text:
What can I do with like-new, recent-edition textbooks that I'm not allowed to sell?
My employer is sponsoring most of the tuition and fees for my master's degree (in aerospace engineering), including required textbooks. Thus, it is unethical and against policy for me to sell those books once I'm done with the corresponding courses. Specifically, the policy is that I cannot "make a profit on" them, but other than that I am free to do with them as I please. I find that having the physical book is helpful when I'm taking the course, but afterwards if I need to reference it a digital copy will suffice. And while having my office/residence full of these high-level materials certainly makes me feel good about myself, it's not practical. Thus, what can I do with these textbooks that will have the biggest, most positive impact on academia?

Its not that many books is it? (1) Prominently display in your office as evidence of your company-supported education. (2) Lend to others in the company, and don't care if they come back. (3) Start a local library of technical books.

I like @JonCuster's suggestion #2, but if you're looking for biggest impact on academia, donating the books to a relevant department or deserving students probably goes further.

Certainly check with your employer as to any specific action or policy. Also good to clarify who actually owns the books now. If the employer, then they completely own the decision. If you, they may still have certain expectations you need to satisfy.

I doubt that the policy is worded in precisely that way because "any way" would include gaining knowledge from them.

cannot profit in any way - why is that a thing?

I've found they can make great monitor stands.

@Mazura Since its the employer paying, they would have to treat the sales from the textbooks as wages to the employee for tax and other legal purposes; they might not even really care about the employee profiting from selling a textbook, but having this policy makes sure the company stays in compliance with the laws. Could also prevent fraud where an employee purchased unnecessary books to then resell them, but I think this is highly unlikely to be the true motivation for the policy.

@BryanKrause If it was written specifically for this narrow case, maybe, but I'm guessing this is a special case of a more general policy. There's often a policy that employees can't "dumpster dive" the employer's discards, even if that means wasting otherwise usable items. This is precisely to eliminate the "Oops! I ordered too much. Oh, darn, ... I guess I'll just take it home" conflict of interest. Applying that general policy to this particular situation results in the sort of rule Peter is seeing.

@R.M. In Peter's wording it sounds like it's more specifically related to the textbooks, or at least educational expenses in general that the company is covering that could go toward some tangible product. It's reasonable that they would have a specific policy because textbooks are both A) expensive, and B) commonly resold outside this sort of company arrangement. In any case, the argument isn't specific to textbooks and my point still stands: if the employee takes home cash from something the company bought that they then sold, the company may have to treat that like a wage.

@BryanKrause If this was taxable as a wage, I guess the tuition and fees would be as well. But this need not be the case, see https://study.com/academy/popular/is-tuition-reimbursement-taxable.html for more details.

Is there a legal mechanism for owning a book but not being able to do whatever you want with it? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like if it's yours, you should be allowed to sell it for a million dollars without repercussions -- it's yours. If it's your employer's and merely lent to you, on the other hand, you should be asking them what to do. I've never heard of a book belonging to someone but not being able to be sold by them... you may want to find out what your legal situation is instead of asking in an online forum.

Are there not charity shops (thrift stores?) in your area where you could donate it? In the areas around universities in the UK, charity shops are always piled high with last year's once-used textbooks. Raises money for charity and helps cash-strapped students. Looks like Salvation Army has shops in the US?

@silvado A professional master's program is going to far exceed the $5250 tax-free limit (they're big money makers for departments). What happens is that the employer will "gross-up" the reimbursement, that is, increase the payment to cover the tax to make the out of pocket cost zero (via the sum of an infinite series).

As an academic librarian, I am frequently asked similar questions. First, please don't just drop them off at the library. Unwanted donations are a significant problem at libraries—it's very difficult to recycle books, so libraries end up having to pay to get rid of books we don't need, on top of the time and effort it takes to deal with a big pile of books on our doorstep.
Do feel free to contact a librarian to see if they would be interested, but be prepared for the answer to be no: textbooks, which change edition quickly and tend to be most useful only to people taking specific classes, are fairly low on the list for most libraries. Some large university libraries do have policies of obtaining a copy of every required textbook, but they will already have a mechanism for purchasing those in a timely manner. If you do go this route, please also be as tentative as possible in your offer: Librarians also tend to dislike telling people "no", so if you push, the librarian is likely to take your books and then quietly dumpster them.
There are some charities that take donations of (some) books. Our library uses Better World Books, which I believe is currently accepting recent textbooks, and you could also look around for programs close to your home.
The most straightforward option might be to pass the books on to another student or students in your program. If you want your donation to have an impact beyond just the student who receives them you could ask them to "pay it forward" by passing along some other books at some future date. (You could also just ask that they pass your books along gratis, but the value of this gift will decrease with every iteration as the books get older and new editions come out.)
If you don't care about keeping any value within academia, you could offer the books for pick-up through something like Craig's List. Whether people want your books for study or a book art program or as kindling for their wood-burning stove, the books will at least have value beyond gathering dust in a box in your closet.
If you want to recycle some or all of your books, you will need to deconstruct them first, or locate a service that specializes in books (these are very hard to find, and may have a charge). If you want to do it yourself, a box cutter or utility knife to cut the pages out works pretty well. The pages can go to any paper recycling service. The cover itself may also be recyclable, but any glue and/or stitching will probably need to go into the trash. You probably shouldn't compost the books, as page coatings and inks can be toxic.

Re donating to another student: Some fraternities (including APO, I believe) operate book exchanges and will happily facilitate this kind of donation.

Ask your employer.
You should be able to work out a solution both parties are happy with pretty easily. The obvious one is to sell the books and then give your employer the profits. If they don't care, you can also pocket the profits yourself, perhaps recycle the books or donate them to your university's library.

The correct answer. Also rather than "recycling" the books, I'd also see if donating them is possible. When I was attending university, I had a few professors donate a few copies of the textbook to the school library as reference books so that there was "always" a copy available. Then again, those professors never assigned any reading from those books, and they were mostly math textbooks for the homework exercises...

You can also sell them, and donate the profit to charity, if your sale directly contributed to the charity, that would be even better (such as an eBay charity auction). From the sound of it, the problem would be you profitting, so this should be acceptable.

@ ThomasRedstone  - Before doing this, make a comprehensive printed list of the books you are donating. Get the charity to sign this in the form of a receipt. That way you have proof you didn't make a profit.

Well, he's asking us for ideas first...

Give them to the professor. It is often useful to be able to lend the course book to future students who cannot afford the books.
Seeing if the library will take them is also a good choice, as mentioned in this answer, but they may not take them as mentioned here. Overall I think the professor can do the most good with them. He can lend the to the library, or sometimes the school office, for short term loans, give them to students for an entire semester, or decide that the library is the best place and donate them.

This would be my preferred answer; they might be able to send an e-mail to current/future students offering them out.

This is a good idea but only if the university/department/library doesn't have a program of  textbooks loans, in which case you would just be troubling the Professor to carry the books there. Would you edit something like this into your answer for my +1?

@einpoklum see edit. I think it is better to offer them to the professor, even if the library will take them.

Donate to other countries
I'm not sure if this kind of donation is available in other countries, but in my country (Vietnam), there is an organization collects donated English textbooks from the US and ship to libraries in universities in our country. This solves the need of English textbooks in poor and developing countries.
You can visit Vietnam Book Drive if you are interested in this idea.

Disclaimer: I used to work here as a webmaster a couple years ago.

Also take a look at einpoklum's answer about Textbooks For Change

Keep those books that you believe will be valuable as reference material; donate the rest to the university library where you are earning your degree.  You know that particular institution uses those particular books.  Students less fortunate than you will be able to check them out of the library rather than buying them.

I almost wrote this in my answer and I am not sure if it is better to give them to the professor or directly to the library. I think there are advantages to both.

@StrongBad  Right.  The library will make the books more widely available, but the professor can lend for an entire term, which most libraries will not do.  I came down on the side of libraries because they're equipped to manage the lending of books.  The library at my school has a "two hour reserve" category; that makes the same book available to many students during a school term.

See the answer from the librarian, about most likely not wanting them.

@WendyG  What the librarian actually said was ask first, don't just drop the books off.

@BobBrown but expect the answer to be no, as they have most of the books already

Options:
In priority order:

Put them in a bookcase in your office and use them as desk references.  Textbooks are valuable resources.  You become familiar with them.  So good to retain them.  Have your assistant order bookcase if needed.
Box them and store them.
Give them to the company/site library.
Give them away to other students, professors, etc.

The reason for the priority is that the company funded your education and you are most familiar with the books.  So the most fitting is for you to retain them.
Finally something about this question strikes me as strange.  As if you want the $$.  Or don't appreciate the company funded education.  Or have a pointed aversion to physical texts.

Of course I appreciate the subsidized education! In fact, my reason for asking this question is an awareness of my good fortune and desire to extend it as far as possible.

Consider deleting the last paragraph of your answer ("Finally ..."). It doesn't contribute to your answer and seems to be based on having misread the OP's motives.

Donate to Textbooks for Change
In addition to other perfectly reasonable options, you can donate to:

This is a Canadian charitable organization ("B corporation" whatever that means) which distributes textbooks. 50% of the books go to university libraries in Africa, 20% are resold cheaply to fund the other operations, and 30% are recycled as paper (if they don't meet criteria for use or have no demand or whatever).
Now, they operate mostly in Canada and Michigan - but they're (also) based on people who volunteer to be "drop points", so that might be flexible.
Caveat: I've never lived in Canada nor the US; and my textbooks were semester-long loans from my alma mater's library - so I never actually had the opportunity to donate to "Textbooks for Change" myself. I just noticed their existence and they seem like a nice initiative.

Provided you clear it with the appropriate person, sell the books and give the proceeds - in your name and/or in the name of your employer - to a good cause run by your university: scholarship fund etc.

If there are graduate students or PhD studens working as TAs at the university, they might have use for it when teaching.
I recall teaching a class as a post-doc, and had difficulties finding the book I was supposed to be teaching on (I did of course not want to buy it with my private money). There might even be a small collection of course books available to TAs, so your book might be a good addition there.

Some colleges & universities have "textbook libraries", separate from the main academic library, that will accept donations of textbooks.  In later semesters, these libraries then lend the textbooks back out to students for whom buying the textbooks would present a financial hardship.
Such initiatives can be difficult to track down, as they're often run on a volunteer basis.  To find whether your institution has such a program, search on Google for "[institution name] textbook library", or make inquiries at the dean of students' office, the academic library, the office of financial aid, and/or the student government association.

Destroy the books.
Another answer referenced using them for "kindling".  Finding some way to recycle the paper may also be good.  But don't give the books to someone else who will benefit from their text.
My basis for this unhumanitarian-sounding suggestion was this phrase from the question:
"afterwards if I need to reference it a digital copy will suffice."
If you're keeping a digital copy, then you shouldn't be giving away the separate physical copy, because that is essentially resulting in two different copies being used by two different people when the publisher as only paid for one user.  This might violate some actual copyright law, usage agreement, etc.  But even if a legal loophole causes this to not be technically illegal, such duplication basically violates the spirit of the idea of having the publisher (and, down the line, the author) being paid for each user of the book.
As long as you're (sometimes) using a digital copy, the bundled physical copy should remain unused (shelved, destroyed, whatever).

The spirit of copyright, as you may know, is the cartel of book publishers in England getting undue benefits from the monarch. It is immoral and anti-social. OP should definitely not destroy the book.

I agree with @TOOGAM.  Giving away or selling the physical copy while continuing to use the electronic copy is probably a violation of copyright law, at least in the U.S.


text:
Regarding emailing to prospective Professors after submitting application
I have applied to a US university for Fall 2023. I have mentioned 4 Professors name in the SoP though I haven’t contact them before submitting application. Now I want to email them to inform them that I am interested to working with them. If they read my application, Will they mind if they see that I have mentioned other Professors name also? Will that have a negative impact on the outcome?

Until you get accepted there is little point in it and the most likely outcome will be either "ignored" or "Lets talk if you get accepted."
In most fields, individual professors aren't likely to be on the admissions committee, though a few will. They are unlikely to interfere in the process either positively or negatively. So, with a few exceptions, your mail is just a distraction; a bit of noise.
You might be better to wait until you actually start in the program, ask around about how the professors treat students and have a sit-down with the most likely people, asking about possible topics.
If you have only a bachelors at the time you start, there is no real need to have that conversation in the first year or two while you are preparing for comprehensive exams (most places, most fields).
No, it probably won't have a negative effect, but not positive either.
See: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in Country X?

Thanks for this insightful answer. However, I am from Agricultural Sciences background where it’s more likely to be funded by the Professors rather than the department. That’s why, I am concerned as I didn’t communicate with them before submitting the application.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Asking a correspondent to be an external examiner
I'm a PhD candidate at a UK university.
I believe that normally a candidate's supervisor would be the person to invite someone to be an external examiner for the thesis.
In my particular case, however, my first choice of examiner is someone with whom I have corresponded for several years, although not directly about the contents of my thesis. I am wondering whether, in this situation, it would  be odd if I did not either ask them unofficially directly myself,  or at least given them a heads up that my supervisor might contact them about this?
What would be your preference/expectation in this situation?

Generally, though not specific to UK, it is probably better if the invitation, and even the initial request come from your supervisor. You can recommend the person to the supervisor and explain what you do here.
After the first request you will be able to discuss it with that person, but you don't really need to make initial contact yourself since "normally" the invitation comes from the supervisor.
I've been in just this situation for a candidate in EU and another in UK and it worked out fine. In the UK case I knew both the candidate and her supervisor. But in both the invitation came through the supervisor based on suggestions to them from the candidate.

I won't write an answer because I may be out of date. But I think in the UK it would be distinctly out of order for the student to take the initiative. I see the following advice to students in the University I know best: "Liaise with your supervisor regarding the selection of your proposed examiners. It is usual for supervisors to informally invite the proposed examiners before the submission of this form." and  later in the advice ....

..."While your supervisor may contact your suggested examiners informally to see if they would be
prepared to act if invited, the choice of examiners belongs to the [university committee] and they must be
invited formally on behalf of the [university committee]."

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


text:
How to put your experience as a freelancer in your CV for PhD?
How to put your experience as a freelancer in your CV for a PhD application?
Specifically, I am looking for a title to choose for the section in which I want to write about this experience. Is it appropriate to put it in a section titled "professional experiences"?

"Experiences" is too passive. You "experience" the sunset. Make it more active. Professional Activities. Consulting, perhaps. Independent Research Activities. Other Professional Work.

The thing that I have doubt about is that can I consider being a freelancer  a professional activity? Maybe "work activities" can be a good alternative. What do you think?

If you earn money from the work then it is professional, I'd guess.


text:
PhD admissions without admission deadlines
I have done my masters in computer science and artificial intelligence and have some work experience in the software industry. Due to certain personal and family reasons, I had to halt my additional research career i.e. PhD.
But lately, I've been considering pursuing a PhD and since last year I have been looking for funded positions and scholarships but so far no success, even when I had good CGPA, research experience, few publications and technical skills.
Not to waste further time, I turned to consider myself for self funded positions but several of the Universities and colleges have already passed their application deadlines, and many will start their programs in September 2023 or February 2024. This means I will have to wait for at least full year even if I go for self funded.
Few years back, there were all year open PhD programs that you can just get admission by getting in touch with professors and would join research project and admission process would take place meanwhile or after that. However, lately, I don't see much of such options online and not getting much replies from professors as well. I have been sending emails everyday to professors and they don't even reply, explicitly telling them I am open to other related research projects and domain as long as it is in computer Science, AI , Software engineering, as I am life long learner and curious person when it comes to learning new skills and techniques. I have also expanded my region of interest to entire EU or in Canada. Also, I am interested in funded as well as non-funded positions.
So, my question is do professors or research facilities still take PhD students all year long without deadlines so I don't have to wait until September? Hopefully by March or April of the next year.

See: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368

Those options exist, but I'm not surprised that you get no response if you say you are open to do a PhD in whatever.

@Arno, thanks for your response. I do mention my research interests and specific domain. However, after a while, very few responses I got were that they have no opening or funding for such projects or that they are doing other projects. So after that I also start mentioning that I don't mind working on some project that is related to it. I understand, PhD is just the start of research career, and I can later on work on different fields of research. So yes, I am not really strict about it as I find the research process and learning quite interesting and something to invest in.

@Wolfie In the systems you are looking at, the idea is that a PhD student is starting research almost on Day 1. This means knowing at least some of the basics in the chosen field, and it just seems very unlikely that an applicant is qualified for so many different subjects.

Yes, there are programs with different deadlines esp. in EU. Those would allow you to still matriculate in 2023. Keep looking.
Otherwise unfortunately yes the traditional deadlines have passed for matriculating next spring or fall of 2023.
Your next best bet is to contact faculty and offer to work in the lab to build up your research experience and prepare for the next cycle. If you are able to self-fund, that will open many doors to these lab positions. If you succeed in impressing them, they may invite you to stay on in that lab. If you can get a paper submitted, then that year will be time well spent, and can open doors to apply elsewhere.
Finally, some (not all) programs allow spring admissions, typically reserved for a few highly qualified internal candidates. So if you excel while working in a lab, you might be able to start as early as January 2024. That's only a few months later than the traditional matriculation in August 2023.

Thank you for your kind and detailed response. I am interested and open to work in labs too. I have sent emails to various professors for research stay as well but I am rarely getting any responses from them.


text:
Can you exclude a co-author because of abusive behaviours?
I am a final year PhD student, in the process of writing the thesis and submitting the manuscripts of my work done. Unfortunately, the work-environment in my lab was quite toxic, with several bullying- issues, personal (verbal) attacks and condescending behaviour (particularly towards students like me, female foreigners). Soon I am going to submit my first first-author manuscript, including one of my previous co-worker who was condescending towards me. I had forwarded this issue to our PI several times, but he did not care. Right now I am thinking of actually not adding this person as a co-author, as his bad behaviour also cost me a lot of time.
Is that legal? Is discriminative behaviour of your co-authors a reason to exclude them? I would put his name in the acknowledgements, but I think as a co-author his behaviour was too bad. What do you think about it?

For answering the question whether this is legal, you would need to tells us the country. Otherwise, any answer is plain speculation.

The co-author's behaviour might be unpleasant, but I'm afraid it's not bad enough to warrant removal from authorship. Ludwig Bieberbach was a literal Nazi and we still call one of his ideas in mathematics the Bieberbach conjecture. More or less, there is no level of behaviour that warrants erasure from the written record.

In case the person in question contributed substantially enough to the paper, you cannot exclude them as an author due to personal differences. These two things have nothing to do with each other.
If the other person did not contribute substantially to the paper, then they shouldn't be an author in the first place.
Even though being treated badly, sexist or bullied is unarguably shitty and I am sorry that you had to go through that, denying someone (justified) authorship because of that is not the proper way to handle such a situation and might (if you go through with it) lead to problems afterwards, as it is their "intellectual achievements" that you are selling as your own if you exclude them as author.

I am so sorry for that, but I cannot support your action.
If the coworker did contribute significantly to your work, excluding him from the list of authors would be unethical, and it may lead to other problems. Academic contribution should be the only criterion to determine who should be included in the list of authors.

Is that legal?

I don't know as it is dependent on where you are doing your PhD; however, I doubt that it is legal.
Regarding your relationship with other coworkers, unfortunately, you have to deal with it seperately.

Issues of authorship are primarily judged at the level of professional ethics, so it isn't legality that's of key importance but rather how it will be perceived professionally - by editors of a journal, by OP's university, by colleagues, by people that making hiring and firing decisions.

To give a slightly different take from the current answers: It is not ethical to publish a paper with the contribution of a person without crediting them properly as author. However, there might be situations in which you are able to cut out that contribution and publish the paper without it. Either because the paper is good and understandable without it or because the part can be re-done by somebody else. In the latter case, be sure to avoid plagiarising the removed parts, e.g., by having a new person do that who has no knowledge of the original text. Both approaches only work in cases where the authorship is not too intertwined, of course.

That's not how ideas work, surely? If X had a bunch of ideas and they helped solve the problem, you cannot remove those ideas, go up to someone else and say "hey, can you have these ideas so I can pretend they were yours?" I can see no way that this could work unless the person's contribution was so minimal as to not warrant authorship in the first place. If it's a statistical analysis, for example, if it gets the same answer, and it hopefully should, X will, definitely, raise an issue with the editorial board of the journal and you will lose that one.

You do not do repair wrongdoings by doing another wrongoding.

"In the latter case, be sure to avoid plagiarising the removed parts, e.g., by having a new person do that who has no knowledge of the original text."
Funny and dangerous way of thinking. However, I suggest you a way to protect yourself from legal proceedings. Provide the original text to the new person and make them swear in writing that they read the original text and that if they do replicate it in their work, the replication is purely coincidental.  I am sure it will work :D

Credit/coauthorship is a function of contribution independent of behavior, so just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you should deny them co-authorship IF they contributed.
Include this person as co-author but do not work with them any further. Getting into a credit dispute with a toxic person is not worth your time and energy and could blow up into something worse. Remember toxic people are much better at being toxic than non-toxic people, so assuming you have represented all parties and yourself fairly in this question do you really want to get into a dispute/shit-fight with this person? You're basically playing them on their home turf.
Let's call the problematic co-author "Q".
You are (and I don't recommend this at all) even free to say things like "F-- Q" anytime someone talks to you in person about your paper, but the minute you drop "Q" from the co-authorship list, you now have a stain on your reputation/psyche of "denying credit where it was due" and that's (my opinion here so take with salt) an entirely different level of bridge that you have crossed compared to just announcing "F--- Q" at every opportunity you get. I wouldn't want that reputation, I wouldn't want that on my conscience, I just would want to "warlessly" get away from "Q" as fast as possible if I was in your position.

I'm sorry you're going through that, and while excluding this person from the list of authors is probably not the right call, I hope you can find resources at your university to help you get through this experience and take disciplinary action against this person if that's what you want to do.
It seems to me a lot of the answers are saying that discrimination is something "between you and said co-author", which makes it sound like a personal conflict with both sides at fault. Instead, I think people are forgetting that discrimination is a serious and pervasive issue in academia. A PhD is demanding enough on its own, but dealing with systemic issues like that must add even more burden and be extremely frustrating. You are not alone in this and hopefully (I don't know where you go), there are people and resources dedicated to such situations.
(edit: rephrased as answer)

This does not really answer the question. It appears to be a comment on other answers.

Yes, you may want to rephrase to make the "answer" part of this answer clearer. That said, I think your second paragraph does contain an answer: don't remove this person from the author list, but consider taking disciplinary action through your university.

I tried to post it as a comment first but it was too long. You're right, I can definitely rephrase

Academia and research is quite tricky environment to handle. There are three layers of hierarchy and three layers of relationships.

Institutional hierarchy
The head is Rector (or director), his subordinates are deans etc. Your position in Chain-of-Command is Rector-Dean-Department Head-Advisor-You. You are the least significant bit here.

Project hierarchy (or Research hierarchy)
The head is the Project Leader of the project. It can be your advisor or any member of the faculty. The Chain-of-Command can be Project Leader-You or Project Leader - Your Advosor - You.

Article hierarchy
Here the head is the First Author (You) and the Chain-of-Command is You-other contributors.

The problem is that different issues are to be resolved in appropriate hierarchies.
The problem you describe is not to be resolved within Article hierarchy. Those who contribute are to be in the author list; those who don't contribute are not to be in the list. Period. Actually, it could have been resolved by expelling them from the team before they contributed. But this is task for the other hierarchies and it may result in change of Article hierarchy.
The issue is to be resolved within the first type of hierarchy because it is workplace misbehaviour. Talk to your advisor, because they are your superior in the tree. If it fails raise the issue to the Department Head and/or the student's unions. Keep it factual and keep it assertively active.
The only misbehaviour you can punnish by leaving someone from the author list is author misbehaviour: Not providing texts, providing false data etc. And the result is not using their inputs at all so their contribution is none or negligible so you can defend the omission. Bully, verbal assaults and simillar are a serious problem, but not to be resolved this way.

"as a co-author his behaviour was too bad."
His authorship is not about how he behaved, but reflects his contribution. So, as others have said, you should not remove him based on that.
I am really sorry for you, I can somehow relate as I have experienced a similar situation. But may I tell you that I do not support your "solution" at all. By excluding him you are confronting (it is also a form of communication) your colleague and begging for more conflict! Ask yourself what do you want to achieve by doing that? Do you want the conflict to escalate? Or are you open to resolve it? And if the situation is so that you cannot solve it, then accept that, try to move on and do not waste more energy.
I would suggest you try to talk to her/him. I know, also from my experience, that this is not always working, but at least you can say you have tried everything from your side. Good luck!

I am sorry you are facing this issue and you had an unpleasant, abusive working environment.
One may argue we are hearing only one side of the story: in my humble (and arrogant) opinion, behavioral abuses are fully subjective (like sexual abuses), which means that if you felt you were abused, you were. No need to hear the other side of the story. You are the victim, the co-author is the perpetrator.
Unfortuntely there were no mechanisms in place to have your feelings listened, so I would go as far as saying that the system was perpetring abuse on you, so there are personal and systemic responsibility.
Now, back to your question. The paper is a different system than your lab/department. The authors on a paper are not judged on their efficiency, nor on their behavior. When you say "his bad behaviour also cost me a lot of time.", well, also tutoring a student costs a lot of time, often unnecessarily, however if said student contribute enough to a certain paper, they deserve autorship.
So, on one hand the paper is a different "entity" than your work. I even know of authors lists that carry in themselves couples and lovers, or authors coming from countries being on different side of a war, with all the involved emotional strains.
On the other hand, if you feel really confident, you can think about venting out in the acknowledgements [1], thanking for an unhealthy working environment. It is an extreme measure, but hey, at least your paper is forever linked to the co-authors you do not want but also to a strong sentence regarding their "soft skills". Regarding future consequences for your career: there are few people that read the acknowledgments in the papers from candidates to postdoc&co.
I personally would consider such an acknowledgment as a plus from your side (however I have bad news for you: I am out of the academia, mostly because I hate that universities&co. should set the example, regarding personal respect and freedom, instead they are as bad as they were decades ago and they sacrifice everything in the name of "scientific progress"[2])
[1] be strong, and think about yourself, we are all very brave at typing on a keyboard, but as they say in the Netherlands "the high trees get all the wind" ...
[2] I know, publishing a paper with the co-author is kind of sacrificing all your suffering on the altar of progress, but it is done to set a rule about co-authorship. Every one that contributed deserve authorship, because good or bad judgement is personal (what if your PI decides you behaved badly by putting strain in the working environments by expressing your opinions and exclude you from the paper?)

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
What should I do with late LoR, after submitting PhD applications?
I submitted a bunch PhD applications for US programs, but a very important letter of recommendation didn't make it before the deadline. I have the required number of letters, but for this one letter I received the confirmation from the professor just a day too late, so I couldn't include it in the application. I know for a fact that this letter could make all the difference, because it answers the most important question about my background the committees might have, while the other letters can't. This letter is also my most up-to-date letter in terms of how recently I have worked with the recommender.
I know I should have tried harder to make sure this won't happen, but it happened now, and I missed to include this only one day too late. Actually the recommender had already written the letter for me and submitted it for a few other applications, but I had only talked to the professor about those applications and did not have the confirmation for additional applications yet, so I thought it's rude to send invitation from portals before getting the confirmation (in retrospect, maybe I was wrong).
I contacted the programs about this right away to ask if they can allow me to add this letter, but unfortunately the response was negative. But I know for a fact that this letter could really turn a 'No' into a 'Yes', and I want to do everything I can to get this letter to the committees without going too far that it'd instead hurt my chances. What can I do? Is it appropriate to contact professors I mentioned in my statement directly to ask them if they would accept the letter via email from the letter writer? Or try to contact someone else, other than the listed "admissions contact", who already refused to include the letter, and ask them if they can help with this?
Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. I just want this letter to be considered in my application, without crossing a line that'd make things even worse than not having the letter.
(The country is the US and the programs are engineering/computer science programs)

I'd guess that you are stuck for these applications. You asked, which was fine, but were told no. That isn't likely to change. Imagine a large pool of applications most of which are in flux. Committee rules are set to avoid such situations, so deadlines are pretty firm in many places.
Not everywhere will say no, however, so if there are other places you haven't asked, do so, but quickly.
If you make a short list for admission, then additional inputs might possibly be considered, even mentioning the name of a respected professor that strongly supports you might have some bearing at a later stage.

Thank you for the answer! So, do you think emailing professors mentioned in my SOP, to ask them if they'd accept this extra letter, is a bad idea?

Not so much that it is a bad idea, but just that it is unlikely to have any effect other than to tell you to wait for the decisions of the committee, of which they probably aren't a part. A letter from your professor to someone they know might be more likely to have some effect.

I see. I thought the decisions on the applications are primarily made by the professors I mention in the SOP. I can ask the professor to email someone they know, but my guess is that person won't be in my subfield of interest.

That doesn't normally happen in the US. Admissions are handled by a committee of faculty with a (somewhat) rotating membership. Advisors are chosen later, perhaps years later. See: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/75368


text:
Should I follow my own direction for my PhD research?
I’ve had a very hard time dealing with supervisor(s) in the last 2 years of my PhD. This is my third year and with the help of a postdoc I finally formulated a more generic scientific goal for my Ph.D. The postdoc likes it a lot and I can see how this generic formulation solves many problems including the ones that I’ve to deal with application wise in the PhD.
My primary supervisor is usually a very discouraging person. I’ve the impression that he talks behind my back to my other supervisor and the main professor. He has a narrow vision related to the application and never really helped me much.
In this country, we value the opinion of the main professor a lot in the PhD. This person was very encouraging and helpful. However, suddenly he changed his mind and formally asking me to focus on the main problem of the Ph.D.(which is application based). I suddenly lose motivation and as a young researcher, I’m also not able to stand up for myself.
Should I just work hard to realise my scientific aims? Or, should I find a balance of satisfying them and my own goals as well? At the end it all comes down to efforts and papers and they get to know everything that I work on.

Are you doing your PhD in the Netherlands?

@edelweiss Thank you for the question, but I don’t want to reveal things like this here!

@CfourPiO Standards on independence and expectations may vary by country. I assure you no one cares.

I asked that because I saw you mentioned the location, but I will not share the details as you requested. However, it is helpful to know the country as things tend to be different (sometimes more complicated and overly bureaucratic than usual)

''I’ve the impression that he talks behind my back to my other supervisor and the main professor.''  Just to warn you that academia is a very small world, all the people at your institution talk to each other and you may come up as a topic of conversation, the work you are doing etc.

If I understand your description correctly, you've decided you would like to change your research agenda from your initial proposal, giving a more general research agenda.  It sounds like there is some disagreement among the academics you mention as to what is an appropriate scope and focus for your research project, and whether or not they support this change.  If I understand your description correctly, there is a professor and a postdoc who agree with your more general research goals, but your primary supervisor is encouraging you to focus on a particular applied part of this broader agenda, which was your initial proposal.
A PhD candidature is a research-training program, and the proof of development is generally the ability to create publishable research outputs (e.g., academic papers conference papers, etc.).  Nothing in your post really sets out a plan for how you want to achieve this within your research vision, so that is something you will need to think about.  If you focus on the narrower applied project at first, and are able to successfully publish research on that topic, it may assist you in developing towards completion of your candidature.  Similarly, if you can publish research in the broader areas of interest to you, that may also assist you in developing towards completion of your candidature.  The best way to proceed depends on a complicated calculus of risk, reward, motivation, etc., but you will need to formulate a pathway forward where you can publish a sufficient amount of research to meet the requirements for successful completion of your candidature.
It sounds like you have some general motivation issues with regard to the research, and you also appear to have some unrealistic ideas about the expectations for a PhD candidature.  Particularly because of the latter, I recommend that you do not follow your own instincts too closely, without significant counsel from the academics supervising you.  You should have a discussion with your supervisor and try to formulate a program where you will publish research but where you are also heading towards areas of broad long-term interest to you.  Motivation issues are tricky in graduate-level education --- on the one hand, we ideally want students to pursue research activities that they find interesting, but on the other hand they also need to develop some stoicism in relation to the slow pace of development of work and the necessity to work on problems of less interest sometimes.
In regard to formulating a way forward, I would strongly caution against your assumption that only the people who are being encouraging of your proposal to change your research program are being helpful --- sometimes it is also helpful to discourage approaches that may not bear fruit.  Your supervisor might be of the view that there is a greater prospect of research publication in your initial applied topic, or might have some other reasons for suggesting you focus on that part at present.

I’ve the impression that he talks behind my back to my other supervisor and the main professor.

That is part of his job; when supervising a doctoral candidate it is expected that you will confer with other supervisors and possibly even other professors outside the supervisory group.  There is certainly no expectation that all these discussions would be limited to situations where the student is present.  Bouncing ideas and opinions off other academics is a helpful way for a supervisor to test whether they are providing good advice to the student and it is a useful mechanism for general alignment of best practice in supervision (and it is also sometimes just a helpful way to vent to colleagues about day-to-day work frustrations).

Thank you for the very useful response! I’ll definitely reflect upon this.

Besides, I have heard (Slovenia) that someone had trouble because they strayed a bit. He managed to publish in decent enough journals to meet the stated requirements and it would be smooth sailing if the publications were on things in research proposal; but as it wasn't, it was way more of a hassle. ((this type of problems likely happens only for borderline cases))

In addition to Ben's reply, try to take the perspective of all parties involved.

Does the main supervisor discourage your approach because (i) she/he thinks it is not promising? (ii) not aligned with their own research agenda? (iii) doesn't comply with constraints imposed by the funding body? (iv) other external constraints?
Similarly, is the postdoc just interested in the new project or would she/he benefit from that project also also for their own career?
At the risk of sounding generic: Pursuing independent interests is generally good, but only if you actively seeks advice from 1-2 people you trust, and you are well aware of expectations and constraints at your specific place.

Thank you for your answer! It helps me get perspective from the other side (supervisor side). All I can say here is that the primary supervisor, in my opinion wants me seriously to remain under his shoes , entertain all that he has in his mind (although those things don’t work properly) and at the same time he is trying to advice me forcefully when he doesn’t know the direction very well. The postdoc in my opinion didn’t have his own agenda. He genuinely felt to help me in a very scientific way. The formulation I did with him is not necessarily bound to any specific application.

Continuing the previous comment: This formulation gives me perspective, pushes me to think beyond. The main question of my PhD is also formulated in a similar way conceptually (mathematically). I think, although my knowledge in this domain is very less, this kind of formulation pushes me to go deeper. I also started writing ideas into papers. It certainly has potential for multiple papers including a formulation for my original question! My supervisor, on the other hand, is not willing to understand the bigger picture. He is trying to influence others so that I remain under him.

I’ve had a very hard time dealing with supervisor(s) in the last 2 years of my PhD. This is my third year and with the help of a postdoc I finally formulated a more generic scientific goal for my Ph.D. The postdoc likes it a lot and I can see how this generic formulation solves many problems including the ones that I’ve to deal with application wise in the PhD.

A PhD thesis has a well defined topic. Sometimes constraints related to funding sources makes that you must work on that topic, like it or not. Phd students have supervisors because they (most of them) do not have the ability to guide themselves among the available research topics. A supervisor will ensure that you work on a subject on which you can progress and publish.
I find it odd to say that you "formulated a more generic scientific goal" for your phd with the help of a postdoc. The goal of your phd is defined with your supervisor(s). If you leave them out, don't expect to have their support when things do not go as you planned.

My primary supervisor is usually a very discouraging person. I’ve the impression that he talks behind my back to my other supervisor and the main professor. He has a narrow vision related to the application and never really helped me much.

You talk about a "primary supervisor"! If he wants you to work on the application, you should do so. Maybe that's the main motivation for your thesis. Do you expect your thesis to succeed if you completely disregard what you are expected to do?
Nowadays, applicative research is very well received. You open your perspectives from both academic and industrial points of view.

In this country, we value the opinion of the main professor a lot in the PhD. This person was very encouraging and helpful. However, suddenly he changed his mind and formally asking me to focus on the main problem of the Ph.D.(which is application based). I suddenly lose motivation and as a young researcher, I’m also not able to stand up for myself.

Again, you are asked to focus on the main problem. I guess, this is mentioned somewhere in your PhD topic and you cannot avoid it. If you work with your supervisors on a subject, they will help through discussions and advice. If you try to choose your own path, without their approval, I don't see how you can succeed (unless you're very talented and you'll make it on your own).

In view of the above:

The topic of a thesis is, usually, well defined (here, knowing the country you're from would help us understand better the situation). Especially if the motivation is an application and the funding is specially directed towards this.

It is not ok to rely more on the advice of a postdoc than on the advice of your supervisors. Think a bit who has more experience? Who can support you for future applications?

From my point of view it is completely fine and normal to have ideas on which to work on in parallel with your PhD work. If you find interesting ideas in the work of the postdoc you mention, you are free to develop them in the same time as you do your PhD work (here again, knowing the research domain would be more helpful, I talk from the point of view of a mathematician). But prioritize and think carefully. If you disregard your supervisors things might not end well.

Concerning the title question: "Should I follow my own direction for my PhD research?" My short answer is NO. You follow your own direction after you finish the PhD. On the other hand, you follow your own direction for what you can do in parallel with your PhD work.

Thank you for your answer. Nicely broken down and very practical. I do want to finish my PhD and you are right. I need to manage my area of research in a more feasible and practical way.

And this is why research culture (usually dictated by locale) is so important -- this just doesn't resonate with me. My opinions on some of these points differ substantially: 1. The topic of a thesis is, usually, fairly fluid; the initial topic is often more of an pointer in the right direction than a roadmap to a doctorate. 2. Especially in the narrow topic of your PhD, especially in your 3rd year, you have the most experience dealing with this topic. The advisor isn't doing active, hands-on research on the topic of all their PhD students.

PhD students that mature into best researchers show some initiative, and can stand by their ideas. A disagreement with your supervisor about an approach isn't a bad thing -- nor does it mean you should automatically defer to their suggestion without discussing the merits of both.

@penelope: 1. For purely academic subjects, the topic of the PhD might be fluid. For PhD contracts financed through funds directed for applications (projects, industry) the topic is rather fixed.
2. I also experienced a positive third year. But listening to the advice of my supervisor proved essential. He strongly encouraged me to try something that I kept postponing and it resulted in a very nice paper.

@penelope: 3. The word "disagreement" seems so wrong for me in the supervisor-phd student relation. If a student is mature enough that he/she has the ability to have a strongly different, correct/better, approach than the one proposed by the supervisor then that student should also be capable of doing things in parallel. Implement the approach suggested by the supervisor, implement your own: in the best scenario you end up with two publications instead of one.

@BeniBogosel I am not very experienced in research, but I can share something on the opinion about a concrete project defined by the supervisor. I see that you had a nice well defined project and it was well aligned with your supervisor.

I also have some PhD students in the group that have projects from the industry with data driven approaches that are really well defined. However, it is not the case for me or for some others.

I personally like this to be honest because from a very vague topic by my supervisor, I defined mt own narrative, but every step of the way it is discouraged and I was finally directed to again something that didn't suit my expertise at that moment.

I accepted that as well, took it as a new learning scope. However, again every step of the way, the ideas/work and model is from my efforts which is never encouraged by the supervisor until something works. Suddenly they are interested to publish. I can agree if they discourage based on some rationale. They discourage because it comes from me and not from them. I can work parallel on both, but it my experience says that they have empirical ways only and no solid advice on a scientific approach. Entertaining what they have to say takes more effort.

I know I don't know precisely your situation. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my suggestions. I hope you will be able to manage the situation and finish your PhD successfully. Try to be on good terms with your supervisors despite possible disagreements. It is best to have them as friends after your PhD ends. If you know your approach has more chances of success, develop it and try to further diversify your interests, including the suggestions of your advisor, as possible.

Other answers emphasized the role of scientific supervision and risk management in taking decisions about the direction of your PhD research. A lot have been said about the experience of supervisors vs. the experience of PhD students.
But there could be a completely formal reason for the behavior of your supervisors. PhD projects are often funded by the project that is managed by (I presume) your main professor. The project contains some research plan which should be followed to some reasonable extent. If you reformulate your thesis objectives, you may well get very nice results which may lead to your PhD, but the project will fail. The goal of your supervisors could be to achieve success in both directions.


text:
How to foster a positive relationship with my team in a PhD program when I am older and have work experience?
I recently joined a PhD program after accumulating nine years of work experience. My decision to pursue this program was driven by personal ambition, aiming to refine my skills and engage with academia. However, sometimes, I sense a potential misunderstanding (i.e., being overqualified) from the team regarding my experience compared to my peers in the group (nothing negative here at all; I am learning from all of them). While my supervisor and team are very supportive and kind, I want to ensure our relationship remains positive and constructive and they don't assume I know more than required, to not lose any opportunity to learn from them. How can I navigate this situation effectively, ensuring my contributions are valued without causing any sense of insecurity?
Edit
After some answers, I have updated the question to avoid misunderstandings due to language barriers, as English is not my first language.

I sense a potential insecurity in my supervisor regarding my extensive experience compared to my peers in the group - there may be a bit of potential vagueness to sense here. Could you elaborate?

Likely duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/118465/75368

Could you be more specific about what concerns you? You say your supervisor is supportive and kind. Is this different compared to your peers in the group? What makes you worried that your relationship might not remain positive and constructive -- are they kinder and more supportive with their other students? Or is the problem that they are too kind and supportive, while they challenge their other students, and you want them to challenge you more? Your question currently reads "I have a great supervisor, how do I ensure they remain that way?". Simple, just focus on doing your work well.

I (~10y work experience, 4 in a permanent academic post) am currently supervising a PhD student with 30-35y work experience (outside academia). While I often feel insecure about many aspects of my work (hello imposter syndrome), supervising this PhD student (especially compared to my other students) is something I'm least insecure about. If anything, I feel more insecure about my straight-out-of-Uni PhD students -- these are some of their formative years and a PhD-supervisor relationship is an intense one, any misstep might cause more damage than to a mature student who knows what they want.

@tevemadar I have updated the question, pardon, English is not my native language!

I would start by worrying a lot less about imagined insecurities in others and get to work.
Don't treat others like you're superior to them; if you do, it won't be their insecurities that are the problem, it will be that they think you're a jerk.
Nine years in a job is something but not that impressive. Most people accumulate 40 or so years of work by the time they retire if they're lucky enough to do so, and a lot of innovation comes from people with no experience at all until they had an idea.

The answer above was written for a previous version of the question. My guidance for the new version would be in the same direction, but perhaps softened a bit.
I would start by staying humble and realizing that your experience, valuable as it may be to you, is not going to apply in all ways to a different context. In some ways, experience can hurt rather than help, because you're used to patterns and expectations that you need to un-learn to be successful in the new environment.
I do not think your new colleagues will assume that you know things you don't, but if they do, this is probably not anything specific to your expertise. It's more typical for people to assume everyone else knows what they know themselves. If you need more guidance in a specific situation, like someone assumes you are familiar with a particular machine or software tool or database but you are not, say so. You do not need to refer to your past experience when asking for clarification, you only need to be honest about what you do and do not know as it comes up.
I would caution against putting too much focus on your experience. If you bring it up, even if you have good intentions, I think that people will assume you're bringing it up as a humblebrag and it will produce the opposite effect that you are intending. I think most of us have met at least one person in their professional career that seemingly could not help starting each of their sentences with something like, "well, when I was at (famous university)/FAANG/(the White House)..." as if their primary personality trait was a particular job they held in the past. That's not a great way to make friends but is a great way to annoy everyone around you.

And the work experience matters a lot. Being a tech at Bell Labs (back in the day) was great prep for a PhD. Many other jobs - not so much.

@bryan you have many improper judgements in your answer. Asking this question nit coming out of vacuum, it's based on my experience, I'm being so considerate and trying to fully engage with the team for collective good!!

You say this question is based on your experience. Would this be experience with this particular supervisor, or with people in general? You say you sense a "potential" insecurity -- does that mean you have actually observed your supervisor treating you any different to other students in the team? If your supervisor behaves differently towards you, we can try to suggest what to do. If all you have is a bad feeling, not based on anything your supervisor did or said, then it might be you who is making an improper judgement.

@AdhamEnaya I can only answer based on the impressions I got from your post. I don't disbelieve that you're trying and interested in the collective good, but I also see how your language puts the blame on other people even while you claim it's something you want to fix. I'm familiar with this pattern of thinking.

Looking back over the decades...
My incoming graduate class had both fresh university graduates and those who had worked (mainly in engineering positions at, say, IBM or GE) for a while (including more than 9 years). Broadly speaking, those who had worked for a while struggled more with coursework because they were out of practice with the whole lectures/problem sets/exam routine. On the other hand, they knew why they were going to grad school better than the fresh graduates - after all they had given up a well-paying job to go back to school.
On the research side, well, there we were all equal - we all had to learn what it was about, how to do it, and actually get things done. We all struggled at the beginning, even the experienced engineers. Doing PhD research is not doing a regular engineering job.
I will say, aside a few outliers, the experienced folks graduated a bit earlier. This mainly goes back to them knowing why they were in grad school. Particularly those with families focused more on getting to the end versus enjoying the ride so to speak. For example, I knew one student (married, 4 kids) who went home at 5pm every day to have the evening with their family. After the kids went to bed he went and sat in his car in the apartment parking lot to do more work. That way he didn't waste time driving back to the lab, didn't bother the kids trying to sleep, and was close by if there were any issues needing another parent.
Over the years I've hired a number of folks with PhDs or Masters to work in a national lab. Some went straight through, some didn't. I can't say that either experience makes a difference in how they came up to speed on the research requirements. About the only differentiating factor is those with real work experience are initially better at interacting with everyone across all positions. By that I mean working well with the techs and other support staff to get more done. Any difference there does not last long.
So, congratulations, you currently have a good relationship with your advisor. Don't screw it up. Your advisor is likely happy to have somebody with a proven track work of being able to work. But this work (PhD research) is different, and you will have to show you can actually do it.
As an aside, the other students have much to bring to the table as well - you will all struggle at times and the support they can give you (and you give them) will be invaluable. So, don't screw that up either.

I want to ensure our relationship remains positive and constructive
and they don't assume I know more than required, to not lose any
opportunity to learn from them.

It depends on the field of course, but the presumption more often encountered is that work experience does not impart specific knowledge or methods that is to be found in the academic study of a topic.
What work experience should offer is higher efficiency in

a) combining productively whatever information and knowledge comes your way
b) actually collaborating, even with people that you would never choose as your friends, and you are thankful that they are not your relatives
c) delivering, come hell or high water.

I undertook my PhD after 20 years of professional experience. To begin with, you can imagine the age difference and the generation gap. There was a certain dissonance, because I was as much a student as everybody else was (meaning I had to study equally hard), but the age (meaning the obvious wrinkles and the heavier eyes), as well as a more self-confident and assertive way of discussing things (due to a) above) created an unavoidable distance. So I let everybody understand that whatever "advantage" (if any) I had, I was willing to share with anybody that asked for it, but I never tried to bridge said distance in a forced "gift-bringing" way, but only bringing questions, declaring (truthfully) my incomplete knowledge, that at the same time signaled a more equal footing.
It worked, at least for me.

Well I believe with such extensive experience, your concerns should not only be the perceived insecurities of your advisor, but also the chair of the department and dean. Ideally, you should set up a meeting with all of them and explain that while you are so very experienced, you are also willing to be humble, and humor them by allowing them to pretend they have something to teach you. That way nobody feels offended that they cannot possibly have anything to offer to someone of your heightened status.

I'm not sure why this question has attracted such harsh answers. It certainly could be that OP has delusions of grandeur, but it does not seem impossible that the advisor indeed feels at least awkward about being OP's "boss," given that OP in many other contexts would be a peer.

My answer was very clearly tongue-in-cheek. However, the nature of the question is rather silly. OP states they have a good relationship, then begins to presume insecurities, based on what, I am not sure. From my experience as a student, postdoc, and for a while now, PI. The best thing you can do to maintain a good relationship is act accordingly within the context of your situation. You are now a grad student just like everyone else. Everyone brings valuable background and experience, whether it is from industry, or perhaps a different undergrad program, different country, etc...

I should say that anecdotally, my two worst performing graduate students have been my mature students. I really value(d) their background and tried to set them up to succeed, but having been out of the student mindset for so long, they struggle(d) with the academic side of academia. It's not just about performing lab tasks. One had to master out because they underperformed on their courses, one I managed to help through by the narrowest of margins.... and I get it, they have families, other obligations, and it's been nearly a decade since they last cracked open a book to study.


text:
Does publishing in Russian journals or collaborating with Russian researchers on a paper harm my reputation?
Ever since the escalation of the war in Ukraine in 2022, numerous institutions have reacted to the event in different ways. Some cut partnerships with Russian scholars completely while others took a more sympathetic approach, arguing that most researchers do not condone the war and politics should not get in the way of academics.
I submit drafts to numerous journals, including Russian ones before the war. However until recently not a single one of them were published. Unexpectedly I received an email from a Russian journal to which I sent an article more than a year ago and forgot about. They praised the quality of my writing and asked whether I would like it to be published. On the one hand I was so happy that I finally got an offer after years of trying. However I was skeptical because that specific one wasn't outstanding in any way in my point of view. Perhaps they were running low on backlogs because foreigners stopped providing material and they had to turn to less established people like me.
I shared the news with friends and they were almost equally split on whether to go ahead with the publication or not. Half of them argued that it is a huge milestone in my career and turning it down would be a bad idea since I might not get another chance in a long time should I give up. The others warned me against the implications, who tried to persuade me to not respond and try to get it published elsewhere. They lectured me on how I could get cancelled online and be seen as "insensitive" given the current situation. They insisted that it will hit me even harder since I am an independent not enrolled to a university and thus has no institution to shield me from negative correlations.
Is it that morally unacceptable to publish in Russian journals in the Western research society? Could it really hurt my chances of being employed, being admitted to research institutions, having my paper considered in western journals and more? Are some of my friends spending too much time on social media, worrying about stuff that doesn't happen outside their online bubble?

If you were to publish your paper on an Israeli paper, taking into account the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing event, would your friends also warn you against publishing there? What about an UK journal, considering the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute?

@Amelian Whataboutism is rarely useful in discussing serious matters; devil is in details.  All wars are awful, but some (like Falkland War) are fortunately behind us, even if some political steps are yet to be completed. As for Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's very concerning and people are polarised on it, but the number of casualties in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war is significantly larger and counting. It is an event of a much larger scale, and it deserves special consideration and reaction.

@DmitrySavostyanov, your purpose is not clear and your comment shows polarized comment. According to The Economist, 14000 lives gone since 1987, an average 400 people every year is killed. The aggression is mostly one-sided as the bar diagram shows. Recently, Israeli forces killed children, media journalists etc. It is another matter that some media do not care it due to some other reasons. But should we scientific community boycott Israeli community. The answer is NO.

@Amelian: Sorry for being so blunt, but independently of the concrete topic at hand, non-sensical comparisons are not likely to lead anywhere. The current status of the Falkland Islands vs. the current Russian war in Ukraine? Please.

@ANG Your numbers prove my point. 400 casualties per annum is a tragic figure. But Russian war in Ukraine has already claimed O(10000) to O(100000) lives according to different estimates. It is an event of a different scale and it deserves separate discussion, not merging it together with other whatabouts.

@DmitrySavostyanov, your comment proves nothing but a baseless comment which just encourages to discriminate scientific community. Every life matters, it is not about killing 10 persons vs 1000 persons. It is about aggression. By the way, where did you find the number O(10^5) ?

@ANG You declare that the numbers are meaningless because every life matters (which is true). Next, you ask me to justify a number. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. I am not going to bother bringing you the evidence you will dismiss the next moment. Do your own research please.

@DmitrySavostyanov, please keep evidence with before making baseless comment on "number of deaths" and please don't try to discriminate scientific community. It is biggest attack to mankind. We are not politicians here. We are academicians here. My country India had been colonized by UK for 200 years and killed millions of people. But we collaborate with UK and vice-versa. There are several other cases if you search history in the last 50 years.

I encourage you to distinguish between the Russian people and the current Russian Government. The people are, to a large degree also victims of that government.
While some, perhaps many, Russians support the government, not all do and many are in a low-information situation in which things aren't clear to them. That is probably less true for Russian academics.
I would look, first, at the historical reputation of the journal. I doubt that, in the US, at least, you would have issues with articles in reputable Russian journals unless you associate yourself, or the journal does, with current governmental policies.
The same can be said for many other nations around the world.

Not at all. It is not about Russia and Ukraine. There are disputes between other countries as well. Research has no wall in terms of geographic region. If someone tries to create a barrier it would be one of the biggest dishonesty/attack to the mankind as it could lead to barrier in the progress of scientific discovery. There were wars between countries and among countries in the past, there are cold wars in the present among several countries but there has not been spectacular barriers in the collaboration on research and communication. Political rivalry is narrow issue compared to scientific collaboration. Ofcourse, every responsible cosmopolitan doesn't support political aggression of any country, but that is another issue.
If a Russian journal is good enough (and indeed there are lots of good journals) in the specific topic, one would love to publish articles in it. If a Russian collaborator is helpful and necessary for my research, i would love to proceed positively. Research and collaboration has no geographical wall. Ultimately, the question is whether the journal is good enough or not in which your article is accepted. If the journal has good record, then you are good to go.
Remark: I am from mathematics. I can inform you that most of Russian journals and their publishers gave a declaration in their website on the issue of Russia-Ukrain war and the statement says it doesn't support the war. One of my article is published in a Mathematics journal in Russia. But, the same journal rejected my 2nd article for not being suitable, in 2022. So certainly "it is not like" that the journal has low backlog and therefore accepted your article as you are probably thinking about. But there might be other reasons for accepting your article, may be the referee found it suitable or maybe that specific journal is less selective.

Without arguing with your main point, I don't think it's fair or appropriate to minimise a large-scale invasion and a full-blown war to a "dispute between countries" or "political rivalry".

@DmitrySavostyanov, I have argued the main point in 2nd para. My comment is as a scientific community here, not as a political community. According to you, I have to look at the research output or journals based on countries. Sorry it is not my job, i can't discriminate as scientific community.

I am not telling you what to do; I am merely stating that your description of factual events minimises them and does not reflect the horrible reality that many people experience at the moment. This is not a "dispute", this is a war. It's not "rivalry", it's a war, people are killed. Now, when we established this, you can of course continue your research and business as usual.


text:
Is it possible to "master out" in the Japanese PhD system?
So my son just got accepted for the PhD program in physics at the University of Tokyo. If he decides that for any reason he needs to leave is he able to get just a masters after 2 years or does he need to complete what he signed up for.  They are paying for the entire program, including housing/food and expenses.  We are proud and very happy for him, just exploring all possible outcomes because 5 years in a country he has never visited in a big commitment.

This is probably something only someone from the specific program can answer. In fact, your son probably can in a few months once there, with the graduate handbook in hand, and in contact with the people who make decision.
So have some patience. At the point where he's in a PhD program, your son is also an adult who will find his own way -- let him explore his options himself.

I think it's reasonable to ask about this before accepting the offer; after moving to Tokyo and declining any other offers, it is likely too late. (Agree that this is for the son to figure out, or not, however).

It is unlikely, but specific program details should be asked from the university. The typical Japanese curriculum is having 4 years of undergrad, 2 years of Master, and a separate 3 years doctoral program. Note the PhD starts after the Master is finished. For foreigners joining a Master or PhD program, there is often a half- or one-year Japanese course offered, depending on the details. While it doesn't fully match your description, these are the typical settings.
There are occasionally very specific programs that instead of a Master followed by a PhD, the two are put together in a single program. Since the whole purpose of these is to not skip after 2 years, you really should check the fine print. Also note, that you are asking these questions too often and too insistently can be a red flag from the point of view of the university...

In general, Japan follows the European style system of bachelor + master +
PhD, as opposed to the American style system of undergrad + long Phd (with optional masters along the way).
But there are also some integrated masters+PhD programs, such as UTokyo's Global Science Graduate Course (GSGC).
Does you son already hold a masters degree, and is the PhD program purely research?  If the answers to both those questions are yes, then "mastering out" probably wouldn't be possible.  But you say 5 years, so he is probably in the GSGC or similar. In that case, it is probably possible, but you should contact the university to check.


text:
Is it all right to spy on students while they're using their accounts?
So you might be thinking that my school invades the privacy of the students, but the question is at what point should it be private?
The reason I am asking this is because one of my classmates just got caught searching for illegal things (messed up things like that page with a 34) by checking into the browser history. Now the accounts need to be checked once in a while, so is it okay to spy on students like this?

Depends on the country, institution, and user agreements. Where I work they can do anything the want with my work computer.

Just to be clear, "rule 34" is not all illegal material. So please clarify whether your country has extreme porn laws or whether they were viewing really problematic material (or maybe there's some other website you're referring to I'm unfamiliar with).

Checking tthe browser history is probably not OK, at least ethically, and surely not OK on a private computer. On a university computer it is debatable, but not needed. Reading mail would be clearly wrong (ethically) and illegal in many countries.
If the university network was used, the browser history is not needed. The University surely monitors the traffic over the university network and knows which computer accesses what, like any other ISP would know. There are surely rules on what can the university network be used to and following these rules can be enforced.
Similarly, university data storage may be dedicated to only certain kind of study and work related data and other stuff like personal photographs (more likely to be ignored), mp3 collection or downloaded films (less likely to be ignored) may be forbidden and even searched for by some automatic scripts.

Nitpick: with SSL (which is the standard these days), traffic monitoring tells which computer accesses which domain, not the full webpage address. They may know that you accessed The Pirate Bay, but not what you downloaded --- what if you torrented Ubuntu 21.10?

It's always been made pretty clear to me in the US that your institutional email is not private, and in fact is subject to freedom of information requests. Not that people go looking just because

@AzorAhai-him- It may be the case in the land of the free... In other countries, however: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/european-companies-must-alert-employees-if-work-email-is-being-monitored/ After GDPR: https://www.lexology.com/commentary/employment-immigration/hungary/schoenherr/access-to-employee-emails-enhanced-authority-control And let's not forget that students are often not employees.

As Jon Custer has already written, "it depends" on country where this took place, and possibly on other things.
Your post isn't clear whether your classmate was using a university resource like a computer, or perhaps using a university network.  If your classmate was using university resources, including university computer or network, then what the university did was probably OK.  It is not unusual for a university to monitor how their resources were used.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Are German university of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) Bachelor degrees recognized in US UK NZ or Australia?
I'm a prospective student looking to apply for an electrical engineering course (in English) at Karlsrhuhe, Rhine-Waal and Ravensburg-Weingarten universities of applied sciences.
After doing a little research, I couldn't find any of these unis in international rankings. Acually I couldn't find any applied sciences unis at all. Will this be a problem as I intend to do MBA or M.Eng in the US/UK?
German law says that universities and universities of applied sciences bachelor degrees are equal, but are the latter recognized internationally and are these BSC degrees considered degrees outside Germany?

For the US, there is no standard notion of 'recognized in the US' for foreign degrees.  Each university makes its own decisions.

You'd best ask the MBA or M.Eng programs you are interested in about their opinions.  I am pretty sure that at least in the US, Australia, and New Zealand each degree type, even within a university, will be assessed separately by a university admissions office.  If you need a visa, there might be a second assessment with that visa.  In most places German degrees are viewed favorably.

While I  have heard of a Fachhochschule, I'd guess most academics have not.

@AnonymousPhysicist - well, I've heard of them, but could not give a succinct summary of how they differ from various other German institutions. But to a European, perhaps the difference between the University of California and California State systems might be equally opaque...

@AnonymousPhysicist The name is no longer used officially - these days, those are "university of applied science", or some German version thereof (usually using "Hochschule" rather than "Universität", which historically was the name for technical universities, like the former name of TU Munich, or still at RWTH Aachen).

As an example, UCLA for a professional master's degree in engineering (1 yr), explicitly says that "Holders of the Vordiplom, Zwischenprüfung, Bachelor/Bakkalaureus, or a diploma from a fachhochschule are not considered for graduate admission."

We use scoring tables for scholarships. The problem in Australia is that you will not receive extra  'prestigious university' points when applying for a PhD scholarship. [obvs I am at a university that thinks of itself as prestigious, even if I object to this!] But if you get high marks and good references, those will certainly count.   Do not know about Masters level admissions in US/UK, I suspect the UK will not care.
There are many professors who got first degrees or non-degrees from technical universities, colleges, polytechnics, etc.


text:
Do I have to do what my senior project advisor tells me to do?
I'm an undergraduate writing my senior project paper. Had a good advisor who approved my topic and just let me write, we talked once every other week and he'd just share useful articles, give feedback on what I'd written, etc.
I had to change advisor due to schedule conflicts and my current advisor is a professor I don't really have a good relationship with. I feel like she's holding me back, because instead of just letting me write (I did all my research last semester and this semester. I just want to write, I got 25+ pages to do) She's very overbearing, giving me lots of small little assignments and picking them apart with constant criticism. Not to sound arrogant, but I'm perfectly fine just writing the paper on my own, I'd prefer minimal intervention.
My question is: as long as I finish the paper on time and it's well written, do I have to jump through every hoop? What is the best thing to do for me in this situation? I'm looking to be as autonomous as possible and just get the paper done with minimum intervention.

Is there any chance you might learn something from her that way? Letting people do whatever they want can be nice, but it also means that you might not learn a lot of things which you should learn during a project. Plus, it is much more work to give constant feedback, and people hate you for it. So try to see if she is actually trying to teach you something, rather than giving you a superficial nice feeling.

Short answer: Yes. Jump through every hoop.
Long answer: Yes. Jump through every hoop. What you see as tedious, time-consuming work could actually be setting you up to be an even better researcher/writer. And, frankly, you're not as good as you think you are. No one is. Everyone can stand to have their work picked apart, reviewed, edited, chewed up and spit back out again. You've got 25+ papers to write, according to your post, so get to writing them.
I've been through undergrad and Masters and have a whole lifetime of experience long after those years have passed by. In life, you're going to be pushed, tested, cut down and built back up again. This is one of those times. You may not like it now, but when you come out on the other side, you will appreciate whatever it is you learn from having someone push you like this advisor is. And, if you don't see what you gained from it as the years go on, take a step back and re-evaluate yourself and where you end up and be objective about how she made you better than you thought you were. That's what good teachers do.

25+ pages, not papers.

She must have other advisees also (current or previous).
Find some previous advisees and discuss with them how to handle her specially how to get good grades from her.
Meet some current advisees and check how they are getting along.
I hope you will find some clue to get good grades while keeping an easy relation.


text:
Is it unethical to change my plan for PhD for another PhD program after committing by the deadline?
Last year I got into a physics PhD program at university A in the US, and now I'm doing a one-year master's program at university B (which has a much higher ranking) by deferring a year at A. A is asking me to let them know about my final decision by the end of this month so that in case I don't want to come back this year, they still have a chance to recruit another student.
My situation is I actually have submitted applications to my current university B for their PhD program (which has a different focus on physics, and there is no professor at A studies this direction), and the admission result will be available in another 6-8 weeks. I'm honestly not 100% sure which field I really want to pursue at this moment. My question is if I'm telling A I'm coming back, but later at some point I changed my mind, is it unethical if I tell them I want to change my plan and commit to B as their research focus better suits my interest?

It is unethical, in my opinion.

My question is if I'm telling A I'm coming back, but later at some
point I changed my mind, is it unethical if I tell them I want to
change my plan and commit to B as their research focus better suits my
interest?

You already know that there is a chance that you will accept the offer from B (if you get the offer), and they don't, probably you also like the program at B more, yet you still want to tell them that you will commit to the program A.
You are wasting their time, and it is unethical. You should let them know about your plans, so "they still have a chance to recruit another student", or they can still give you some time to wait for the result.
Also, you had a chance to decline months ago without any ethical issue. Can I decline a PhD offer after deferral, and how to communicate with my professors for reapplying other PhD programs?

The question is whether is unethical? yes, it is unethical, you are abusing a system that was created for other matters, besides, you are already in the B, they will likely accept you after master for phd, why to bother yourself.
You seems to be persuing 'ranking' ok, then go for it, but the thing is that ranking is not everything, but for you is everything then go for it.


text:
Conflict in a research paper
I need help to avoid any potential academic misconduct regarding ongoing research. It is a bit complex. Let me explain the situation. It is not related to my Ph.D. thesis.
I am an international Ph.D. student starting in February 2022. Before starting my Ph.D., I found a public dataset and conceptualized a research question. Then I did all the required analyses, achieved the results, and prepared a draft paper with only an introduction and material methods. Then it was time to come to start my Ph.D. So, I thought I would no longer have time to complete my paper.
So, I invited a person (from another University) to contribute to writing the paper. I accepted him as the first author and was the second author (with equal contribution to the first author). I also was the corresponding author. So, he wrote results and discussions and prepared the paper for submission.
We submitted the work to a journal. It was rejected, but we were encouraged to re-submit the paper to the same journal once we addressed all the requested revisions.
So, I re-do the analyses and sent the results to him to apply the revisions. Then, a conflict occurred between us, and now, he claims that since he has an intellectual property to the results of this research, I cannot publish the paper without his consent. However, as I mentioned earlier, I started the study, conceptualized the research question, and did all the analyses, and he just contributed to writing the paper.
So, I would like two questions to be answered. 1) Can I publish this paper without consent? and 2) Does he have intellectual property on my results? What if I want to re-write the paper and not use his writings?

Did you ask him on what condition (including maybe adding work, rewriting etc. done by either him or you) he'd agree on publishing still together? Do you understand the reasons why he wouldn't consent to the joint publication anymore? (Obviously I'm not asking you to explain this to us if there are reasons not to do it, however it is of course relevant if there is still a possibility to do this together in some way, maybe by addressing his objections.)

There is no "law" on what one can and can't do in academia regarding unpublished work. There is no single code of academia that works similarly across the globe. Academia is not uniform. Academic reality is often not fair. Depending on their position in academic hierarchy and  local customs in their Department/University/country, some people get away with doing something, some are promoted and celebrated, and some have their career ruined for doing more or less the same thing.
The rule of thumb is: try not to do things to others which you won't enjoy been done to you.  Ask yourself the following questions: What would I feel if my co-author published our collaborative research without me? Do I have intellectual property on these results?
Now, flip the sides for a moment and look at the situation from your collaborator's eyes. What did they contribute to the research which justifies their role as an author? What would it mean for them to be sidelined and removed from the publication at this stage?
Please, consider talking to your co-author and find a compromise, which allows you to publish the paper together. If this is not possible, discuss as adults, how to move forward with the results you have. You may agree to bury all the research and move forward, or maybe to split it in some sensible way, or maybe invite a third person to the party to help you pick up the pieces and moderate things between you. Whatever you decide to do, write the decision down and respect it.

Since this person has contributed to the paper, sufficiently to have previously been offered authorship, it seems to me that it would be improper for him not to get authorship credit on the paper if it is published.  At the same time, it is also improper to hold a paper hostage by refusing to make further contribution but also refusing to allow the other person to work on it and publish it.  As Dmitry points out in his answer, this is primarily a matter of academic custom and research ethics rather than law.
If you are at loggerheads in conflict, I recommend you try to negotiate a way forward that ends in joint publication of the paper, with each of you making whatever contributions need to be mae to finish.  If you cannot agree, it might be worthwhile to consider having another academic act as a mediator and making a binding determination on the way forward.

Generally speaking you need the consent of all "authors" to publish with a reputable publisher. They will insist on it.
To avoid plagiarism, it might be impossible to "remove" them as an author. It isn't just a question of their "words" and what they "wrote", but what ideas they contributed to the whole. If their ideas are still included, their intellectual contribution, and you don't acknowledge that, then you are committing plagiarism.
You don't describe the nature of the conflict, but you need to resolve it. Removing the "first" author from a publication would be noticed and likely questioned.
However, he doesn't own your intellectual property, nor do you own his. It may be too late to try to separate them. I suggest that you err on the side of caution here.

Isn't the rejected submission already a source that he can cite if he rewrites the parts of the paper that the other author wrote? Otherwise it is very stupid for one author to block the research of another one. Of course a compromise should be easier.

TLDR: You can't and shouldn't publish without his signature. Either him signing that he agrees to be removed as the author, or him signing that he agrees to submit the paper with his name on it.
He cannot publish this work in any way because you came up with the idea and analysis. Your contributions were yours, he cannot take them.
You cannot publish this work as long as there is some of his work remaining in it. His contributions were his, you cannot take them.
You might see that you simply need to rework his wording and you are done. But even if you actually manage to rewriting everything without his words, ideas etc - who can tell that you completely eliminated all of his contributions? That none of his text and ideas remained? He was the first author in the submission system - this implies he did a lot of work. If he was 5th you might get by with something along "oh, he did some analysis in the v1 and we replaced it all in v2 because he was a troublemaker". Here you cannot. Most journals will err on the side of caution and see tons of red lights in your case. Typical journal policy is "any author change must be accompanied by signatures of all (past and present) authors" - but of course there are differences to what degree they ultimately adhere to it.
If you two cannot solve the conflict and you still really want to publish, seemingly one way to sidestep issues with journal would be to submit elsewhere that doesn't know of v1 with his authorship. DO NOT DO THIS. If you get any repeated reviewer that notices author changes, your submission will be blocked outright; or worse. But even if it gets through, that author could show he was the first author in rejected version of the same paper to your university and the journal where you published. This will be a lot of trouble for you from both - even including getting paper retracted and kicked out of the university. Even if he doesn't do it right away, do you want that possibility hanging over your head forever?
There are stories (including on this site) where a senior professor and/or a distinguished researcher got away with what you want - removed the student that did all the work and submitted as him being the sole author. Yeah, in that case journal and university might opt to side with the well-known professor that a student was a troublemaker, so the professor opted to redo all the work himself. They might not actually believe the story, but see it is easier for them to pretend they do believe it. But you are a mere PhD student, this strategy has 0% chance of working for you - your university and the journal will prefer to protect themselves and throw you under the bus in the light of serious misconduct.