster That only works if your position allows you any time to give updates beyond "I did a bunch of teaching prep and managed to look at half the draft of student's thesis.


text:
Review confidentiality vs Collaborator Interest conflict
The prevailing view at Are abstracts confidential during the review process? is that all information in the review process is considered confidential, including the information sent to you before you agree (authors, title, abstract).
Two days ago, a collaborator sent me an interesting project proposal which I thought was a really good idea.
Yesterday, I received a request to review a paper (from a different group) that seems to have done pretty much the same thing.
I don't want my collaborators to waste time doing something already done. I also don't want to break confidentiality by telling the collaborators one of the leading groups in the field has already done the thing. What would be the 'correct' thing to do here? I have accepted the review because it's within my area of expertise, but I don't know what, if anything, I can tell my collaborator about the fact that their idea has already been done in a paper I'm reviewing.

I don't think it would be unethical to tell them that what they propose is very close to a paper currently under review. Suggest they wait before spending too much effort.
Don't give details, even if pressed. You don't need to say you are the reviewer and especially details about the paper. All you reveal is the existence of such a work.
This doesn't seem to break the rules at Nature as given in an answer to the linked question.
You could finesse it also, by saying you think it better to wait a bit before pursuing that - giving even less information.
You could also, of course, seek some advice from the editor.


text:
Rejection of papers after a long time
I have already submitted a manuscript to an outstanding math journal. It is under review for about 9 months. I would like to know about the probability of rejection of a paper after 9 months?

The paper probably won't get a desk reject at this stage, assuming some competency. But, beyond that, it's difficult to comment.

As a cultural norm, mathematicians are encouraged to recommend rejection quickly if they don't think the claimed results of a paper are good enough or important enough to be published in the journal in question.  2) Some journals, particularly high prestige journals, have a two-stage process where they first ask an expert to determine if the paper is important enough before having the paper undergo an actual review.  3) Of course papers can still be rejected after "real review", for example if the writing is bad or the mathematics is actually wrong.

Did you by chance just sent a gentle email to the Editor in Chief asking about the status of the manuscript? Sometimes they procrastinate like any human being and forget to remind the reviewers to complete their reviews on time

Editor would have rejected it immediately, if it was clearly unsuitable. Though sometimes editors do make mistakes.
Now it is up to the reviewers and the editor. Nine months is not an alarmingly long time. I would not make any deductions based on how long the paper has been under review.


text:
Do medical journals require the authors to upload their raw data in addition to the manuscript?
A clinical trial paper published in one of the most prestigious medical journals (The Lancet) was found by the readers to be using fabricated data. This paper had a huge effect in the world like canceling a lot of similar clinical trials in the world including a clinical trial by the World Health Organisation.
Do medical journals require the authors to upload their raw data in addition to the manuscript?

Some examples of policies (note: excerpts are all very brief, I've included them mostly just to indicate these journals all have policies and that none require all data to be shared, more detail is available at their websites; I included a bit more from The Lancet since it was mentioned in the OP; I made some formatting changes to display better on StackExchange):
JAMA

For reports of randomized clinical trials, authors are required to provide a Data Sharing Statement to indicate if data will be shared or not.

NEJM

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and, therefore, NEJM require investigators to submit a data-sharing statement (2018) and register a data-sharing plan when registering a trial (2019). NEJM has not yet formulated a policy on which types of data-sharing plans are acceptable.

The BMJ
BMJ journals have three tiers of data sharing, marked by journal here.
As a general statement, they write:

We encourage you to make available as much of the underlying data from your article as possible (without compromising participant privacy), but at least the minimum data required to reproduce the results presented in the associated article.

And The Lancet's own policy:

From July 1, 2018, all submitted reports of clinical trials must
contain a data sharing statement, to be included at the end of the
manuscript. Data sharing statements must indicate:
• Whether data collected for the study, including individual
participant data and a data dictionary defining each field in the set,
will be made available to others (“undecided” is not an acceptable
answer);
• What data will be made available (deidentified participant data,
participant data with identifiers, data dictionary, or other specified
data set);
• Whether additional, related documents will be available (eg, study
protocol, statistical analysis plan, informed consent form);
• When these data will be available (beginning and end date, or “with
publication”, as applicable);
• Where the data will be made available (including complete URLs or
email addresses if relevant);
• By what access criteria data will be shared (including with whom,
for what types of analyses, by what mechanism – eg, with or without
investigator support, after approval of a proposal, with a signed data
access agreement - or any additional restrictions).

Summary
Medical journals tend to encourage but not require sharing of data, and it is now standard in most major journals to require some sort of statement about data, either mentioning how data can be obtained or why data cannot be shared. Peer reviewers can also request further analyses or less abstracted data during the peer review process.
Raw data in particular are quite an issue for medical research, because aspects of the data involve the private and often legally protected health information of individuals. Journal policies avoid conflict with these protections or else important research cannot be published there.
Even anonymized data can potentially be revealing and may not be as anonymous as it seems.
Overall, there is a move towards more open data policies, and you'll see from these examples (both quoted and in the linked pages) that they refer to updates in just the past few years.

Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J. M., & De Montjoye, Y. A. (2019). Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nature communications, 10(1), 1-9.


text:
Should I talk about research done in a different field from the department I apply to?
As is, I am applying to CS grad school even though I studied math in undergrad and all my research is in math.
The question is, in my personal statement, how sensible is it to talk in depth about my math research?

Seemingly pro? : Grad schools want to see "research potential" and talking about publishing as a undergrad should help me.
Seemingly con: My CS interests as far afield from my math research so it doesn't seem to make much sense babbling about something unrelated to the field I want to go into. But if this is the case, I don't have much to write about for my POS.

You should talk about the research at least a little. Math research and CS research are very similar in many ways, so the capability to do one is helpful. How much to talk about is trickier and should be something you should discuss with your adviser and others who are more directly familiar with your research itself.


text:
Masters advisors want me to become a Phd Student, but afraid he won't get tenure before I finish
I am a masters student in Computer Science in the U.S. I have been doing research with my advisor for the past year, and I really love the research area that I am doing, and been fortunate enough to publish at a top conference.
My advisor wants me to become his PhD student. He was a new assistant professor hire in 2020, but I think his publication record has been weak. If I start a PhD in 2024, I'm afraid that he'll get booted before I can finish (2029)? Should I still take him up on the offer?

With all due respect... You're a recent graduate, what qualifies you to judge his publication record or tenure chances?

One step at a time. You have to apply and get accepted to the program first. Although this advisor may have some influence (recommendation letter), the decision is made by the selection committe. After that, it'll be another 2 years when you select your dissertation committee. As your accepted answer suggest a lot of things can happen in this time. but NOTE: this doesn't preclude you from working with this advisor, even if they moved to another school.

@ScottishTapWater In any major department, there will be groups undergoing moves and resignations at any given time. It's stressful, expensive, and will easily add years to your degree. Of my fellow students, I can name 3 who didn't complete their degree due to a separate firing and a move. Don't be blinded by the excitement of acceptance, this has and will bite people.

I suggest that you have a conversation with him and ask what the consequences would be if he leaves before you finish. You don't need to raise tenure as a reason. People leave for other reasons. If he is honest with you a solution can be found. And you may be overly harsh in your judgement about his chances for tenure.
In some cases a co-supervisor (tenured and less likely to leave) can be an option. Leaving with him can be an option, though maybe not in this case.
But the department has a responsibility to see that you finish successfully. Hopefully they recognize that. Worst case, though, is that you find someone else and possibly still take some direction from him. Your situation isn't unique.


text:
Can a technological bachelor apply for a master degree course in a first class US university?
If a technological bachelor technologist has the necessary funding to the tuition fees, some years of work experience, excellent GPA/TOEFL/GRE/recommendation letters, can she/he apply for a master degree course in a top american university (such as MIT, UC Berkeley, Stanford, etc) and compete in the normal process?
EDIT
For example, in Brazil they call this degree tecnólogo, but in many countries it could be equivalent to a Bachelor of Technology or B.Tech. In my specific case, it is a Bachelor of Information Technology.

i s'pose it depends on the discipline.  if you were in some Electronics Technology field with, perhaps, a 2-year degree, to be useful in an Electrical Engineering graduate program you would possibly need some serious theoretical study in advanced mathematics and in systems theory.  EETs might not understand the Fourier Transform as deeply as EEs or other engineers/physics/math graduates do.

It's a 4-year degree (20 hours/week) named "Information Technology".

For something like this (that's fairly institution-specific, I personally feel), you're probably better off contacting the admission departments at these universities and asking them directly than you are asking random strangers on the internet :) They'll be able to help you see if your 4-year degree prepared you for their respective curricula.

And, to follow up on @tonysdg comment, they can also point out any specific courses they would want you to have had, and places to take them (either there or, say, at a local community college).

I'm rather confused by this question: what does "technologist" mean in this context, and how are they distinct from other students?

I've added more information. Could it be re-open? @jakebeal? professor Brian?

@VictorF It currently has three votes to reopen, including mine.  Hopefully two more will agree.

"Can you apply to an MS degree in a US university?" and "Can you apply to an MS degree in a first class US university?" are two different questions. I am willing to vote to re-open the former but not the latter because first class university requires more qualifications. Do you have excellent GPA? Do you have excellent TOEFL and GRE scores? Do you have excellent recommendation letters?

OK @scaaahu but now I need to know what is "excellent" GPA and how to get excellent recommendation letters ^^

How does one vote to re-open?

@VictorF - The edits don't address the original problem, which was that you really need to contact each university individually to find out the answer to this question. There is no universal answer to this question. That said, the question will stay here, and if the community feels that it should be re-opened they will vote that way.

@lafemmecosmique - See the privileges page, after you gain a certain amount of reputation you can vote on individual questions.

Guys, thank you for votes. I'd like to see this question reopened soon, as I provided the necessary information .

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

authors: امیرحسین حسنزاده